Latest news with #ForeignAssistanceAct
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How the Trump Administration May Redefine Human Rights
Secretary of State Marco Rubio sits nearby as U.S. President Donald Trump meets with President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador in the Oval Office of the White House on April 14, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit - Win McNamee—Getty Images Every spring, since the late 1970s, the State Department has released the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. This year, those waiting for these documents will have to hold on a bit longer. The Trump Administration is upending decades of precedence to substantially revise the reports. The 2024 version of the reports were initially completed before President Donald Trump took office, but are now being re-edited. When they are released, these reports will now reportedly exclude information on issues such as government efforts to deny freedom of movement and peaceful assembly, failures to retain or provide due process for political prisoners, and the harassment of human rights organizations. The Trump Administration has also signaled it will cut sections about the rights of women, the disabled, and the LGBTQ+ community. These Country Reports offer a detailed account of the state of every country's human rights practices and are meant to inform congressional decisions on foreign aid allocations and security assistance. The reports have taken on added importance over the years. They're increasingly used as a tool to pressure governments to improve their practices, while advocacy organizations and lawyers rely on them to aid in asylum cases and demonstrate fear of persecution. By revising and cutting out substantial sections addressing an array of rights concerns that the U.S. has cared about for almost five decades, the Trump Administration is undermining the definition of human rights as a concept. These State Department reports were first introduced at a key moment in U.S. human rights history—although they did not arrive without controversy. As human rights grew as an important organizing concept in the 1960s and the 1970s around the world, U.S. presidents were largely resistant to incorporating it into U.S. foreign policy decision-making. President Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford's powerful Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, encapsulated this opposition by claiming that taking into account morality or human rights in foreign policy was 'totally devoid of contacts with reality and would lead to empty posturing.' Instead, Kissinger's State Department was dominated by Cold War concerns that relied on a realist approach to foreign policy and focused on great power politics that eschewed concerns like human rights. U.S. Added to Global Human Rights Watchlist Over Declining Civil Liberties In response, as historian Barbara Keys has outlined, Congress tried to pressure State Department officials to reconsider, passing legislation that tied foreign aid to human rights criteria. One important provision that Congress approved was Section 502B of the 1974 Foreign Assistance Act, which, among other measures, requires the Secretary of State to provide annual human rights reports. The reports were one of the first steps by the U.S. government to collect and monitor human rights practices in countries around the globe. It allowed Congress to identify 'gross violators of human rights' and then cut off funding. That authority alone helped the government bring attention to rights issues, educate the public, and apply diplomatic pressure. But the reports were contentious from the beginning. Regional bureaus in the State Department hotly debated what should and should not be included or classified. Some of the first reports were notably restrained in the documentation of abuses, especially compared to the language human rights advocacy groups used to describe violations. Meanwhile, Kissinger remained inflexible in his position, refusing to provide Congress with the reports in 1975. Instead, he only issued an overview of the state of global human rights without determining each country's abuses. The following year, Congress responded by strengthening the reporting provision, requiring that 'a full and complete report' be given to Congress 'with respect to practices regarding the observance of and respect for internationally recognized human rights in each country proposed as a recipient of security assistance.' The reports took on new meaning under President Jimmy Carter's administration. Often considered the 'first human rights president,' Carter and his Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, declassified and publicized these reports, using them to inform policy decisions. Carter broke with a long line of presidents who claimed ignorance about abuses in other countries, seeking to draw lessons from the documentation of such abuses abroad, and using reports to inform decisions about aid and to provide the State Department and advocacy groups with leverage for securing human rights around the globe. President Ronald Reagan, more forceful in his Cold War aims and, like Kissinger, wary of human rights considerations, still adhered to the State Department human rights reporting requirements. While initially using the reports to downplay concerns about violations of social and economic rights, by the latter part of his second term in office, his administration's Country Reports criticized even ally regimes, such as Chile. The administration also used the reports to highlight its goals of democracy promotion, a strategy that aligned with its Cold War policies. By the early 1990s, and with the end of the Cold War, these reports expanded in scope and institutionalized human rights into the practices of the State Department. As political scientist Kathryn Sikkink has argued, the reports required that 'at least one foreign service officer in every embassy around the globe' had to gather systematic information on human rights issues as part of their jobs. Over the decade, the reports grew more detailed, expansive, and accurate, which has made them vital to so many groups in the 21st century. Tracing the emergence of these reports demonstrates that Trump is hardly the first president to politicize his legal responsibility to Congress through its State Department reporting requirements. Debates about what and how much to include in these reports emerged in the first years of the legislative onus and has continued to varying degrees with presidents ever since. Civil and Human Rights Organizations Sue Trump Administration Over DEI, Gender Orders The difference today lays in the scope and scaling back of the current president's vision of human rights. During his first term in office, Trump tried to redefine human rights through then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's Commission on Unalienable Rights, which focused on pairing human rights with religious freedom and decoupling it from reproductive rights. The State Department also sought to pare back Country Reports on abortion and contraceptive issues as well as racial, ethnic, and sexual discrimination. Since January 2025, though, the Trump Administration has not just sought to downplay or deprioritize human rights, but rather to redefine the concept completely. Reporting on impending changes notes that any reference to LGBTQ+ rights is absent. Sections on the ability or right for minorities to participate in the political process, and freedom of expression for citizens, also could be cut. Parts of the report that describe prison conditions are expected to be erased, and corruption in government, especially in administrations friendly to the president, including that of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, may be nixed as well. In essence, the Trump Administration may fulfill its congressional mandate, but only minimally and with implied disregard for the now-internationally recognized idea of human rights. In the aftermath of these potential revisions being leaked, Amnesty International USA raised the alarm, declaring that the shifts signaled that the United States is no longer going to uphold—or hold other countries accountable for upholding—human rights. Along with this stark warning, the history of these reports shows how activists have found ways to raise awareness about human rights around the world. Debbie Sharnak is Assistant Professor of History and International Studies at Rowan University, the author of Of Light and Struggle: Social Justice, Human Rights, and Accountability in Uruguay, and the co-editor of Uruguay in Transnational Perspective. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors. Write to Made by History at madebyhistory@
Time Magazine
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Time Magazine
The Trump Administration is Trying to Change the Historical Definition of Human Rights
Every spring, since the late 1970s, the State Department has released the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. This year, those waiting for these documents will have to hold on a bit longer. The Trump Administration is upending decades of precedence to substantially revise the reports. The 2024 version of the reports were initially completed before President Donald Trump took office, but are now being re-edited. When they are released, these reports will now reportedly exclude information on issues such as government efforts to deny freedom of movement and peaceful assembly, failures to retain or provide due process for political prisoners, and the harassment of human rights organizations. The Trump Administration has also signaled it will cut sections about the rights of women, the disabled, and the LGBTQ+ community. These Country Reports offer a detailed account of the state of every country's human rights practices and are meant to inform congressional decisions on foreign aid allocations and security assistance. The reports have taken on added importance over the years. They're increasingly used as a tool to pressure governments to improve their practices, while advocacy organizations and lawyers rely on them to aid in asylum cases and demonstrate fear of persecution. By revising and cutting out substantial sections addressing an array of rights concerns that the U.S. has cared about for almost five decades, the Trump Administration is undermining the definition of human rights as a concept. These State Department reports were first introduced at a key moment in U.S. human rights history—although they did not arrive without controversy. As human rights grew as an important organizing concept in the 1960s and the 1970s around the world, U.S. presidents were largely resistant to incorporating it into U.S. foreign policy decision-making. President Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford's powerful Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, encapsulated this opposition by claiming that taking into account morality or human rights in foreign policy was 'totally devoid of contacts with reality and would lead to empty posturing.' Instead, Kissinger's State Department was dominated by Cold War concerns that relied on a realist approach to foreign policy and focused on great power politics that eschewed concerns like human rights. In response, as historian Barbara Keys has outlined, Congress tried to pressure State Department officials to reconsider, passing legislation that tied foreign aid to human rights criteria. One important provision that Congress approved was Section 502B of the 1974 Foreign Assistance Act, which, among other measures, requires the Secretary of State to provide annual human rights reports. The reports were one of the first steps by the U.S. government to collect and monitor human rights practices in countries around the globe. It allowed Congress to identify 'gross violators of human rights' and then cut off funding. That authority alone helped the government bring attention to rights issues, educate the public, and apply diplomatic pressure. But the reports were contentious from the beginning. Regional bureaus in the State Department hotly debated what should and should not be included or classified. Some of the first reports were notably restrained in the documentation of abuses, especially compared to the language human rights advocacy groups used to describe violations. Meanwhile, Kissinger remained inflexible in his position, refusing to provide Congress with the reports in 1975. Instead, he only issued an overview of the state of global human rights without determining each country's abuses. The following year, Congress responded by strengthening the reporting provision, requiring that 'a full and complete report' be given to Congress 'with respect to practices regarding the observance of and respect for internationally recognized human rights in each country proposed as a recipient of security assistance.' The reports took on new meaning under President Jimmy Carter's administration. Often considered the 'first human rights president,' Carter and his Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, declassified and publicized these reports, using them to inform policy decisions. Carter broke with a long line of presidents who claimed ignorance about abuses in other countries, seeking to draw lessons from the documentation of such abuses abroad, and using reports to inform decisions about aid and to provide the State Department and advocacy groups with leverage for securing human rights around the globe. President Ronald Reagan, more forceful in his Cold War aims and, like Kissinger, wary of human rights considerations, still adhered to the State Department human rights reporting requirements. While initially using the reports to downplay concerns about violations of social and economic rights, by the latter part of his second term in office, his administration's Country Reports criticized even ally regimes, such as Chile. The administration also used the reports to highlight its goals of democracy promotion, a strategy that aligned with its Cold War policies. By the early 1990s, and with the end of the Cold War, these reports expanded in scope and institutionalized human rights into the practices of the State Department. As political scientist Kathryn Sikkink has argued, the reports required that 'at least one foreign service officer in every embassy around the globe' had to gather systematic information on human rights issues as part of their jobs. Over the decade, the reports grew more detailed, expansive, and accurate, which has made them vital to so many groups in the 21st century. Tracing the emergence of these reports demonstrates that Trump is hardly the first president to politicize his legal responsibility to Congress through its State Department reporting requirements. Debates about what and how much to include in these reports emerged in the first years of the legislative onus and has continued to varying degrees with presidents ever since. The difference today lays in the scope and scaling back of the current president's vision of human rights. During his first term in office, Trump tried to redefine human rights through then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's Commission on Unalienable Rights, which focused on pairing human rights with religious freedom and decoupling it from reproductive rights. The State Department also sought to pare back Country Reports on abortion and contraceptive issues as well as racial, ethnic, and sexual discrimination. Since January 2025, though, the Trump Administration has not just sought to downplay or deprioritize human rights, but rather to redefine the concept completely. Reporting on impending changes notes that any reference to LGBTQ+ rights is absent. Sections on the ability or right for minorities to participate in the political process, and freedom of expression for citizens, also could be cut. Parts of the report that describe prison conditions are expected to be erased, and corruption in government, especially in administrations friendly to the president, including that of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, may be nixed as well. In essence, the Trump Administration may fulfill its congressional mandate, but only minimally and with implied disregard for the now-internationally recognized idea of human rights. In the aftermath of these potential revisions being leaked, Amnesty International USA raised the alarm, declaring that the shifts signaled that the United States is no longer going to uphold—or hold other countries accountable for upholding—human rights. Along with this stark warning, the history of these reports shows how activists have found ways to raise awareness about human rights around the world. Debbie Sharnak is Assistant Professor of History and International Studies at Rowan University, the author of Of Light and Struggle: Social Justice, Human Rights, and Accountability in Uruguay, and the co-editor of Uruguay in Transnational Perspective.
Boston Globe
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Senate rejects Democratic measure to force more transparency on deportations to El Salvador
The resolution blocked by Republicans would force administration officials to report to Congress about what steps it is taking to comply with courts that have ruled on the deportations. Democrats have highlighted the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to the Central American country and who a Maryland judge has said should be returned to the U.S. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Democrats want to put Republicans on record on that case and others while also pressuring the government of El Salvador, which is working with the Trump administration. The resolution would also require the Trump administration to reveal more information about money paid to El Salvador and assess the country's human rights record. Advertisement It's just the latest example of Democrats using the legislative tools available to them in the minority to try to challenge Trump's agenda. The Senate in early April passed a resolution that would have have thwarted Trump's ability to impose tariffs on Canada, and Republicans narrowly blocked a similar resolution later that month that would have stalled Trump's global tariffs. Four Republicans voted with Democrats on the first tariff measure, and three Republicans voted with them on the second resolution. No Republicans joined Democrats on Thursday's measure on El Salvador. Advertisement The Democrats are forcing the votes under different statutes that allow so-called 'privileged' resolutions — legislation that must be brought up for a vote whether majority leadership wants to or not. The resolution rejected Thursday was under the Foreign Assistance Act, which allows any senator to force a vote to request information on a country's human rights practices. Also Thursday, Kaine and several other Democrats filed a joint resolution of disapproval to try to block a $1.9 billion arms sale to Qatar at the same time that the country is offering to donate a $400 million luxury jet as Trump's Air Force One. If the Senate Foreign Relations Committee does not consider the resolution, Democrats could force another vote on the Senate floor. 'Unless Qatar rescinds their offer of a 'palace in the sky' or Trump turns it down, I will move to block this arms sale,' said Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, a member of the Foreign Relations panel who is leading the effort with Kaine and others.
Gulf Today
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Gulf Today
Humanitarian aid curbs on Gaza may violate US laws, say US Senators
A group of US Senators wants Congress' watchdog agency to investigate whether controls on humanitarian aid deliveries by Israel and other foreign governments violate US law, according to a letter seen by Reuters. The six senators – Chris Van Hollen, Dick Durbin, Jeff Merkley, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Peter Welch – wrote to Comptroller General Gene Dodaro asking him to launch an investigation by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office of the US government's implementation of laws regarding the delivery of humanitarian assistance. All of the Senators are Democrats except Sanders, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats. "In Ethiopia, Sudan, Ukraine, Burma, Syria, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Gaza, vital humanitarian assistance such as food, medical equipment, water purification systems, and other lifesaving goods have been blocked or restricted, directly and indirectly, by state and non-state actors," they said in a letter, dated Monday and seen by Reuters, referring to Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act and the Leahy Laws. The Leahy Laws prohibit the supply of US assistance to any foreign security force unit implicated in gross violations of human rights, including torture and extrajudicial killing. Sen. Elizabeth Warren claps during a press conference on social security in front of the US Capitol on Monday in Washington. AFP Section 620I bars assistance for countries that impede delivery of humanitarian aid. Much recent concern has focused on Gaza. The United Nations and Palestinian representatives at the International Court of Justice have accused Israel of breaking international law by refusing to let aid into Gaza, after Israel began on March 2 to cut off all supplies to the 2.3 million residents of the Palestinian enclave. Israel has defended its blockade against aid entering Gaza, alleging that Hamas steals supplies intended for the civilian population and distributes them to its own forces, an allegation that Hamas denies. Activists have long argued that the United States disregards its own laws in sending military and other assistance abroad. Concern about civilians in Gaza has risen since Republican President Donald Trump, who is a staunch supporter of Israel, began his second term on January 20. Rights groups sounded alarms on Monday when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet approved plans for an expanded offensive against the Palestinian group Hamas that might include seizing the entire Gaza Strip and controlling aid. The war in Gaza followed Hamas' October 7, 2023, attack on Israel that killed 1,200 people, mostly civilians, according to Israeli tallies, and saw 251 taken hostage. Israel's ground and air campaign in Gaza has since killed more than 52,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians according to local health authorities, and left much of Gaza in ruins. Aid workers also have accused Sudanese paramilitaries of constraining aid deliveries in territories where it is seeking to cement its control. Reuters
CBS News
02-05-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
U.S. senators introduce legislation that would require Trump administration to report on deportations to El Salvador
A group of Democratic U.S. senators introduced legislation Thursday that would require the Trump administration to share reports on the steps they are taking to comply with court orders surrounding deportations to El Salvador. The legislation was introduced as a legal fight plays out over Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man who was deported to a prison in El Salvador in March. The Trump administration has admitted that Abrego Garcia's deportation was due to an administrative error. Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democratic U.S. Senators introduced the legislation. It would also require an assessment of El Salvador's human rights record and require the Trump administration to confirm if U.S. funds are being used to support the detention of U.S. residents. Senators demand answers on deportations to El Salvador Abrego Garcia was one of about 200 migrants who were put on a plane and flown to a notorious Salvadoran prison in March. According to CBS News, the country's president, Nayib Bukele, offered to take the alleged terrorist gang members. The Trump administration used the Alien Enemies Act, a World War II-era law, to send them. The deal between El Salvador and U.S. leaders has caused concern for some lawmakers. Sen. Van Hollen has pointed to the deal several times as he continues to call for Abrego Garcia to be returned to the U.S. During his visit to El Salvador last month, Van Hollen said Salvadoran Vice President Félix Ulloa revealed that Abrego Garcia was still detained because the U.S. is paying El Salvador to keep him. "...the Government of El Salvador is holding him solely at the request of your Administration and, specifically, because you are paying them to imprison him," Van Hollen wrote in a letter to President Trump. Under the proposed legislation, any security assistance from the U.S. to El Salvador would be prohibited if the Trump administration fails to share reports about deportations. The legislation was introduced under the Foreign Assistance Act, which requires the Senate to vote on it, the senators said. "The American people deserve answers on this clear defiance of our nation's constitutional rights and the extent of El Salvador's complicity in this scheme, as well as its human rights abuses," Van Hollen said in a statement Thursday. Latest in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia Since Abrego Garcia's wrongful deportation in March, the Trump administration has been ordered by a federal judge and the Supreme Court to facilitate his return to the U.S. Abrego Garcia had obtained a "withholding of removal" order from a U.S. immigration judge in 2019, which should have protected him from being deported to his native country. On April 30, a federal judge denied the Trump administration's request for more time to provide information about Abrego Garcia's deportation and how they are facilitating his return to the U.S. Judge Paula Xinis has continued to demand answers and compliance from the administration. Following one of several hearings in this case, Xinis noted that the administration was showing "willful and bad faith refusal to comply" with certain obligations.
