On 28th August 2025, the United States of America (USA) took the step of withdrawing from the UN’s human rights monitoring process, the Worldwide Periodic Review (UPR). The peer review process,through which states evaluate one another’s human rights records,has seen near-universal engagement since the first UPR cycle commenced in 2008.The USA’s decision to withdraw, however, undermines this foundational universality and stymies both domestic and international accountability efforts. In this piece, we argue that the USA’s withdrawal from the UPR is (1) an unprecedented step that risks contributing to further regression in global human rights protections, and (2) supresses civil society organisations’ (CSOs) ability to hold the USA to account both domestically and internationally.
The USA’s Relationship with the Human Rights Council
In 2006, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) replaced the UN Commission on Human Rights, which was disbanded amid widespread criticism of its politicisation and selective scrutiny of states. The vision for the new HRC was set out by former-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s In Larger Freedom report, which called for the creation of a stronger, more credible body to address the shortcomings of the Commission. Annan also set out his intention for the HRC to have ‘an explicitly defined function as a chamber of peer review…to evaluate the fulfilment by all States of all their human rights obligations’. This led to the creation of the UPR, aiming to ensure equal treatment of all states through regular, peer-based assessments of their human rights records.
Designed to be universal and non-selective, the UPR reviews every UN Member state’s human rights situation every four-and-a-half years, regardless of geopolitical standing, promoting fairness and mutual accountability. The review takes the form of an interactive dialog between a state and their peers on the fulfilment of their international human rights obligations. At the start of the dialogue, the state under review presents its national report which includes an overview of the human rights situation and an appraisal of its progress since the last review. Other states can then intervene to make comments and recommendations. Reviews are televised and can be watched back on UN Web TV. The USA’s moast recent review from 2020 provides an example of how these dialogues proceed.
The USA’s fourth cycle review is due to take place on 7th November 2025, yet the government failed to submit its National Report by the August deadline. At the USA’s UPR Pre-session on 28th August 2025, the Chief of the OHCHR’s UPR Branch, Juliette de Rivero, announced that the USA has withdrawn its engagement with the UPR. This decision followed the USA’s withdrawal from the HRC earlier this year, just as it did in 2018 under the previous Trump governance. Indeed, the relationship between the USA## Nicaragua Organisations Speak Out Against the state’s Decision to Withdraw from the Human Rights Council and Absent Itself from the Universal Periodic Review
Nicaraguan organisations working to promote and defend human rights have expressed deep concern over the United States’ recent decision to withdraw from the Human Rights Council (HRC) and abstain from its Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Thay warn that this move sets a dangerous precedent and undermines international efforts to monitor and improve human rights globally.
“The UPR is a crucial mechanism for holding states accountable for their human rights obligations,” says a joint statement released by a coalition of Nicaraguan NGOs. “The USA’s withdrawal sends a disheartening message, suggesting a lack of commitment to international cooperation and the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
The UPR is a UN process which involves a review of the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States every 3.5 years. It is a cooperative process, with each state presenting a national report detailing their human rights situation and receiving recommendations from other states. civil society organisations (CSOs) play a vital role in the UPR, submitting reports and advocating for improvements.
The USA has previously participated in the UPR, but in recent years has demonstrated a decreasing level of engagement. In 2023, the USA announced its intention to withdraw from the HRC and failed to attend the HRC adoption of its UPR report and so did not provide responses to member state recommendations.
Though,full withdrawal from the UPR is entirely new territory.This means no national report, no appearance at the review, and presumably no response to the host of issues raised by civil society in their stakeholder submissions. A primary concern is that the USA is setting a dangerous precedent. Near-universal participation at the UPR has been achievable in part as of its cooperative and non-confrontational approach. The fact that ‘everyone is in it together’ is an incentive for states to cooperate and to have their say on each other’s human rights records. It is indeed now convention (perhaps even customary) for each UN member state to be reviewed at the UPR. As each cycle passes, this convention – that all states should account to their peers for their human rights records – has fortified. The USA’s wholesale disengagement from the UPR undermines this globally accepted practice and risks normalising non-cooperation.At best, withdrawal will make the USA an outlier. at worst, and given its influence on world affairs, withdrawal sets a precedent that will embolden other states, notably the USA’s allies, to follow suit.This would weaken the value of the UPR and undermine attempts to monitor the global human rights situation.
The Impact on Civil Society
The second implication of the USA’s withdrawal from the UPR is the restriction of CSOs’ voice. CSOs are vital to the success of the UPR, acting as “stakeholders” throughout the process and contribute to the mechanism in various ways.They can submit “stakeholder reports” in advance of a state’s UPR, regarding the human rights situation on the ground. Acting as the UPR’s Secretariat, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), compiles stakeholder submissions into a ten-page Summary Report, one of the three core documents underpinning every review. The state under review is also expected to engage in broad consultations with CSOs during planning of the National Report.
Beyond these formal contributions, CSOs can participate in domestic and international advocacy, for example, taking part in the UPR Pre-sessions, organised by UPR Info, to brief member state delegations ahead of the review and help shape the recommendations they make to the state under review. CSOs can also support with implementing UPR recommendations at the national level.
Arguably, the most harmful effects of the USA’s actions will be felt among its domestic civil society. Though it is a state-led exercise, the UPR is a valuable platform for American civil society to appeal to the USA’s peers and have their concerns raised and legitimised at the UN. For citizens, advocates and activists, withdrawal from the UPR marks a further