January 3, 2017
Human Rights Issues: Security Forces Vetting (“Leahy Laws”)
Introduction
The Secretary of Defense may waive applicability of the
The U.S. “Leahy Laws” prohibit U.S. security assistance to
Leahy Law on DOD assistance, following Secretary of
foreign security forces when there is credible information
State consultation, under “extraordinary circumstances.”
that a recipient unit has committed a “gross violation of
Assistance to foreign security forces units may also be
human rights” (GVHR). The origins of these laws date back
excepted from the DOD’s Leahy Law if the Secretary of
to appropriations provisions sponsored by Senator Patrick
Defense, after Secretary of State consultation, determines
Leahy (D-VT) in the late 1990s; they were preceded by a
one of two scenarios: (1) the foreign government in
series of provisions beginning in the 1970s that sought to
question “has taken all necessary corrective steps” or (2)
constrain U.S. security assistance to governments with poor
the equipment or other intended assistance is “necessary” in
human rights records. Today’s “Leahy Laws” are
support of disaster relief operations or other humanitarian
permanent law and located in both Title 22 (Foreign
or national security emergencies.
Relations) and Title 10 (Armed Forces) of the U.S. Code.
They restrict security assistance otherwise funded by the
Gross Violation of Human Rights (GVHR)
U.S. Departments of State and Defense, but do not apply to
foreign military sales and direct commercial sales.
The Leahy Laws do not define GVHR. Drawing instead
on the statutorily defined term “gross violations of
The State Department’s Leahy Law
internationally recognized human rights” (see Section
The Leahy Law applicable to security assistance authorized
502B(d) of the FAA; 22 U.S.C. 2304(d)), the U.S.
by the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961, as amended,
government vets foreign security forces for credible
or the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), as amended, is
information indicating (1) torture, (2) extrajudicial
codified at 22 U.S.C. 2378d (Section 620M of the FAA). It
killing, (3) enforced disappearance, or (4) rape under
prohibits “assistance” to a foreign security forces unit if
color of law (in which a perpetrator abuses their
there is credible information that the unit has committed a
official position to commit rape).
gross violation of human rights. The State Department’s
Foreign Security Forces
Leahy Law does not contain a waiver provision comparable
to the DOD law, discussed below. Assistance to foreign
The Leahy Laws also do not define “foreign security
security forces units may be excepted, however, if the
forces.” However, State Department guidance has
Secretary of State determines that a foreign government “is
described the term to include those authorized by a
taking effective steps to bring the responsible members of
state or entity to use force, including, but not limited
the security forces unit to justice.”
to, the powers to search, detain, and arrest (e.g.,
police and military units).
The Secretary of State is required to “promptly inform” a
foreign government if aid is withheld due to 22 U.S.C.

2378d and the basis for such action. The Secretary is also
Leahy Laws Implementation
required to “assist” the foreign government in “taking
The State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human
effective measures to bring the responsible members of the
Rights, and Labor (DRL) oversees the implementation of
security forces to justice.” Pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2378d, the
Leahy Law vetting policy and processes. According to a
Secretary is also required to establish and maintain
2013 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office
procedures to collect, validate, and preserve vetting
(GAO), the State-led vetting process begins at U.S.
information. The provision clarifies that, when a foreign
embassies overseas where a variety of consular, political,
security forces member is designated to receive U.S.
and other security and human rights checks are
assistance (e.g., training, equipment), the individual’s
conducted—including checks on the credibility of
service unit must also be vetted. In addition, the Secretary is
derogatory information. In Washington, further vetting may
required to publicly identify, “to the maximum extent
also be conducted; disputed vetting results are also resolved
practicable,” those foreign security forces units that have
in Washington. Since 2010, information is processed
been barred from U.S. assistance under the law.
through an online database called the International Vetting
and Security Tracking (INVEST) System.
The Defense Department’s Leahy Law
The Leahy Law applicable to security assistance furnished
U.S. policy and procedures for Leahy vetting have evolved
by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is codified at 10
over time, and their implementation has been criticized by
U.S.C. 362. It prohibits the use of funds available to the
some observers as uneven. DRL maintains a practitioners’
Department for “any training, equipment, or other
guide for vetting and provides additional training through
assistance” to a foreign security forces unit if there is
briefings, courses, bulletins, and cables. In 2015, the State
credible information that the unit has committed a gross
Department and DOD issued joint policy on “remediation
violation of human rights.
and the resumption of assistance” to foreign security forces
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Human Rights Issues: Security Forces Vetting (“Leahy Laws”)
units previously barred from U.S. support. Illustrative of the
vetting in FY2014, $5 million in FY2015, and $7 million in
uneven application of vetting policy, the 2013 GAO report
FY2016. The 115th Congress may evaluate whether a
stated that U.S. missions overseas inconsistently applied or
continuation of upward funding trends is warranted and the
altogether ignored DRL guidance, requiring embassies to
implications for DRL’s overall programming and priorities
developed standard operating procedures for Leahy vetting.
if funding allocations for Leahy vetting were to be
modified.
Figure 1. Overview of the Leahy Vetting Process
Expansion of Vetting. In December 2016, the 114th
Congress enacted the Department of State Authorities Act,
Fiscal Year 2017 (P.L. 114-323). Section 303 established
that U.S. security assistance may not be provided to foreign
security forces units that have engaged in acts of sexual
exploitation or abuse (SEA). Some may seek to evaluate the
implications of implementing an expanded vetting process
to include SEA beyond rape under color of law. Others may
consider using this statutory provision as a model for
expanding Leahy vetting to address other derogatory
activity beyond GVHR, such as corruption.
Congressional Reporting. Section 7034(b)(8) of the
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 2016 (Div. K of P.L. 114-
113, as continued), requires that the Secretary of State
submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees
on the use and outcome of Leahy vetting pursuant to 22
U.S.C. 2378d. DOD also must report to Congress within 15
days of exercising its waiver and exception authorities.
Some policymakers may seek to compare such reporting

with the public information on Leahy vetting required by 22
Source: Adapted from GAO-13-866 (September 2013), p. 10.
U.S.C. 2378d, and with the information reported in the
State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human
Considerations for Congress
Rights Practices.
The Leahy Laws are a key element of U.S. human rights
policy and one of several ways in which Congress has
Relationship to Other Laws. The Leahy Laws are just two
incorporated human rights conditions concerning U.S.
among many permanent and temporary provisions that
assistance to foreign governments. They are seen as one of
condition U.S. policy on assistance, debt relief, trade
several tools available to restrict U.S. security assistance
preference eligibility, immigration admissibility, and
and, in turn, safeguard the U.S. image abroad from
targeted economic sanctions on human rights grounds. The
association with objectionable security forces, while also
extent to which these disparate provisions are consistently
potentially encouraging good behavior among governments
or efficiently applied is a potential area for further research.
wishing to access and benefit from U.S. security assistance.
Moreover, the 115th Congress may be interested in the
Policymakers, including Members of Congress, have
implementation of new provisions enacted late in the 114th
nonetheless debated the Leahy Laws’ desirability,
Congress. For example, the FY2017 National Defense
particularly when derogatory information is perceived as
Authorization Act (NDAA; P.L. 114-328) enacted new
constraining U.S. efforts to respond to national security
security cooperation authorities that are explicitly subject to
needs. Implementation is another area of debate, including
Leahy vetting. In addition, the FY2017 NDAA established
with respect to the reinstatement of assistance eligibility for
a new targeted sanctions authority to address foreign human
previously tainted units.
rights violations in Subsection F, the Global Magnitsky
Human Rights Accountability Act.
In the 115th Congress, Members may consider changes to
the Leahy Laws and/or conduct oversight on the
Source material, legislative research, and further policy
Administration’s implementation of them. Key policy
analysis are available upon request. For additional
issues may include questions on the following topics:
background, see CRS Report R43361, “Leahy Law”
Human Rights Provisions and Security Assistance: Issue
Funding. Congress has supported Leahy vetting through
Overview.
directed Diplomacy and Consular Programs (D&CP) funds
for DRL. Congressional appropriations for vetting by DRL
Liana W. Rosen, Specialist in International Crime and
averaged approximately $2 million per year between
Narcotics
FY2008 and FY2013. DRL received $2.75 million for
IF10575

https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Human Rights Issues: Security Forces Vetting (“Leahy Laws”)



Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10575 · VERSION 4 · NEW

---