link to page 2 
Updated March 16, 2020
Global Human Rights: The Department of State’s Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices
Introduction
recognized human rights.” The following year, Section 116
The State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights
(22 U.S.C. 2151n) was added, introducing similar
Practices are an annual U.S. government account of human
restrictions for recipients of U.S. development assistance.
rights conditions in countries around the globe. The reports
Accompanying these provisions was language requiring
characterize countries on the basis of their adherence to
that the Secretary of State transmit to Congress each year a
“internationally recognized human rights,” which generally
“full and complete report” concerning the human rights
refer to the civil, political, and worker rights set forth in the
conditions of recipient countries; this language thus served
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the
as the legislative basis for the annual human rights reports.
United Nations General Assembly in 1948) and other
An amendment in 1979 further broadened the reporting
international human rights agreements.
requirement to cover all U.N. member states. Despite the
legislative origin of the reports in connection with U.S.
The most recent reports cover calendar year 2019 and were
foreign assistance, the role that the reports should play with
issued on March 11, 2020. They provide individual
regard to foreign assistance decisions or in U.S. foreign
narratives for nearly 200 countries and are available on the
policy generally has been the subject of continued debate
Department of State website. As with prior reports, the
(see “Relationship to U.S. Foreign Policy” below).
2019 reports do not compare countries or rank them based
on the severity of human rights abuses documented.
Evolution of the Reports
Although the reports describe human rights violations in
In the early reports, there was concern within the State
many countries, in introducing the reports Secretary of
Department about publicly characterizing the human rights
State Michael Pompeo specifically noted violations in
conditions in other countries, particularly U.S. allies. The
China, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba. Some critics contended
first reports were criticized for being biased and thin on
that the Secretary’s singling out of these nations, generally
substance. Over time, with improvements in the breadth,
perceived as U.S. diplomatic adversaries, risked politicizing
quality, and accuracy of the reports, many observers have
the reports. In response to a related media question, Robert
come to recognize them as authoritative (countries whose
Destro, the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy,
human rights conditions are criticized in the reports,
Human Rights, and Labor, stated that the reports were
however, often publicly defend their record and/or dismiss
“hard-hitting across the board.” Some changes in emphasis
the reports as biased). The modern reports are cited by
and terminology in the 2019 reports were also noted in U.S.
lawmakers, foreign governments, human rights
and international media coverage.
organizations, scholars, and others. The scope of the reports
has also broadened as Congress has amended legislation to
add or expand human rights topics in response to evolving
Categories Covered in the 2019 Reports
situations and contexts. Topics that now receive increased
Integrity of the Person
coverage include worker rights, the rights of sexual
Civil Liberties
minorities and persons with disabilities, and corruption,
Political Participation
among others. In addition, the reports now reference
Corruption and Government Transparency
separate congressionally mandated reports on international
Governmental Attitude toward Human Rights Investigations
religious freedom (IRF) and trafficking in persons (TIP).
Discrimination and Societal Abuses
Worker Rights
Legislative Mandate
The statutory requirement for the human rights reports is
found in Sections 116 and 502B of the Foreign Assistance
Act (FAA) of 1961 (P.L. 87-195), as amended. Both of
these provisions were first enacted via congressional
amendments in the mid-1970s and have been broadened
and strengthened over time through additional amendments.
The 1970s was a formative period for human rights-related
legislation as Congress sought to enshrine human rights as a
priority in U.S. foreign policy. In 1974, Section 502B of the
FAA (22 U.S.C. 2304) was enacted to withhold U.S.
security assistance from governments that engage in “a
consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Global Human Rights: The Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
drafting and review process has contributed to the State
Relevant Legislation in the 116th Congress
Department failing to meet the annual statutory deadline for
Numerous bills introduced in the116th Congress
issuing the reports. State Department officials have
would mandate coverage of particular issues within
described the extensive review process as aimed at ensuring
the reports. For example, Senate appropriators in
the reports are both comprehensive and objective.
their committee report for FY2020 State Department
appropriations directed that the reports include
Human Rights in the United States
information on discrimination and human rights abuses
The State Department human rights reports do not cover
against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex
human rights conditions in the United States. Countries
(LGBTI) persons; S. 3004/H.R. 3874 and S. 861/H.R.
whose human rights practices are criticized in the reports
1857 would amend the FAA to require such coverage.
sometimes accuse the United States of human rights
Similarly, S. 1777 and H.R. 3212 would require
challenges of its own. State Department officials have
coverage of sexual and gender-based violence and
pointed out that the United States participates in other
information on war crimes, crimes against humanity,
mechanisms that evaluate domestic human rights
and evidence of genocide. S. 707 and H.R. 1581 would
conditions, such as the U.N. Human Rights Council’s
require information on respect for reproductive
Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The U.S. government
rights.
submitted its most recent report on U.S. human rights
Drafting and Review Process
conditions through the UPR process in 2015. It is due for its
The State Department’s
next review in May 2020.
Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor (DRL) coordinates the drafting and
Relationship to U.S. Foreign Policy
issuance of the human rights reports. Embassy officers use
reporting guidance, issued annually by DRL, to formulate
The human rights reports have more often served as an
initial drafts for each country; the reports are then edited by
information source for U.S. policy than as a direct
DRL staff and further refined in consultation with other
instrument for restricting U.S. foreign aid, as findings from
relevant State Department offices and the embassies (see
the reports appear to have rarely been used to restrict aid in
Figure 1 below). Near the end of the process, country
accordance with Section 502B or Section 116 of the FAA.
reports of particular public interest or scrutiny may be
The FAA does not require that the State Department
reviewed by the Secretary of State’s office and the National
characterize in the reports which, if any, governments have
Security Council (NSC) staff. Information sources for the
met the statutory standard of “a consistent pattern of gross
reports are wide-ranging and include nongovernmental
violations of internationally human rights.” This differs
organizations (NGOs), press reports, academic and
from other similar congressionally required annual reports,
congressional studies, international organizations,
such as those on IRF and TIP, which feature mechanisms to
governments, and alleged victims of human rights abuses.
publicly designate problematic governments for potential
Figure 1. Overview of the Report Drafting Process
punitive action. The IRF report, for example, is the basis for
the President’s annual designation of “countries of
particular concern” due to particularly severe violations of
religious freedom, while the TIP report categorizes
countries into tiers based on their effort to curb human
trafficking; the worst-ranked are subject to potential foreign
assistance restrictions.
The State Department has generally argued that the reports
serve as a valuable tool in informing U.S. policy on human
rights as well as decisions on foreign aid, asylum, and other
matters. Furthermore, being identified as a human rights-
abusing nation by the U.S. government is likely a stigma
most nations seek to avoid. Some NGOs have argued that
the reports should nonetheless have a more concrete role in
influencing U.S. relations with foreign governments that are
found to have failed to protect the rights of their citizens.
State Department officials have previously contended that
the reports’ focus on t
he facts, without consideration to U.S.
Source: Created by CRS based on GAO-12-561R (May 2012), p. 8.
policy interests, help ensure their objectivity.
Note: Timelines are for il ustrative purposes and may vary.
More generally, some analysts and policymakers argue that
By law, the reports are to be issued by February 25, but in
tying U.S. policy too closely to human rights can overly
practice this issuance is often delayed until March or April.
constrain the U.S. government’s flexibility to address other
In October 2010, the State Department’s Office of the
challenges affecting U.S. interests; others contend that
Inspector General (OIG) identified the reports as among the
human rights promotion serves a broad range of U.S.
most personnel-resource intensive of the department’s
interests over the long term. In the preface to the previous
congressionally mandated reports. According to the OIG,
year’s reports (covering 2018), Secretary Pompeo stated
the breadth of the reports and the extensive consultative
that the Trump Administration’s approach is to “engage
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Global Human Rights: The Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
with other governments, regardless of their record, if doing
contested since the reports began in the 1970s. Congress
so will further U.S. interests,” but also stated that U.S.
has played a key role in these debates, often as a source of
interests in “enduring stability, prosperity, and
pressure on the executive branch to place greater emphasis
security…will only be served if governments respect
on human rights when formulating foreign policy.
human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
Michael A. Weber, Analyst in Foreign Affairs
What role the reports should serve, and the role of human
IF10795
rights in U.S. foreign policy more broadly, have been
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 | IF10795 · VERSION 9 · UPDATED