link to page 2 
Updated April 16, 2021
Global Human Rights: The Department of State’s Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices
Introduction
that the Secretary of State transmit to Congress each year a
The State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights
“full and complete report” concerning the human rights
Practices are an annual U.S. government account of human
conditions of recipient countries; this language thus served
rights conditions in countries around the globe. The reports
as the legislative basis for the annual human rights reports.
characterize countries on the basis of their adherence to
An amendment in 1979 further broadened the reporting
“internationally recognized human rights,” which generally
requirement to cover all foreign country U.N. member
refer to the civil, political, and worker rights set forth in the
states. Despite the legislative origin of the reports in
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the
connection with U.S. foreign assistance, the role that the
United Nations General Assembly in 1948) and other
reports should play with regard to foreign assistance
international human rights agreements.
decisions or in U.S. foreign policy generally has been the
subject of debate (see “Relationship to U.S. Foreign Policy”
The most recent reports cover calendar year 2020 and were
below).
issued on March 30, 2021. They provide individual
narratives on countries and territories worldwide and are
Evolution of the Reports
available on the Department of State website. As with prior
In the early reports, there was concern within the State
reports, the 2020 reports do not compare countries or rank
Department about publicly characterizing the human rights
them based on the severity of human rights abuses
conditions in other countries, particularly U.S. allies. The
documented. Although the reports describe human rights
first reports were criticized for being biased and thin on
violations in many countries, in remarks introducing the
substance. Over time, with improvements in the breadth,
reports and in a written preface, Secretary of State Antony
quality, and accuracy of the reports, many observers have
Blinken specifically noted violations in a number of
come to recognize them as authoritative (countries whose
countries, including China, Ethiopia, Russia, Syria, Uganda,
human rights conditions are criticized in the reports,
Venezuela, and Yemen, among others. Blinken described
however, often publicly defend their record and/or dismiss
Coronavirus Disease 2019 as a negative factor affecting
respect for human rights globally, stating that “autocratic
the reports as biased). The modern reports are cited by
lawmakers, foreign governments, human rights
governments have used [the pandemic] as a pretext to target
organizations, scholars, and others. The State Department
their critics and further repress human rights.”
has gradually broadened the scope of the reports to add or
expand coverage of certain topics, sometimes due to
Categories Covered in the 2020 Reports
congressional amendments to the statutory requirements.
Integrity of the Person
Topics that now receive increased coverage include, for
Civil Liberties
example, press and internet freedoms, corruption and
Political Participation
government transparency, and human rights abuses based
Corruption and Government Transparency
on sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, the
Governmental Attitude toward Human Rights Investigations
reports now reference separate congressionally mandated
Discrimination and Societal Abuses
reports on international religious freedom (IRF) and
Worker Rights
trafficking in persons (TIP). In introducing the 2020
Legislative Mandate
reports, Secretary Blinken indicated that the State
The statutory requirement for the human rights reports is
Department would release an addendum to the reports later
found in Sections 116 and 502B of the Foreign Assistance
in the year with additional information on issues related to
Act (FAA) of 1961 (P.L. 87-195), as amended. Both of
reproductive rights, which he stated had been removed from
these provisions were first enacted via congressional
the reports during the prior Administration.
amendments in the mid-1970s and have been broadened
The joint explanatory statement for the FY2021 State
and strengthened over time through additional amendments.
Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
The 1970s was a formative period for human rights-related
Appropriations Act (Division K of P.L. 116-260) directed
legislation as Congress sought to enshrine human rights as a
the Secretary of State to include within the reports
priority in U.S. foreign policy. In 1974, Section 502B of the
“information on the intimidation of, and attacks against,”
FAA (22 U.S.C. 2304) was enacted to withhold U.S.
civil society activists and journalists, as well as the response
security assistance from governments that engage in “a
of the foreign government. Some bills introduced so far in
consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally
the 117th Congress would amend the FAA to mandate
recognized human rights.” The following year, Section 116
coverage of other specific human rights issues.
(22 U.S.C. 2151n) was added, introducing similar
restrictions for recipients of U.S. development assistance.
Accompanying these provisions was language requiring
https://crsreports.congress.gov
link to page 2 
Global Human Rights: The Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
Drafting and Review Process
Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The United
The State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human
States underwent its third and most recent review in 2020,
Rights, and Labor (DRL) coordinates the drafting and
and the council adopted the United States’ UPR report in
issuance of the human rights reports. Embassy officers use
March 2021. According to the State Department, the U.S.
reporting guidance, issued annually by DRL, to formulate
government accepted “in whole or in part” 280 of the 347
initial drafts for each country; the reports are then edited by
recommendations received during the review.
DRL staff and further refined in consultation with other
relevant State Department offices and the embassies (see
Relationship to U.S. Foreign Policy
Figure 1). The Department of Labor may also contribute to
Identification as a human rights-abusing nation by the U.S.
and/or review the portions concerning worker rights.
government is likely a stigma most nations seek to avoid. In
According to a May 2012 report by Government
practice, the human rights reports have more often served as
Accountability Office (GAO), near the end of the editing
an information source for U.S. policy than as a direct
process, the Secretary of State and National Security
instrument for restricting U.S. foreign aid. Findings from
Council (NSC) staff may review selected country reports.
the reports appear to have rarely been used to restrict aid in
Information sources for the reports are wide-ranging and
accordance with Section 502B or Section 116 of the FAA,
may include nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), press
and the FAA does not require that the State Department
reports, academic and congressional studies, international
characterize in the reports which, if any, governments have
organizations, governments, and alleged victims of human
met the statutory standard of “a consistent pattern of gross
rights abuses.
violations of internationally human rights.” This differs
Figure 1. Overview of the Report Drafting Process
somewhat from other similar congressionally required
annual reports, such as those on IRF and TIP, which feature
mechanisms to publicly designate problematic governments
for potential punitive action. The IRF report, for example, is
a primary basis for the executive branch’s 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 efforts to curb
human trafficking.
Human rights advocates have sometimes argued that the
reports should serve 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. The State
Department has generally contended 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. Some have raised the prospect of potential tensions
between more direct policy linkages and the continued
actual or perceived objectivity of the reports.
Source: Created by CRS based on GAO-12-561R (May 2012), p. 8.
As a general matter, some analysts and policymakers argue
Note: Timelines are for illustrative purposes and may vary.
that tying U.S. policy too closely to human rights can
A May 2012 GAO report found that preparing the reports
overly constrain the U.S. government’s flexibility to
“involves a significant commitment of State time and
address other challenges affecting U.S. interests, while
resources” within DRL and at embassies. By law, the
supporters of robust human rights and democracy
reports are to be issued by February 25, but in practice the
promotion generally argue that doing so serves U.S.
issuance is often delayed until March or April. According to
interests over the long term. In his remarks introducing the
GAO, the State Department has informed Congress of the
2020 reports, Secretary Blinken argued that human rights-
challenges of meeting the deadline. In an October 2018
respecting countries are more likely to be peaceful,
report, the State Department Office of Inspector General
prosperous, stable, and supportive of “the rules-based
(OIG) found that DRL had “established generally effective
international order” built by the United States and U.S.
processes” for report production.
allies.
Human Rights in the United States
What role the reports should serve, and the role of human
The FAA requires that the reports cover foreign countries,
rights in U.S. foreign policy more broadly, have been
and does not mandate coverage of human rights conditions
contested since the reports began in the 1970s. Congress
in the United States. (The aforementioned annual report on
has played a key role in these debates, often as a source of
IRF similarly covers only foreign countries, while the
pressure on the executive branch to place greater emphasis
annual report on TIP is required to cover U.S. domestic
on human rights when formulating foreign policy.
efforts to combat the practice.) State Department officials
have at times noted that the United States participates in
Michael A. Weber, Analyst in Foreign Affairs
mechanisms that evaluate domestic human rights
IF10795
conditions, such as the United Nations Human Rights
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Global Human Rights: The Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
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 10 · UPDATED