Updated April 25, 2024
Global Human Rights: Security Forces Vetting (“Leahy Laws”)
also be vetted. The Secretary is also required to publicly
Introduction
identify those foreign security forces units that the
The “Leahy Laws” prohibit U.S. assistance to foreign
department barred from U.S. assistance under the law
security force units when there is credible information that
unless the Secretary, “on a case-by-case basis, determines
the unit has committed a “gross violation of human rights”
and reports” to the appropriate committees that public
(GVHR). Pursuant to the laws, before providing assistance,
disclosure is not in the U.S. national security interest, and
the U.S. government vets potential recipients for
“provides a detailed justification for such determination.”
information about GVHR involvement. The origins of the
laws date back to appropriations provisions sponsored by
The Defense Department’s Leahy Law
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in the 1990s; they were
The Leahy Law applicable to assistance furnished by DOD
preceded by provisions beginning in the 1970s that sought
is codified at 10 U.S.C. §362. Pursuant to the law, DOD
to prohibit U.S. security assistance to governments with
funds are prohibited from being used for “any training,
poor human rights records. Today’s “Leahy Laws” are
equipment, or other assistance” to a foreign security force
permanent law and located in both Title 22 (Foreign
unit if the Secretary of Defense has credible information
Relations) and Title 10 (Armed Forces) of the U.S. Code.
that the unit has committed a GVHR; DOD is to fully
They generally restrict security assistance otherwise funded
consider any credible information that is available to DOS.
by the Departments of State (DOS) and Defense (DOD).
The Secretary of Defense may waive applicability of the
The laws remain of ongoing interest to Congress and
Leahy Law on DOD assistance (a provision not found in the
continue to face modification as Congress reacts to their
DOS Leahy Law) under “extraordinary circumstances” and
implementation.
following Secretary of State consultation. The prohibition
The State Department’s Leahy Law
of assistance to units that have committed a GVHR may
also be excepted if the Secretary of Defense, after Secretary
The Leahy Law applicable to assistance authorized by the
of State consultation, determines (1) the foreign
Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961, as amended, or the
government in question “has taken all necessary corrective
Arms Export Control Act (AECA), as amended, is codified
steps” or (2) the DOD equipment or other intended
at 22 U.S.C. §2378d (Section 620M of the FAA). It
prohibits “assistance” to a foreign security forces unit
assistance is necessary to assist in disaster relief operations
if the
or other humanitarian or national security emergencies.
Secretary of State has credible information that the unit has
DOD must report to Congress within 15 days of exercising
committed a GVHR. The prohibition of assistance to such
its waiver or exception authorities.
units may be excepted, however, if the Secretary of State
determines and reports to Congress that the foreign
Gross Violation of Human Rights (GVHR)
government “is taking effective steps to bring the
The Leahy Laws do not define GVHR. Drawing instead
responsible members of the security forces unit to justice.”
on the term “gross violations of internationally
recognized human rights,” as defined and articulated
Congress in March 2022 amended the DOS Leahy Law to
elsewhere in the FAA (see 22 U.S.C. 2304(d) and 22
address cases in which the specific unit(s) that will
U.S.C. 2151n(a)), the U.S. government primarily vets
ultimately receive assistance cannot be identified prior to
foreign security forces for credible information
the transfer of assistance. Consistent with a requirement
indicating (1) torture, (2) extrajudicial killing, (3)
originally enacted in the prior year appropriations bill, 22
enforced disappearance, or (4) rape under color of
U.S.C. §2378d(c)(1) now provides that, for such cases, the
law (in which a perpetrator abuses their official
Secretary of State is to regularly provide to the recipient
position to commit rape). Other acts may also be
government a list of units that are prohibited from receiving
assessed as to whether they constitute GVHRs.
assistance. Effective December 31, 2022, such assistance
“shall only be made available subject to a written
Foreign Security Forces
agreement that the recipient government will comply with
The Leahy Laws do not define what constitutes a
such prohibition.” If a recipient government withholds
foreign security force. For purposes of Leahy vetting,
assistance from a unit pursuant to the law, DOS is to inform
the U.S. government generally considers the term to
the appropriate congressional committees and “to the
include any organization or entity authorized by a
maximum extent practicable, assist the foreign government
state to use force, including, but not limited to, the
in bringing the responsible members of the unit to justice.”
powers to search, detain, and arrest. Forces that
Pursuant to 22 U.S.C. §2378d(d), the Secretary of State is
typically fall under this definition include military and
required to establish and maintain certain procedures for
police units.
collecting, validating, and preserving security assistance
recipient and vetting information. The provision clarifies
Leahy Laws Implementation
that, when a foreign security forces member is designated to
DOS’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
receive U.S. assistance, the individual’s service unit must
(DRL) oversees the implementation of Leahy Law vetting
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Global Human Rights: Security Forces Vetting (“Leahy Laws”)
policy and processes. Within DOD, the Office of the
subject to the Leahy Laws (a fact highlighted, for example,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability and
by allegations in recent years that foreign park rangers
Humanitarian Affairs (SHA) leads on policy matters
supported by organizations receiving Fish and Wildlife
pertaining to the DOD Leahy Law. The DOS-led vetting
Service international conservation funding had committed
process begins at U.S. embassies overseas where a variety
human rights violations).
of consular, political, and other security and human rights
checks are conducted, as well as assessments of the
Congress in some cases has narrowed the executive
credibility of any derogatory information identified. In most
branch’s interpretive discretion by explicitly specifying that
cases, further vetting is also conducted in Washington, DC.
certain authorities are subject to the relevant Leahy Law
Congress has provided funding for human rights vetting
(e.g., DOD’s “train and equip” authority authorized under
through directives to DRL contained in annual
10 U.S.C. §333). The William M. (Mac) Thornberry
appropriations (most recently, $20 million for FY2024).
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2021
(P.L. 116-283) introduced some relevant human rights
U.S. policy and procedures for Leahy vetting have evolved
requirements for DOD support authorized under 10 U.S.C.
over time, in part due to amendments to the Leahy Laws
§127e (a counterterrorism operations authority) and Section
arising from congressional oversight of their
1202 of the FY2018 NDAA (P.L. 115-91, as amended; an
implementation. Some prior Government Accountability
irregular warfare operations authority), while not specifying
Office (GAO) and DOS and DOD Office of Inspector
that this support is subject to the DOD Leahy Law. In
General (OIG) reports have raised issues such as lapses in
general, Members may consider the implications—such as
implementation in certain contexts or with regard to certain
in terms of consistency of U.S. human rights policy,
types of assistance, such as forms of assistance in which the
impacts on support to and relations with foreign partners,
final recipient unit is not known at the time of a transfer.
and vetting burdens—of imposing Leahy Law or Leahy
Issues for Congress
Law-like requirements to additional authorities, as some
proposed legislation would do.
The Leahy Laws are seen as a tool to disassociate the
United States from objectionable security forces, while also
Scope of Prohibited Behavior. The Leahy Laws do not
incentivizing good behavior among governments wishing to
require DOS or DOD to withhold assistance due to
access and benefit from U.S. security assistance.
activities that are not related to a GVHR. In practice, the
Policymakers have nonetheless debated whether and to
executive branch may—as a matter of policy—choose to
what extent the Leahy Laws constrain the United States’
bar assistance in cases when there is credible information
ability to pursue other U.S. national security interests. Key
about a human rights issue that does not constitute a
policy and oversight issues for Congress may include the
GVHR, or about other activities such as corruption.
following:
Members may consider the implications of modifying the
Transfers When the Recipient Unit is Not Known.
statutory scope of Leahy vetting, such as to address human
Members may examine the executive branch’s
rights violations beyond GVHR or other behavior of
implementation of the new requirement under the DOS
concern. Some additional existing provisions seek to
Leahy Law that seeks to address the challenge of applying
prohibit certain U.S. security assistance to individual units
the law when the ultimate recipient unit of assistance is not
on the basis of other human rights issues, such as sexual
known at the time of the transfer. Pursuant to the
exploitation or abuse (Section 303 of P.L. 114-323 and,
requirement, the United States has now reached bilateral
most recently, Section 7048(f) of P.L. 118-47) and
agreements with over a dozen foreign governments through
excessive force to repress peaceful expression or assembly
which these governments agree not to provide assistance to
(most recently, Section 7035(c)(3) of P.L. 118-47). How
security force units identified by the United States as barred
such provisions are applied and how, if at all, they are
under the DOS Leahy Law. The Secretary of State is to
integrated with Leahy Law application is unclear.
“regularly provide” a list of such units to applicable foreign
governments. This requirement has implications for
Congressional Reporting. Appropriations bills in recent
recipients of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) assistance
years have required that the Secretary of State submit a
such as Egypt, Israel, and Ukraine, and some media
report to Congress on the use and outcome of Leahy vetting
reporting has raised questions about unevenness in
pursuant to the DOS Leahy Law during the prior fiscal
implementation of the requirement vis-à-vis different
year. A similar annual report requirement for the DOD
foreign government recipients.
Leahy Law was terminated effective December 31, 2021, in
accordance with Section 1061 of the FY2017 NDAA (P.L.
Scope of Prohibited Assistance or Support. The Leahy
114-328). Congress may consider the desirability of
Laws do not apply to all forms of U.S. support to foreign
requiring both departments to report on Leahy Law
security forces. They are not applied to foreign military
implementation and of permanently codifying such
sales (FMS) or direct commercial sales (DCS), as the
reporting requirements. Members may weigh the resource
executive branch interprets “assistance” under the Leahy
burdens that reporting requirements place on the executive
Laws as that provided with U.S-appropriated funds. Some
branch against the oversight value of the reports.
DOD authorities that entail forms of support to foreign
military forces may also be interpreted as not subject to the
DOD Leahy Law. Additionally, assistance not authorized
Michael A. Weber, Analyst in Foreign Affairs
under the FAA or AECA or furnished by DOD is not
IF10575
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Global Human Rights: 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 8 · UPDATED

---