On August 12, 2025, the United States unveiled a dramatically revised version of its annual human rights report—a document long regarded as the most comprehensive governmental assessment of abuses and protections worldwide. This year’s release, however, has ignited fierce debate both at home and abroad. According to BBC, the Trump administration’s overhaul of the State Department’s report has not only trimmed its length but also shifted its focus, reducing criticism of key U.S. allies such as Israel and El Salvador while escalating disapproval of countries like Brazil and South Africa, which have recently found themselves at odds with Washington.
The changes are impossible to miss. As reported by NPR, the new reports are about one-third the length of last year’s. In some cases, such as El Salvador and Moldova, the documents are more than 75% shorter. Gone are entire sections that previously documented issues like government corruption, poor prison conditions, persecution of LGBTQ+ individuals, and gender-based violence. Instead, the State Department says the reports have been “streamlined” to adhere more closely to statutory requirements and to “increase readability.” But critics argue that this is little more than political expediency—an attempt to let authoritarian regimes off the hook and to align the U.S. government’s human rights narrative more closely with President Donald Trump’s foreign policy priorities.
One of the most striking aspects of the new report is its treatment of U.S. allies. The section on Israel, for example, acknowledges that the ongoing war has “led to a rise in reports of human rights violations,” but also notes that “the government took several credible steps to identify officials who committed human rights abuses.” Notably, the report omits any mention of the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former defense minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas commander Mohammed Deif—warrants which ICC judges issued after finding “reasonable grounds” for alleged war crimes. Both Israel and Hamas have rejected the allegations, but the omission itself speaks volumes about the report’s new direction.
Meanwhile, the report accuses Hamas and Hezbollah of war crimes, charges both groups deny. In contrast, El Salvador—a nation previously criticized for arbitrary detentions and inhumane prison conditions—receives a virtual clean bill of health. The State Department now concludes there were “no credible reports of significant human rights abuses,” despite ongoing concerns raised by organizations like Amnesty International. President Trump, for his part, has openly praised El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, calling him “one hell of a president” and lauding his “great job.”
Brazil and South Africa, on the other hand, come in for harsh criticism. The State Department’s report singles out Brazil for “disproportionate action to undermine freedom of speech,” echoing previous disputes between the Trump administration and Brazil’s government. South Africa is described as having a “significantly worsened” human rights situation in 2024, with the report citing “steps toward land expropriation of Afrikaners and further abuses against racial minorities in the country.” According to Bloomberg, President Trump has publicly accused South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa of state-sanctioned violence against white farmers—a claim that has fueled controversy and drawn sharp rebukes from South African officials.
The report’s treatment of major European democracies is also notable. The United Kingdom is accused of “significant human rights issues,” including “credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression” and “inconsistent” prosecution for human rights abuses. The report documents government restrictions censoring “hate speech” and highlights recent controversies over expression outside abortion clinics and restrictions on prayer—issues that have drawn the attention of U.S. Vice President JD Vance. The language used in the report mirrors earlier criticism from both the Trump administration and some U.S. tech executives who have opposed European online harm reduction laws, portraying them as attacks on free speech.
But it’s not just the content of the reports that has changed. The process behind their creation has been fundamentally altered as well. NPR revealed that an internal State Department memo instructed editors to remove roughly two-thirds of the content, including references to diversity, equity, inclusion, sexual violence against children, environmental justice, and government corruption. Editors were told to include only one “illustrative incident” per violation category, regardless of how widespread the abuses might be. Amanda Klasing, the national director of government relations and advocacy at Amnesty International USA, warned that this approach “makes it easier for governments—and particularly authoritarian governments—to say that, you know, this is just one case. Tell us a real problem.”
The release of the report was delayed for months amid what BBC described as “significant internal dissent” at the State Department. The delay followed internal guidance from political leaders instructing staff to shorten the reports and remove references to corruption and gender-based crimes—guidance that came on the heels of executive orders issued by President Trump. Traditionally, the Secretary of State would present the reports in a public briefing, but this year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio opted not to schedule a dedicated event. This decision surprised many, given Rubio’s past support for the reports as a U.S. Senator. Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, expressed regret over his vote to confirm Rubio, stating, “When he was a member of the Senate, he used to stand up and support an American foreign policy based on promoting democracy and human rights. But ever since he was confirmed, he seems to have forgotten all that.”
Some critics, including former State Department official Uzra Zeya, see the changes as an “abandonment of core values” that have long defined U.S. foreign policy. Zeya told the BBC, “It sends a signal that there’s going to be a free pass from the United States government, that it will look the other way if a government is willing to cut deals or do the bidding of this administration.” Human rights advocates were prepared for some changes under Trump, but as Yaqiu Wang of Freedom House put it, “We expected women’s rights and minority rights to be cut out. But even freedom of expression—the international understanding of what the U.S. considers as human rights, number one—has been cut. I’m just shocked.”
For decades, these reports have been a crucial tool for diplomats, activists, journalists, and even asylum seekers, providing a detailed record of abuses worldwide. Congress relies on the assessments to inform decisions on foreign aid and weapons sales. Now, many in the international community worry that the U.S. is retreating from its role as a global advocate for human rights. While the Trump administration insists it remains committed to defending human rights, critics argue that the minimalist rewrite may no longer comply with legal requirements for a “full and complete” accounting of internationally recognized rights.
Against this backdrop, President Trump’s remarks during a visit to Saudi Arabia earlier this year seem emblematic of a broader shift. He criticized “Western interventionists” and declared that the U.S. would no longer be “giving you lectures on how to live or how to govern your own affairs.” Whether this signals a new era in U.S. foreign policy or a temporary departure from tradition, the world will be watching closely to see how America’s stance on human rights continues to evolve.
