How to Make Human Rights Advocacy Credible Again

Washington’s selective application of human rights rhetoric has eroded its moral authority and created a vacuum authoritarian regimes are eager to exploit

This article was originally published in The National Interest.

The human rights movement is diminishing in importance in US foreign policy, not just because the Trump administration may slash its pet programs, but also because the movement has abandoned its own principles. Today, human rights organizations routinely employ the same vocabulary once reserved for North Korean prison camps and executions in Iranian prisons to describe domestic debates over criminal justice reform and abortion in the United States.

When human rights organizations cannot distinguish between systematic authoritarian brutality and legitimate policy disagreements within democratic societies, they forfeit their moral authority and hand authoritarian regimes a convenient pretext to denigrate all human rights concerns as Western hypocrisy. What the Trump administration has done is recognize this credibility crisis and advance US strategic interests as it sees them. Unless human rights advocacy can advance said interests, it does not receive much attention from the White House.

Nevertheless, abandoning human rights entirely should be a non-starter. It remains vital to both American identity and global leadership—but only if promoted with clarity and credibility. For too long, American foreign policy has operated on an incoherent fiction, establishing government-funded NGOs to criticize regimes we simultaneously court as strategic allies.

This never made much sense, and everyone knew it. The Trump administration’s acknowledgment that strategic interests often override human rights concerns presents not a crisis but an opportunity. By grounding human rights advocacy in reality rather than rhetoric, the United States can restore the credibility and influence that the human rights and democracy promotion movement squandered.

Originally conceived to challenge authoritarian abuses during the Cold War, major organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch expanded their mandates to the point of absurdity in recent years. For example, in 2022, Amnesty International released a report claiming that Ukrainian forces were endangering civilians by operating from residential areas. The study drew sharp internal and external criticism. Amnesty’s own legal advisers questioned its methodology, and the head of the organization’s Kyiv office resigned, warning that the report handed Moscow a ready-made propaganda tool. By portraying Ukraine’s defensive tactics as morally comparable to Russia’s invasion, Amnesty blurred the line between a democracy protecting itself and an authoritarian aggressor, undermining the very credibility it seeks to wield.

The human rights movement should direct its attention exclusively to authoritarian regimes. Organizations like the Human Rights Foundation demonstrate that this approach can be a profitable one. The human rights movement must abandon its pretensions to universal jurisdiction over all societal imperfections and return to its core mission of confronting genuine tyranny.

Several decades ago, I served as a democracy officer with the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in Central Asia. This experience offered a valuable lesson in realpolitik, namely that Washington would never prioritize human rights above its perceived interests. While I documented torture and religious persecution by governments in Central Asia, the Bush administration—at the supposed apogee of American democracy promotion—emphasized securing airbases in these countries to launch American operations into Afghanistan. This seeming contradiction was a feature, not a bug, of American foreign policy.

Public policy is always about navigating trade-offs. National interests will often override human rights concerns. Every administration, from Bush to Obama to Biden, subordinated human rights to strategic imperatives while maintaining rhetorical commitments to universal values. The Trump administration is simply saying the quiet part out loud.

This forthrightness creates an opportunity. By acknowledging that human rights advocacy will never be the primary driver of US foreign policy, Washington can develop more realistic and effective approaches. Targeted tools, such as sanctions and visa restrictions, can advance human rights within the constraints of realpolitik, achieving concrete results without the hypocrisy of grand pronouncements followed by strategic compromises.

Perhaps most damaging has been the deep institutionalization of human rights organizations as government-funded NGOs. This arrangement, while well-intentioned, creates a fundamental incoherence in American foreign policy. When the US government funds human rights organizations, whose work often conflicts with US foreign policy, it generates confusion among local partners and erodes American credibility. Moreover, the funded organizations lose their reputations as independent advocates when regimes overseas see them as instruments of a government that simultaneously embraces the very regimes they criticize.

Human rights should be a pillar of US foreign policy—they represent fundamental values that define who we are as Americans. These principles of freedom, dignity, and justice are not just abstract ideals but core elements of our national identity. The Trump administration should not abandon these values but rather restore credibility to its promotion.

America has lost credibility in human rights advocacy not because we lack commitment to these values, but because of the glaring gap between our rhetoric and our actions. We preach human rights while funding dictators who serve our interests. We condemn abuses selectively, based on strategic calculations rather than consistent principles. This hypocrisy has made our human rights advocacy ring hollow around the world.

The Trump administration can restore American credibility by aligning our words with our deeds. This means being honest about the trade-offs inherent in foreign policy—yes, we will sometimes work with unsavory regimes when vital interests are at stake. But we should stop pretending otherwise. When we do advocate for human rights, it should be with clarity, consistency, and independence from strategic calculations.

By embracing this recalibration, the Trump administration can advance human rights more effectively than decades of hypocritical posturing ever could. America First need not mean abandoning our values—it can mean promoting them with the credibility that comes from consistency and independence.

Middle East Uncovered is powered by Ideas Beyond Borders. The views expressed in Middle East Uncovered are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ideas Beyond Borders.