The U.S. does not have national human rights institution. Has the time come for the nation to consider it?
The UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples convenes July 2025 in Geneva, Switzerland (Cordelia Kellie/Nalliq)
This week, the United Nation’s Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples convened in Geneva, Switzerland, continuing its work providing the UN Human Rights Council with expertise and advice on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Participants included UN Member State representatives, Indigenous People’s Organizations (like the Inuit Circumpolar Council), and other stakeholders, including national human rights institutions — also known as NHRIs.
More than 120 nations have established independent national human rights institutions, which, according to the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANRI), “monitor and report on the human rights situation in their country” and investigate human rights violations and complaints.
Of the member countries listed on GANRI’s website, however, one country is noticeably missing.
The United States is in the global minority of countries lacking a national human rights institution — one of the few in the West — joined in the ranks of other large countries without an independent investigative body, such as China and Russia.
According to the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, NHRIs, “play a crucial role in promoting and monitoring the effective implementation of international human rights standards at the national level.”
In the last decade or so, calls for the U.S. to establish a NHRI have grown both internationally, and here at home. But what is an NHRI, exactly, and how are they regarded in the U.S.?
About NHRIs
NHRIs are an independent body, established by the government, with a constitutional and/or legislative mandate to promote and protect human rights within a country. NHRIs conduct their work by actions such as investigating human rights violations, and advising the government on legislation, regulations, and practices. Some may even elect to respond to individual complaints, helping enforce individual rights via legal assistance.
National human rights institutions adhere to a set of standards in order to be recognized as an NHRI (endorsed by the 1993 UN General Assembly) detailing criteria and responsibilities. They also differ from mechanisms such as the United States Commission on Civil Rights (by ensuring international human rights laws are also upheld in addition to domestic human rights obligations) or Congressional committees, like the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, which is squarely within the government.
What is the situation with the U.S.?
Reasons why the U.S. does not have an NHRI are opaque, but a 2024 article in the Journal of Human Rights points to how Americans tend to look more outwardly on topics of human rights, examining issues in other countries instead of here at home, and as a military and economic superpower, America “experiences few consequences for failing to establish an NHRI,” than other countries who may have been compelled due to pressure from neighboring and international peers.
But most convincingly is that broadly, in our nation’s recent history, American political leadership has felt that human and civil rights were respected and largely upheld in the U.S. and that existing mechanisms have been sufficient. The article concludes on one notable point, however, which is that in terms of tipping the needle, domestic activism has not been “sufficient” — a necessary step in urging legislators and policy makers.
Has the U.S. commented on NHRIs, or taken an official position?
Periodically, member states of the United Nations review the human rights records of other member states in what is called a Universal Period Review, or UPR. U.S. allies, such as the United Kingdom, Germany and Norway called for “progress on a U.S. NHRI” during the United States’ first ever UPR in 2010-2011. In response, then-Assistant Secretary of State Koh commented that the topic of creating an NHRI is, “currently under discussion in our country,” and “we believe the best human rights implementation combines overlapping enforcement by all branches of the federal government working together with state and local partners.”
During the U.S.’s second UPR in 2015, dozens of other countries called on the U.S. to “establish” and “take steps” toward establishing a national human rights institution. The U.S. State Department responded that they “noted” the recommendations, and “we are considering whether this network of protection is in need of improvement.”
In 2020, the Trump Administration rejected recommendations to establish an NHRI, and the Biden Administration reverted to the prior U.S. posture stating the U.S. would “consider” an NHRI in response to a 2021 UPR review.
Recent Steps and Looking Forward
Calls from human rights advocates have been steadily increasing since the 2010’s. More recently, the International Justice Clinic issued a 2022 report titled, “Establishing a National Human Rights Institution in the United States.”
A 2023 letter to President Biden from nine members of Congress urged his Administration create a Presidential Administration to study the creation of an NHRI, a recommendation echoed by a U.N. Human Rights Committee report distributed later that year.
In 2024, a coalition of advocates, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Southern Poverty Law Center, held a Congressional briefing about NHRIs, where they also announced the launch of a national campaign for a national human rights institution in the U.S.
With today’s political climate, the establishment of an NHRI may seem as unlikely as ever. But in the absence of an NHRI in the United States, many citizens may not be aware of this institution as an option — unlike other nations whose residents may be accustomed to hearing of the work of their country’s NHRIs — potentially leading to lawmakers seldom hearing this raised by constituents.
In February of this year, the UN renewed its concerns in Geneva about the status of human rights in the United States during the 58th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. No doubt in recent months, those concerns have increased, if not redoubled.
As concerned constituents grasp for solutions and avenues to advocate, a broader national discussion about an NHRI in the United States just may be on the table.