Posts Tagged ‘Human Rights Watch’

HRW’s annual report: Global system of human rights in ‘peril’ – Will Human Rights Survive a Trumpian World?

February 5, 2026

Philippe Bolopion, Executive Director of HRW, starts the annual report of 2026 with the following words: “The global human rights system is in peril. Under relentless pressure from US President Donald Trump, and persistently undermined by China and Russia, the rules-based international order is being crushed, threatening to take with it the architecture human rights defenders have come to rely on to advance norms and protect freedoms. To defy this trend, governments that still value human rights, alongside social movements, civil society, and international institutions, need to form a strategic alliance to push back.

…In this context, 2025 may be seen as a tipping point. In just 12 months, the Trump administration has carried out a broad assault on key pillars of US democracy and the global rules-based order, which the US, despite inconsistencies, was, with other states, instrumental in helping to establish.

In short order, Trump’s second-term administration has undermined trust in the sanctity of elections, reduced government accountability, gutted food assistance and healthcare subsidies, attacked judicial independence, defied court orders, rolled back women’s rights, obstructed access to abortion care, undermined remedies for racial harm, terminated programs mandating accessibility for people with disabilities, punished free speech, stripped protections from trans and intersex people, eroded privacy, and used government power to intimidate political opponents, the media, law firms, universities, civil society, and even comedians.

Claiming a risk of “civilizational erasure” in Europe and leaning on racist tropes to cast entire populations as unwelcome in the US, the Trump administration has embraced policies and rhetoric that align with white nationalist ideology. Immigrants and asylum seekers have been subjected to inhumane conditions and degrading treatment; 32 died in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody in 2025, and as of mid-January 2026, an additional 4 have died.

The US president of course has the authority to tighten US borders and enforce stricter immigration policies. The administration is not, however, entitled to deny legal process to asylum seekers, mistreat undocumented migrants, or unlawfully discriminate. In a well-functioning democracy, no electoral mandate should supersede domestic legislation, constitutional protections, or international human rights law. Trump’s team has repeatedly bypassed these guardrails.

The violations have not stopped at the border. The Trump administration used a 1798 law to send hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to an infamous prison in El Salvador, where they were tortured and sexually abused. Its blatantly unlawful strikes on boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific extrajudicially killed more than 120 people whom Trump claims were drug traffickers…

A summary can be found in Al-Jazeera of 4 February 2026

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2026

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/4/global-system-of-human-rights-in-peril-warns-hrw-in-its-annual-report

Interpol leaked files reveal states abuse red notices to target dissidents

January 31, 2026

Interpol leaked files reveal states abuse red notices to target dissidents

Derren Chan od JURIST.org wrote on 27 January 2026 about this worrying issue:

Two media outlets reported on states’ abuses of Interpol red notices to target political dissidents and human rights defenders on Monday. Amnesty International urged Interpol to address this “grave institutional failure” and improve its transparency.

Disclose, a French investigative media outlet, reported that Interpol has disclosed to the public less than 10 percent of the 86,000 active red notices. As of September 2024, Russia (4,817), Peru (4,457), and Tajikistan (3,493) are the countries with the most active red notices. The report also revealed that Interpol’s Commission for the Control of Files (CCF) removed at least 322 notices in 2024 alone after deeming them unjustified. In March 2024 an HRW report also highlights cases of governments misusing Interpol, see https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2024/03/19/transnational-repression-human-rights-watch-and-other-reports/

At the same time, the BBC revealed that Interpol quietly dropped some initial measures that prevented Russia from abusing the red notices in 2025. The BBC also reported the phenomenon of countries using Interpol’s messaging systems to trace people abroad instead of issuing a notice that can be challenged by the target.

The BBC’s report also outlined how the abuse of the red notice system impacted the life of an exiled Russian dissident, Igor Pestrikov. He fled the country with his family after he refused to supply metal products to government-designated buyers in 2022. During the two years when a red diffusion against him was active, he was unable to rent an apartment, and his bank accounts were frozen. CCF removed his case after he challenged that Russia’s case against him was politically motivated.

Interpol is an intergovernmental organization that coordinates law enforcement of over 196 member countries. When a member state issues a red notice, law enforcement in other member states will assist in locating and arresting the wanted persons. However, Article 3 of Interpol’s constitution prohibits it from participating in any political interventions.

Reacting to the reports, Senior Director for Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns of Amnesty International, Erika Guevara Rosas, questioned Interpol’s credibility since it failed repeatedly to challenge whether the states use red notices legitimately. She urged Interpol to improve its transparency and “stop serving states’ political interest.” Conversely, Interpol told the BBC that some accusations misunderstood how Interpol and its CCF system work, or are based on factual errors. 

Relatedly, in November 2025, UN experts also flagged El Salvador’s misuse of the red notices to target two exiled Salvadoran human rights defenders, denouncing the country’s use of red notices as a means “to pursue its political agenda to harass and persecute human rights defenders beyond its borders.” According to international lawyer Kate McInnes, this marks the first time that UN Special Rapporteurs have issued a communication to Interpol. The communication warned that the red notices against the human rights offenders constituted transnational repression, violating Interpol’s constitution to uphold the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and to maintain political neutrality.

SEE:

https://www.jurist.org/news/2026/01/interpol-leaked-files-reveal-states-abuse-red-notices-to-target-dissidents/

NGOs such as the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and Human Rights Watch declared “undesirable” by the Russia

January 18, 2026

Kirill KUDRYAVTSEV / AFP

At the end of 2025 the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), one of the world’s oldest human rights movements and Human Rights Watch were declared “undesirable” by the Russian Federation. For FIDH the designation was made by the Prosecutor General of Russia on 13 November, and on 1 December, Russia’s Ministry of Justice included FIDH in its register of “undesirable organizations“, which currently contains 281 entities, including several FIDH members, such as the Center for Civil Liberties (CCL), the Norwegian Helsinki Committee (NHC), the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR), and Truth Hounds.

This ignoble move not only further threatens and endangers our Russian members, partners, their staff, and ordinary Russian citizens supporting our human rights work. It also sends a clear message that Russia is no friend of the global human rights movement“, said Alexis Deswaef, FIDH President. “This designation of FIDH as an ‘undesirable organisation’ demonstrates the importance of our commitment to supporting those who defend human rights, whether in Russia or in exile. FIDH will continue to pursue this commitment more than ever.”

Under the “undesirable organisations” law, adopted in 2015 and further tightened in 2021 and 2024, the Prosecutor General’s Office has the power to declare as “undesirable” any foreign or international organisation that is deemed “a threat to the foundations of the constitutional order of the Russian Federation, the defense capability of the country or the security of the state“.

Concretely, “undesirable organisations” are banned from engaging in any activities inside Russia, including the publication or dissemination of any information, carrying out financial transactions, and providing financial or other assistance to local organisations and individuals. The “participation in the activities” of an “undesirable organisation” is subject to administrative and criminal liability, including up to four years of imprisonment. Any Russian citizen or organisation cooperating with an “undesirable organisation“, even if residing outside Russia, faces administrative penalties and, in the case of individuals, criminal liability. In practice, the vague wording of the law has led to the punishment of individuals simply for reposting information disseminated by an “undesirable organisation” on social media platforms, even if the original posts predated the organisation’s designation as “undesirable“.

https://www.fidh.org/en/region/europe-central-asia/russia/russia-bans-the-oldest-worldwide-human-rights-movement

“For over three decades, Human Rights Watch’s work on post-Soviet Russia has pressed the government to uphold human rights and freedoms,” said Philippe Bolopion, executive director at Human Rights Watch. “Our work hasn’t changed, but what’s changed, dramatically, is the government’s full-throttled embrace of dictatorial policies, its staggering rise in repression, and the scope of the war crimes its forces are committing in Ukraine.” 

The Prosecutor General’s Office made the decision to ban Human Rights Watch on November 10, as follows from the Ministry of Justice’s register of “undesirable” organizations updated today. The official reasons for the designation are not known.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/11/28/russia-government-designates-human-rights-watch-undesirable

and https://ilga.org/news/russia-ilga-world-undesirable/

Ugandan human rights lawyer Sarah Bireete detained ahead of elections

January 8, 2026

Sarah Bireete was arrested on December 30, 2025, after police and military personnel surrounded her home in Kampala. Shortly before her arrest, she posted on X, “My house is under siege by police and army”. As reported by East and Horn of Africa Election Observation Network (E-HORN) on 2 January 2026

The Police Reforms Working Group (PRWG) Kenya has called for the immediate release of Uganda’s human rights lawyer and civil society leader, Dr Sarah Bireete, warning that her detention ahead of the January elections threatens civic space and undermines democratic processes.

The Uganda Police confirmed her arrest in a brief social media post, stating she would be produced in court “in due course”. Police spokesperson Rachel Kawaala described the detention as part of “ongoing operations” but offered no further details.

“Dr Bireete is widely recognised for her unwavering passion for the protection of civil liberties, her lifelong quest for justice, and her steadfast commitment to democracy, a clarion call that has consistently advanced accountable governance across the region,” the Group said.

Bireete currently serves as Executive Director of the Centre for Constitutional Governance (CCG), Chairperson of the East Africa Civil Society Forum (EACSOF), and Chairperson of the Horn of Africa Election Observers Network (E-HORN).

PRWG Kenya described these roles as reflective of her integrity, credibility and long-standing contributions to human rights, electoral integrity and democratic governance.

The group urged Ugandan authorities to respect civil liberties, the rule of law and democratic processes.

“Respect for civil liberties, rule of law and democratic processes is fundamental to ensuring free, fair, and transparent elections,” PRWG Kenya said.

The statement also highlighted that Uganda’s constitution, under Article 23, guarantees that anyone arrested must be promptly informed of the reasons for their detention, a step that has not been followed in Dr Bireete’s case.

Bireete’s arrest follows her recent advocacy for Starlink, a satellite internet service operated by SpaceX, as a safeguard against potential internet shutdowns during the elections.

In a post dated December 23, 2025, she wrote, “Dear Ugandans, are you thinking of ways to navigate internet shutdown during elections? Starlink got you covered.”

https://eastleighvoice.co.ke/uganda/263965/rights-group-demands-release-of-ugandan-human-rights-lawyer-sarah-bireete?amp=1

As the country approaches general elections on 15 January 2026, UN experts* today warned that the pervasive climate of fear in Uganda, marked by allegations of enforced disappearance, the use of disproportionate force against political opposition supporters, and the intensified suppression of civil society and independent media, is not conducive to peaceful elections.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/01/uganda-un-experts-urge-stronger-human-rights-safeguards-ahead-2026-elections

https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/01/08/arrest-of-ugandan-activist-ahead-of-elections-spells-trouble

https://english.news.cn/20260118/c21ddafd3d1c4ca6964cd2d5270eddd8/c.html

https://eastleighvoice.co.ke/news/273392/un-rapporteur-publishes-letter-faulting-uganda-over-oyoo-njagi-abductions?amp=1

and

https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/activist-bireete-granted-bail-not-to-leave-uganda-without-court-s-permission-5340756

https://www.omct.org/en/resources/urgent-interventions/uganda-arbitrary-arrest-and-pre-trial-detention-of-eight-environmental-rights-defenders

and then on 28 January 2026: https://76crimes.com/2026/02/09/uganda-sarah-bireete-freed/

Human Rights Defenders in Greece on trial for baseless charges for assisting people on the move; and end up being acquitted.

November 21, 2025

On 18 November 2025 Frontline published an urgent appeal that I – as a resident of Greece – with some shame share [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/07/28/human-rights-defenders-in-greece-my-adopted-country-not-doing-well/]:

On 4 December 2025, 24 human rights defenders, including Seán Binder and Athanasios (Nassos) Karakitsos, will appear before the Mytilene Court of Appeals, on the island of Lesvos. This comes seven years (!!) after their initial arrests. The human rights defenders are facing felony charges of ‘membership of a criminal organisation’, ‘facilitation of the entry of third country nationals into the country’, and ‘money laundering’. The charges stem from work carried out by the defenders in Greece between 2016 and 2018, where they assisted people on the move whose lives were at risk while trying to reach safety to the island of Lesvos. If convicted, they face up to 20 years of imprisonment.

Seán Binder and Athanasios (Nassos) Karakitsos are migrant rights defenders who worked with Emergency Response Center International (ERCI) between 2016 and 2018. The humanitarian work carried out by ERCI was extensive, and included helping more than 1000 people reach safety, organising workshops and swimming classes for migrant children in the Kara Tepe camp, and providing residents in the Moria camp with medical assistance. ERCI was registered as a non-governmental organisation and regularly cooperated with Greek authorities, including with the Greek Coast Guard on rescue operations. The organisation was dissolved after the criminalisation of its members and volunteers.

In September 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, delivered on 13 January 2023, to dismiss four misdemeanour charges of ‘forgery’, ‘espionage’, ‘possession of unlicensed radio’ and ‘infringement of state secrets’ faced by Seán Binder and seven other non-Greek speaking defenders. This was due to procedural flaws, including key documents, such as the indictments, having not been translated for the accused. In January 2024, the remaining sixteen human rights defenders, including Athanasios (Nassos) Karakitsos, were acquitted of the same charges. [https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/11/17/greeces-mistaken-deterrence-migrants-and-aid-workers-facing-heavy-prison-sentences/]

On 21 August 2018, Lesvos Police arrested Seán Binder after he attended the police station voluntarily, having learned that another human rights defender had been arrested earlier that day. In the following days, they also arrested Athanasios (Nassos) Karakitsos, the field director of ERCI at the time. The human rights defenders were kept in pre-trial detention for more than one hundred days, accused of ‘people smuggling’, ‘money laundering’, ‘espionage’, and ‘membership of a criminal organisation.’ In December 2018, the human rights defenders were conditionally released on bail.

The upcoming trial is the second court case since 2018 initiated against the 24 human rights defenders based on their work, aiding, assisting and saving the lives of migrants and refugees, who were trapped in the Aegean Sea between Türkiye and Greece.

Front Line Defenders calls on the authorities in Greece to:

Immediately and unconditionally drop all charges against Seán Binder and Athanasios (Nassos) Karakitsos, and the other 22 human rights defenders who are also on trial;

  1. Cease the criminalisation of human rights defenders who peacefully defend the rights of the migrants and refugees, including the humanitarian assistance to save the lives of people stranded at the marine and land borders;
  2. Guarantee in all circumstances that all human rights defenders in Greece are able to carry
  3. out their legitimate human rights activities without fear of reprisals and free of all restrictions, including judicial harassment.

Download the urgent appeal

https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/case/human-rights-defenders-trial-baseless-charges-assisting-people-move

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerry/north-west-kerry-news/in-limbo-for-seven-years-kerry-man-sean-binder-to-face-trial-in-greece-over-humanitarian-work/a40232245.html

https://www.occrp.org/en/news/greek-court-to-hear-case-against-aid-workers-allegedly-smuggling-migrants

perhaps Tunisia can show the way: https://macaubusiness.com/tunisia-court-frees-ngo-workers-accused-of-helping-migrants

and then the good news:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/16/syrian-swimmer-sarah-mardini-cleared-by-greek-court-over-migrant-rescues

https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/01/15/humanitarians-cleared-of-bogus-charges-in-greece

https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/01/29/greek-immigration-bill-demonizes-civil-society

https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/02/06/greek-coast-guard-under-scrutiny-for-migrant-deaths

but it continue in 2026

https://euobserver.com/202747/greece-moves-to-arrest-nordic-aid-worker-supporting-migrants

and

https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/02/16/greece-continues-its-relentless-assault-on-civil-society

Transnational repression by China reaches New York

November 8, 2025

On 6 November 2025 Human Rights Watch issued a press release on how Chinese Police Harass Filmmakers, Families to Undermine Free Expression Abroad

9da2a6d2-e1fd-4b3d-a322-ba3c24f25b37
A still from Jiangnan Xu’s film “Friends from Jiangnan.” © Zhu Rikun

Chinese authorities harassed several dozen Chinese film directors and producers, as well as their families in China, causing them to pull films from the inaugural IndieChina Film Festival in New York City. On November 6, 2025, the festival’s organizer, Zhu Riku, announced that the film festival, scheduled for November 8-15, had been “suspended.”

The Chinese government reached around the globe to shut down a film festival in New York City,” said Yalkun Uluyol, China researcher at Human Rights Watch. “This latest act of transnational repression demonstrates the Chinese government’s aim to control what the world sees and learns about China.

Chiang Seeta, a Chinese artist and activist, reported that nearly all participating directors in China faced intimidation. Even directors abroad, including those who are not Chinese nationals, reported that their relatives and friends in China were receiving threatening calls from police, said Chiang.

On November 1, the organizers issued an announcement on social media saying they had received messages from some film directors and producers and their families about Chinese government harassment: “We are deeply concerned about the situation. … [I]f you are under pressure not to attend the festival … we fully understand and respect it.” By November 4, more than two-thirds of participating films had cancelled their screenings.

After the festival was suspended, Zhu issued a statement that the decision was not out of fear, but rather to “stop harassment of … directors, guests, former staff, and volunteers associated with the festival, including my friends and family.”

Independent film festivals in China have faced intensifying crackdowns over the past decade, Human Rights Watch said. The Chinese authorities have shut down all three major independent film festivals in China: Yunfest, founded in 2003; the China Independent Film Festival, founded in 2003; and Beijing Independent Film Festival, founded in 2006.

When the authorities shut down the last screening of the Beijing Independent Film Festival in 2014, they cut off electricity from the venue, confiscated documents from the organizer’s office, and forced the organizers to sign a paper promising not to hold the festival. Many festival organizers have tried without success to adapt, for instance by changing their format to screenings at multiple venues.

The 14th China Independent Film Festival was shuttered in 2018, the last time such a festival took place in China.

A court in January 2025 sentenced Chen Pinlin, known as Plato, to three-and-a-half years in prison for allegedly “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” after he made a documentary about the “white paper protests” during Covid-19 lockdowns. Transnational repression can be defined as government efforts to silence or deter dissent by committing human rights abuses against their own nationals living abroad, their families at home, or members of the country’s diaspora. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2025/10/17/un-report-highlights-chinas-targeting-of-human-rights-defenders-abroad/]

The Chinese government’s transnational repression of the arts has not been limited to film. Chinese officials interfered with an exhibition in Bangkok and censored artwork by Uyghur, Tibetan, and Hongkonger artists in August.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/11/07/china-authorities-shut-down-film-festival-in-new-york

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/agenda/briefing/2025-11-12/10/combating-transnational-repression-of-human-rights-defenders

https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/un-experts-warn-of-surge-in-transnational-repression-targeting-defenders-from-china-and-southeast-asia

Incredible number of NGOs (3700!!) condemn attacks on civil society in USA

October 9, 2025

Human Rights Watch stands with civil society and signed this letter, alongside more than 3700 other organizations, condemning the Trump administration’s attacks. It is a testament to our community’s solidarity.

“We are a coalition of nonprofit and nonpartisan organizations formed to champion causes dear to all Americans. We work in communities across the country to protect our air and water, our right to vote, to worship, and to organize; we fight for consumers, workers, and our children; we advocate for civil and human rights at home and abroad; we have made it safer to drive on our roads, easier to start a business, and healthier to live in our cities. We span the full ideological spectrum. And today, we stand together for our democracy and in solidarity with the nonprofit groups unjustly and illegally targeted by the Trump administration, including in a new September 25 presidential memorandum. 

We of course unequivocally reject political violence. But we won’t mince words. No president–Democrat or Republican–should have the power to punish nonprofit organizations simply because he disagrees with them. That is not about protecting Americans or defending the public interest. It is about using unchecked power to silence opposition and voices he disagrees with. That is un-American and flies in the face of the Constitution, including the First Amendment bar on targeting organizations for their advocacy. 

Charities perform crucial functions in every community across our country, including providing healthcare, housing, education, religious services, food and water, and so much more. Like other nonprofits, the organizations threatened by President Trump have a mission to serve the public good and are composed of everyday people fighting for dignity, safety, and opportunity. 

This attack on nonprofits is not happening in a vacuum, but as a part of a wholesale offensive against organizations and individuals that advocate for ideas or serve communities that the president finds objectionable, and that seek to enforce the rule of law against the federal government. Whether the target is a church, an environmental or good government group, a refugee assistance organization, university, a law firm, or a former or current government official, weaponizing the executive branch to punish their speech or their views is illegal and wrong. It is also an attack on the very notion that government power must serve the people, not those in office. 

Charitable organizations serve our communities in various ways, playing a central role in public protection, health, accountability, anti-discrimination, and in creating the moral fabric of our nation. That is, of course, precisely why this administration is targeting them. They know that the organizations they are attacking exist to lift up the voices of everyday Americans and shine the spotlight of accountability on those who seek to abuse power. 

Political violence is unacceptable. But efforts by the president of the United States to defund, discredit, and dismantle nonprofit groups he simply disagrees with are reprehensible and dangerous—a violation of a fundamental freedom in America. This Administration is trying to bully people into silence but speaking out is, and has always been, our collective mission. We stand with those wrongly targeted and with each other. No exceptions.”

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/10/08/an-open-letter-rejecting-presidential-attacks-on-nonprofit-organizations

https://www.commondreams.org/news/letitia-james-indicted

se also: https://www.fidh.org/en/region/americas/usa/united-states-plunges-into-unlawful-rule-and-extrajudicial-killings

First assessment of Human Rights under the Trump Administration by HRW

March 5, 2025

Amy Braunschweiger speaks with Human Rights Watch’s US Program Director Tanya Greene, who leads research within the United States, as well as Washington Director Sarah Yager, who advocates with the US government on global issues, about the slew of executive orders President Trump has issued, the damage to human rights his administration’s policies have already done, and where we go from here.The text – reproduced in full below, was published on 3 March 2025.

See also: https://youtu.be/N_hCOCVuJsA?si=t2lUEb3Fw8XWH7Vo where UN human rights chief Volker Türk has voiced deep concerns for hostilities happening across the globe, including a “fundamental shift in direction” of the US. He expressed concern over a peace deal in the Russia-Ukraine war that did not involve Kyiv.

President Trump has been governing by executive orders. Could you give us some quick background on executive orders and what they do?

TG: An executive order is a presidential directive regarding federal government operations and policies. Their reach and power can be extraordinary, including because they often impact federally funded non-governmental entities, like universities and housing providers. Executive orders should be based on existing law, and are often operationalized through agency action, such as the departments of labor, homeland security, or education.

Many of Trump’s executive orders are facing court challenges arguing that they are unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. For example, his executive order denying citizenship to children of undocumented people born in the United States has been stayed by the courts pending a legal challenge. It is widely seen as a clear violation of the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

Although the implementation of executive orders is not always automatic, widespread responses have been preemptive, anticipatory, and fearful, which is likely what Trump intended in this blitz of actions.

SY: These executive orders show how split the United States is. In 2016, Trump’s executive orders reversed former President Barack Obama’s. Then Joe Biden reversed Trump’s orders. And today, Trump reverses Biden’s. But this isn’t typical. It shows the divisive nature of US politics.

It’s also not typical that so many of these current orders are harmful to human rights.

Many of Trump’s executive orders harm human rights, both in the United States and around the world. Meanwhile, billionaire Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency,” or DOGE, is laying off masses of federal employees at various agencies. What are we most concerned about inside the US?

TG:  Whatever its supposed intentions, DOGE is slashing and burning to the point that a growing number of federal agencies are crippled by lack of resources, staff, and competent leadership. DOGE is also taking down websites and data that we rely on, both as human rights defenders and as the general public seeks information. For instance, hospitals across the country can no longer obtain important public health data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Human Rights Watch is investigating the treatment of immigrant children, racial justice impacts, environmental concerns, healthcare access, rights of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender people, and reproductive freedoms. You have a president that says diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) is “dangerous, demeaning and immoral” but offers no ways to fight racial injustice, and yet one of his executive orders allows for resettling certain supposedly-persecuted white South Africans in the US, just after an earlier order closed the refugee admissions door on all other refugees worldwide.

Immigration enforcement raids and other enforcement activities in the last month have targeted all immigrant communities, disproportionately those of color. Enforcement has targeted immigrants regardless of how long they have been in the United States and without considering their contributions to their communities, as well as people in the process of an immigration proceeding, where a judge decides if they can stay in the US.  As a result, there are communities in which many people are terrified and some avoid going to church or the hospital, and many children don’t go to school.

There is also an order now in place defunding reproductive justice and abortion access both in the US and around the world.

The stock value of GEO Group, a company the US government has long contracted with to run private immigration detention facilities, went up immediately after Trump’s election, presumably in anticipation of ramped-up immigration detention in private facilities. Human Rights Watch has long called for investment in community-based public safety solutions rather than more prisons.

What are we worried about in terms of US foreign policy?

SY: The foreign aid freeze and termination of thousands of State Department grants is a key focus for us right now, though of course there are new concerns that rise up every day. The aid being stopped has had awful consequences around the world. People will die needlessly because of this one policy decision.

There is also an impact on civil and political rights abroad. Russian independent media outlets, which have been doing an amazing job exposing the Kremlin’s repression and debunking the official propaganda, received significant US-funding. Terminating aid will severely undercut that work. The same thing with Belarusian independent media.

Many human rights defenders targeted by their governments lived in US-funded safe houses, which are now closed.

Small human rights groups, some the only ones in their country, are on the verge of closing. We’re going to see the ripple effects and deaths in populations unable to stand up for their freedoms without this funding and the political support the United States gave.

Aside from the aid freeze, Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fired the military’s top lawyers. Military lawyers are supposed to ensure US military operations abide by international law, the laws of war.  This could mean far more harm to civilians, who are supposed to be protected, when the US military is in an armed conflict. In fact, Trump also just lifted limits on US commanders authorizing airstrikes and special operations raids outside of war zones, which rolls back 20 years of work to ensure only combatants are targeted and only in recognized armed conflicts.

These kinds of actions will have long-term ramifications on how people around the world view the United States.

When there’s so much happening in a short period of time, how does Human Rights Watch approach its work?

TG: We remember our priorities and how we can make a difference. There’s a lot of noise and distraction so we have to be thoughtful about putting limited resources into efforts that have impact. Our research on immigration raids or deportation flights might be used in partner litigation; our interviews with witnesses to abuses help support policymakers advocating in support of human rights.

As an organization with colleagues who deal with repressive states and authoritarian regimes globally, those of us working in the US are informed of effective strategies and lessons learned as we encounter them here. And we can share this information with partners on the ground and policymakers, too.

SY: We were not caught off guard by this. We were able to plan. I do think the speed, the apparent vindictiveness, and the level of chaos of Trump’s first month in office shocked many people. But we planned for this. We had a strategy that we are now implementing. We are going to engage with every policymaker that we can. We know for a fact many on both sides of the aisle don’t agree with what is happening. We are going to document the Trump administration’s impact on human rights around the world, and we’re going to try and block or end those policies. We are working together with our partners, some of whom focus on strategic litigation – litigation designed to advance respect for and protection of rights.

How is Human Rights Watch responding to this? What is our work inside the US focusing on?

TG: All the areas of work I mentioned are under attack by the new administration.

The immigration space is fraught with misinformation that stokes fears and prejudices, but we counter that with fact-finding and with the stories of the real people who are harmed by dehumanizing rhetoric and policies.  We will build on our track record of careful research on problematic immigration policies from previous administrations, including the first Trump administration, exposing harmful policies such as inhuman and degrading immigration detention and the separation of migrant children from their parents. We are continuing this work, documenting what’s happening to people and using it to advocate for change.

We’ve seen US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deporting Iranian families with children to Panama with an agreement that the US will pay for Panama to deport them to Iran. A country cannot lawfully send Iranian asylum seekers to Panama without hearing their claims and just be done with it – sending them back to a country to face persecution violates international refugee law. The administration is also preparing to deport unaccompanied immigrant children – not just cruel and terrifyingly dangerous, but a human rights violation.

In the democracy space, some US voters seem ready to trade freedoms away for supposed gains that are ultimately long-term losses, like increased surveillance, that will embolden and enable bad actors in government.

In the racial equality space, we’ve been working on education, and that is a battle zone. We are doing research to expose state-level policies that censor and distort school curricula in ways that are inconsistent with human rights norms—measures that target the histories and experiences of Black, Indigenous and LGBT people in particular. If those efforts succeed they will be exported to other states.

How is our work responding to changes in the foreign policy space?

SY: The Trump executive order putting in place a sanctions program targeting the International Criminal Court has already done damage. We are working to convince the Senate not to legislate more sanctions, and to make sure other governments step up to defend the court from US pressure.

We continue to focus on some of the conflicts where we think the Trump administration could play a valuable role. When it comes to Sudan, where the US government itself said a genocide took place, the US could pressure allies like the United Arab Emirates to stop supplying weapons to the Rapid Support Forces, one of the abusive warring parties there.

President Trump says he wants to be a peacemaker. There are ways he could do that, but so far we are seeing very worrying foreign policy proposals. For example, Ukraine’s future is being discussed by the United States and Russia without Ukraine, and in Gaza, Trump has proposed permanently and forcibly displacing the Palestinian population, which would amount to crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

Some people would say there is no way to engage with this administration on human rights.

SY: Engaging is certainly more challenging. But we don’t want to just walk away from our advocacy with US officials. Then you give up the power of the human rights movement, and any opportunity to change the minds of policymakers. There are still people in this administration who care about human rights. They may talk about it differently, they may be focused on particular places or issues. We’ll start there and make our case for the US role in lessening suffering and protecting rights around the world, not only because it’s good but because it’s smart and it’s in the US interest.

And there’s Congress, which needs to step up as a check on the power of the White House. We will continue to work with House representatives and Senators on both sides of the aisle.

TG:  The fear that the administration is cultivating among the public is dangerous, and information is so critical in response. That’s why we respond with research, arming people with facts. We know there are members of congress and state leadership like governors that support human rights. They are also empowered by our work.

What can people in the US do in this situation?

SY: If we want to see rights on the agenda, we need to see people in the United States reaching out to their representatives in Congress. They were elected to bring to Washington the needs and desires of their people.

Also, if you see a person acting with courage in these difficult times, thank them. We’re going so fast, and we push and yell and scream, and then when a policymaker, a celebrity, or the head of a local food bank steps out and does the right thing, we move on. Stop for a minute and recognize the people doing the right thing. Make the space for them to keep doing that important work of holding the line.

TG: Also, you too can be that person. Share the information. Have the conversations with your friends and family, provide what you know, encourage exchange of real information. It’s about building community. One of the strongest weapons we have is our unity, and we can each do something to build that.

Religious communities and school groups and community centers, there are many places we can plug in to make a difference. Support your local homeless shelter or food pantry. Sponsor or reach out to refugees and immigrants living in your localities. I think the big risk is feeling powerless and unplugging. I know the temptation is great. We each don’t have to do everything. But if we all do something, that’s more than nothing. And don’t be afraid to hear “no” or lose on your first try. No is the first step to yes.

And remember that there have been people in this country who have been targeted for abuse and destruction by the government their entire time in this country. Us as Black people, Indigenous people. And we’ve not only survived but thrived, and there are lessons to be learned from those struggles. And for the rest of the US population, we are a nation of mostly immigrants who came here to escape ills like human rights abuses or poverty. So gain strength from that.

We’re doing this work for the next generation as well as the present. Not only are we trying to protect rights for them, we are also modeling what to do when you have problems and face difficulties.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/03/03/interview-snapshot-rights-under-trump-administration

Member states back International Criminal Court

June 19, 2024

On 17 June 2024, Maria Elena Vignoli, Senior Counsel, International Justice Program of HRW, reported on several statements by States to rejects recent intimidation efforts.

Ninety-three member countries of the International Criminal Court (ICC) have declared their “unwavering support” for the court in the face of recent threats. The June 14 statement by an unprecedented number of ICC members across the globe follows a slew of threats, particularly after ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan announced on May 20 that he was seeking arrest warrants against two senior Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, along with three Hamas leaders.

The joint statement reconfirmed ICC members’ support for the court “as an independent and impartial judicial institution” and their committment to defending the ICC, its officials, and those cooperating with it from any political interference and pressure. It follows similar expressions of support by the Presidency of the ICC Assembly of States Partiesseveral ICC member countries—including UN Security Council members—the high representative of the European UnionUN special procedures, and nongovernmental organizations.

In April, amid speculation ICC warrants for crimes committed in Gaza were imminent, 12 US senators threatened to sanction Khan should he pursue cases against top Israeli officials. Netanyahu also called on governments to prevent the court from issuing warrants. Khan’s office denounced the threats, noting that the ICC can also prosecute individuals for obstructing justice. [see also earlier: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/02/19/large-group-of-ngos-call-on-biden-administration-to-repeal-icc-sanctions/]

On June 4, after the warrant applications were announced, the US House of Representatives passed a bill aimed at imposing sanctions against the ICC, its officials, and those supporting investigations at the court involving US citizens or allies. The bill is now under consideration in the US Senate. The proposed law is reminiscent of the sanctions imposed by President Donald Trump on the previous ICC prosecutor to intimidate the court from pursuing cases against US and Israeli personnel for crimes committed in Afghanistan and Palestine. President Joe Biden revoked those sanctions in 2021 and has so far opposed the current bill.

The ICC is also in Russia’s crosshairs. In 2023, Russian authorities issued arrest warrants against Khan and six ICC judges after the ICC issued an arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin and another Russian official for war crimes committed in Ukraine. Russian lawmakers also enacted a law criminalizing cooperation with the ICC.

In both the Palestine and Ukraine investigations, ICC officials are simply doing their job. The joint statement sends a strong message that ICC members have the court’s back and will not bow to efforts to undermine its independence.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/06/17/international-criminal-court-members-speak-out

Q&A: Transnational Repression

June 14, 2024

On 12 June 2024, Human Rights Watch published a useful, short “questions-and-answers” document which outlines key questions on the global trend of transnational repression. 

Illustration of a map being used to bind someone's mouth
© 2024 Brian Stauffer for Human Rights Watch
  1. What is transnational repression?
  2. What tactics are used?
  3. Is transnational repression a new phenomenon?  
  4. Where is transnational repression happening? 
  5. Do only “repressive” states commit transnational repression?
  6. Are steps being taken to recognize and address transnational repression? 
  7. What should be done? 

What is transnational repression?

The term “transnational repression” is increasingly used to refer to state actors reaching beyond their borders to suppress or stifle dissent by targeting human rights defenders, journalists, government critics and opposition activists, academics and others, in violation of their human rights. Particularly vulnerable are nationals or former nationals, members of diaspora communities and those living in exile. Many are asylum seekers or refugees in their place of exile, while others may be at risk of extradition or forced return. Back home, a person’s family members and friends may also be targeted, by way of retribution and with the aim of silencing a relative in exile or forcing their return.

Transnational repression can have far-reaching consequences, including a chilling effect on the rights to freedom of expression and association. While there is no formal legal definition, the framing of transnational repression, which encompasses a wide range of rights abuses, allows us to better understand it and propose victim-centered responses.

What tactics are used?

Documented tactics of transnational repression include killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, unlawful removals, online harassment, the use of digital surveillance including spyware, targeting of relatives, and the abuse of consular services.  Interpol’s Red Notice system has also been used as a tool of transnational repression, to facilitate unlawful extraditions. Interpol has made advances in improving its vetting systems, yet governments continue to abuse the Red Notice system by publishing unlawful notices seeking citizens who have fled abroad on spurious charges. This leaves targets vulnerable to arrest and return to their country of origin to be mistreated, even after they have fled to seek safety abroad.

Is transnational repression a new phenomenon?

No, the practice of governments violating human rights beyond their borders is not new. Civil society organizations have been documenting such abuses for decades. What is new, however, is the growing recognition of transnational repression as more than a collection of grave incidents, but also as an increasing phenomenon of global concern, requiring global responses. What is also new is the increasing access to and use of sophisticated technology to harass, threaten, surveil and track people no matter where they are. This makes the reach of transnational repression even more pervasive. 

Where is transnational repression happening? 

Transnational repression is a global phenomenon. Cases have been documented in countries and regions around the world. The use of technology such as spyware increases the reach of transnational repression, essentially turning an infected device, such as a mobile phone, into a portable surveillance tool, allowing targeted individuals to be spied on and tracked around the world. 

Do only “repressive” states commit transnational repression?

While many authoritarian states resort to repressive tactics beyond their own borders, any government that seeks to silence dissent by targeting critics abroad is committing transnational repression. Democratic governments have also contributed to cases of transnational repression, for example through the provision of spyware, collaborating with repressive governments to deny visas or facilitate returns, or relying upon flawed Interpol Red Notices that expose targeted individuals to risk.

Are steps being taken to recognize and address transnational repression? 

Increasingly, human rights organizations, UN experts and states are documenting and taking steps to address transnational repression.

For example, Freedom House has published several reports on transnational repression and maintains an online resource documenting incidents globally. Human Rights Watch has published reports, including one outlining cases of transnational repression globally and another focusing on Southeast Asia. Amnesty International has published a report on transnational repression in Europe. Many other nongovernmental organizations are increasingly producing research and reports on the issue. In her report on journalists in exile, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression dedicated a chapter to transnational repression. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights used the term in a June 2024 statement.

Certain governments are increasingly aware of the harms posed by transnational repression. Some are passing legislation to address the problem, while others are signing joint statements or raising transnational repression in international forums. However, government responses are often piecemeal, and a more cohesive and coordinated approach is needed. 

What should be done? 

Governments should speak out and condemn all cases of transnational repression, including by their friends and allies. They should take tangible steps to address transnational repression, including by adopting rights-respecting legal frameworks and policies to address it. Governments should put victims at the forefront of their response to these forms of repression. They should be particularly mindful of the risks and fears experienced by refugee and asylum communities. They should investigate and appropriately prosecute those responsible. Interpol should continue to improve vetting process by subjecting governments with a poor human rights record to more scrutiny when they submit Red Notices. Interpol should be transparent on which governments are continually abusing the Red Notice system, and limit their access to the database.  

At the international level, more can be done to integrate transnational repression within existing human rights reporting, and to mandate dedicated reporting on cases of transnational repression, trends, and steps needed to address it.

see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2024/03/19/transnational-repression-human-rights-watch-and-other-reports/

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/06/12/qa-transnational-repression