Democratic administrations tend to engage enthusiastically with the council, advocating for its reform and strengthening its role. In contrast, Republican administrations view it with scepticism and suspicion, often opting for withdrawal as if it were an institution unworthy of engagement.
One of the most striking contradictions is that while one administration may decide to withdraw entirely, citing bias and inefficacy, its successor might label the very same decision a strategic mistake and rejoin, arguing that the US best exerts its influence from within.
This raises fundamental questions: if the council is so biased that withdrawal is necessary, why does rejoining it later become urgent? How can the US justify rejecting engagement at one moment only to claim that its absence weakens its influence at another?
These inconsistencies can only be understood against domestic political battles, where each party aligns its stance on the council with its ideological priorities. Democrats generally champion international institutions as part of their commitment to multilateralism. Republicans, on the other hand, who favour unilateralism and resist external constraints, often cast doubt on their effectiveness, viewing them as politicized platforms aimed at undermining Washington and its allies.
For Republican administrations, the goal is not merely to pressure the council toward reform but to weaken it altogether by stripping it of US support. In contrast, Democratic administrations, while acknowledging the council’s shortcomings, strive to improve it rather than dismantle it.
These conflicting perspectives manifest in foreign policy rhetoric. Republican administrations portray the council as hostile to American interests. Conversely, Democratic administrations emphasize the importance of active participation in shaping the global human rights agenda.
History offers few, if any, precedents for a country withdrawing from an international body due to perceived ineffectiveness, only to later rejoin because its absence was a mistake. Yet this pattern has become a defining characteristic of US policy toward the Human Rights Council.
President Trump’s renewed calls for US withdrawal further exacerbate the council’s existing challenges, particularly concerns over the politicization of its decisions. These calls send a broader signal to the world—especially to European allies—that human rights are no longer a priority for Washington. This contradicts global expectations of the United States as a leading advocate for democratic values.
Moreover, US withdrawal would significantly weaken American human rights organizations, which rely on official engagement to continue monitoring and documenting human rights violations worldwide.
Ultimately, this pattern of withdrawal and re-engagement underscores an undeniable reality: The United States remains aligned with Israeli policies that directly contradict international law and human rights conventions. As a result, any future American criticism of human rights violations elsewhere in the world will ring hollow—nothing more than a display of double standards unworthy of serious consideration.
*The writer is a member of the National Council for Human Rights.
Short link: