*Taylor J. Smith
What happens when a democratic country slides towards autocracy, blatantly violating human rights? Typically, certain mechanisms allow the international community to hold states accountable for wrongdoings.[1] However, the United States government took another step to avoid international cooperation by withdrawing from participating in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).[2] No democratically elected government has pursued such a path in the history of the UPR.[3] The United States’ refusal to participate in this review highlights the unfortunate reality of human rights within the United States and the ever-important need for international accountability.[4]
I. The Universal Periodic Review
The UPR is a United Nations (“UN”) process established in 2006, where all 193 UN Member States’ human rights records are reviewed every 4–5 years by other member states through the United Nations Human Rights Council.[5] After the review, reviewing states provide nonbinding recommendations.[6] The UPR is the only mechanism that reviews human rights issues and records for all countries on an equal basis.[7] The state under review can report on the state of human rights within its own borders, as well as actions taken to address concerns raised in previous UPR sessions.[8] The UPR promotes accountability, encourages governments to share good practices, and creates a public record of commitments to improve human rights.[9] For advocates it serves as a powerful tool to raise concerns, influence policy, and push for measurable change.[10]
The 50th session of the UPR, commencing in November, will review fourteen States: Andorra, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Honduras, Jamaica, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Panama, and the United States of America. Human rights are the central focus of the review, with concerns over political rights, enforced disappearances, indigenous peoples’ rights, abortion and reproductive rights, and LGBTQ+ rights, to name a few.[11]
II. Human Rights Concerns Surrounding Abortion Access in the United States
November 2025 will be the United States fourth review by the UPR, with previous sessions occurring in the 2010, 2015, and 2020 cycle, each highlighting extensive human rights concerns in the United States.[12] This year’s submission comes amid controversial Supreme Court decisions, drastic federal budget cuts, severe crackdowns on rights and civil liberties, and worsening sexual and reproductive health and rights at the forefront of concern.[13]
In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, stripping federal constitutional protections for abortion, enacting multiple trigger bans, and escalating attacks on reproductive rights.[14] Since Dobbs, nearly half of the states have enacted abortion bans that would have been unconstitutional under Roe, with 12 states banning abortion entirely and four additional states banning abortions as early as six weeks of gestation, leaving millions without access to care.[15]
In response to the 2022 Dobbs decision, a delegation of sexual and reproductive health organizations, researchers, and human rights advocates prepared a shadow report submission filled with testimony of the grave realities in the United States.[16] Louisiana and Texas were central to this submission due to their aggressive abortion bans.[17] Such restrictive bans, particularly in the South, force those seeking care to travel long(er) distances, seek medication through additional formal and informal means, or continue pregnancies against their will.[18] In the first six months of 2023, over 92,100 patients traveled out of state to seek abortion care, with the number of people traveling out of state for care jumping from 1 in 10 to 1 in 5 between 2020 and 2023.[19] Louisiana and Texas are increasingly criminalizing abortion seekers, healthcare providers, community members helping others access care, and those who experience miscarriages, with laws that impose harsh penalties, including fines, prosecution, and imprisonment.[20]
All forty-one states with an abortion ban recognize exceptions to preserve the pregnant person’s life, though not all exceptions protect patient health, through the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).[21] A tragic example of an abortion ban directly impacting the wellbeing of a pregnant person is Adriana Smith, a 30-year-old Georgia woman declared brain dead after suffering multiple blood clots.[22] Because she was eight weeks pregnant, Georgia’s ban required Smith to, despite her family’s wishes, remain on life support for 12 weeks until a cesarean delivered a 1 lb. 13 oz. baby.[23] Such restrictive laws place pregnant people at severe risk of harm, death, criminalization, and financial burden.
In late August 2025, civil society members traveled to the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland to take part in pre-session advocacy events.[24] They arrived with the goal of sharing the lived experiences of the nation being reviewed.[25] However, to their disappointment, their advocacy may fall on deaf ears.[26]
III. The United States Withdrawal and Its Implications
Historically, the United States has claimed to be a leader and supporter of international law and human rights.[27] However, this Administration has found international bodies to be ineffective, costly, and to reinforce biases.[28] In 2018, the United States, under the first Trump Administration, withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council halfway through the three-year term citing “chronic bias against Israel.”[29] President Trump later vowed to withdraw further from the international community, announcing an executive order withdrawing from United Nations organizations, specifically naming the Human Rights Council after former President Biden rejoined in 2021.[30] Understandably, concern has been raised over the effectiveness of international law by not just the United States.[31] Notably, states take issue with the enforcement mechanisms and efficiency of the UN to respond to conflict and human rights issues.[32] Nevertheless, the Administration’s decision to not participate in the UPR contributes to the concerning trend of isolationism from the international community.
Refusing to participate in the review process is an unprecedented action by a democratic state, leaving the international community with no blueprint and few remedies for such behavior.[33] The United States removing itself from this process undermines key instruments that were established to promote human rights and global relations.[34] Bethany Van Kampen Saravia, Senior Legal and Policy Advisor with Ipas US, shared her disappointment and concern over the actions taken by the US:
We traveled to the United Nations to shed a light on the egregious human rights violations occurring throughout the US and to sound the alarms that this administration is testing the rule of law as we know it in the US. If the US does not engage in this UPR process, it opens the floodgates for more human rights violations within its borders.[35]
A lack of international pressure and oversight can and will likely lead to further right rollbacks within the United States.[36] Refusing to participate also undermines the credibility and universality of the process and does so even more severely when such a major state, like the US, opts out of the process.[37] For the global standing of the US, such behavior erodes its credibility as a proponent of human rights and thus weakens its ability to call out and pressure other states when they violate human rights.[38] A former senior State Department official under the Obama Administration stated, “by withdrawing from the UPR, the U.S. gives gross human rights abusers like Iran, Russia, and Sudan an excuse to follow suit”.[39]
IV. Conclusion
The United States’ refusal to participate in the Universal Periodic Review is a significant blow to the accountability and credibility of the human rights system.[40] Past reviews have repeatedly raised concerns about equality, civil liberties, and sexual and reproductive rights, which remain under threat following Dobbs.[41] By withdrawing, the U.S. weakens its own standing and the process designed to hold all member states to account.[42] The upcoming review remains vital to reaffirm standards, record violations, and press for change, even in the face of U.S. silence.[43] Without international scrutiny at the highest stage of the UPR, the rollback of fundamental rights, especially reproductive rights, will likely only deepen.[44]
*Taylor is a second-year student at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a Staff Editor for Law Review. Additionally, she serves as Vice President of the International Law Society and Historian for the Black Law Students Association. A dedicated human rights advocate, Taylor is currently an extern with Ipas, a global reproductive rights organization, and a law clerk with the Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office in the Homicide Unit. She aims to bring her passion and advocacy skills to the field of international criminal law to protect and promote human rights.
[1] See International Human Rights Law, United Nations, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-and-mechanisms/international-human-rights-law (last visited Sep. 26, 2025) (“[M]echanisms and procedures for individual complaints or communications are available at the regional and international levels to help ensure that international human rights standards are indeed respected, implemented, and enforced.”).
[2] See Andrew R.C. Marshall & Olivia Le Poidevin, US Withdraws from Key UN Human Rights Report, Draws Criticism from Rights Advocates, Reuters, (Aug. 29, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-withdraws-key-un-human-rights-report-draws-criticism-rights-advocates-2025-08-28/ (noting that this action followed President Donald Trump’s executive order in February 2025 to disengage from the U.N. Human Rights Council).
[3] Trump Administration Seeks to Elude Human Rights Scrutiny by Not Participating in UN Human Rights Review, Amnesty Int’l (Aug. 29, 2025), https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/trump-administration-seeks-to-elude-human-rights-scrutiny-by-not-participating-in-un-human-rights-review/ (noting that while Israel failed to participate in review, it reversed course and submitted a national report). Nicaragua failed to deliver a report in March 2025. See Organisations Denounce Nicaragua’s Withdrawal from Human Rights Council, Absence From Universal Periodic Review, Int’l Serv. for Hum. Rts. (Mar. 26, 2025), https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/nicaragua-organisations-speak-out-against-the-states-decision-to-withdraw-from-the-human-rights-council-and-absent-itself-from-the-universal-periodic-review/.
[4] See infra Part III.
[5] Cycles of the Universal Periodic Review, United Nations Hum. Rts. Council, https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/upr/cycles-upr (last visited Oct. 6, 2025).
[6] The UPR process was established in March 2006 by U.N. General Assembly resolution 60/251. Universal Periodic Review, United Nations Hum. Rts. Council, https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/upr/upr-home (last visited Sep. 26, 2025).
[7] Basic Facts About the UPR, United Nations Hum. Rts. Council, https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/upr/basic-facts (last visited Sep. 26, 2025).
[8] Id.
[9] See id.
[10] See id.
[11] Universal Periodic Review, United Nations Hum. Rts. Council, https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/upr/upr-home (last visited Sep. 26, 2025).
[12] Universal Periodic Review – United States of America, United Nations Hum. Rts. Council, https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/upr/us-index (last visited Oct. 6, 2025).
[13] See Sandy Dornsife, Supreme Court 2025: Five Major Decisions Reshaping State Policy Nationwide, Multistate (July 15, 2025), https://www.multistate.us/insider/2025/7/15/supreme-court-2025-five-major-decisions-reshaping-state-policy-nationwide; The Hidden Impact of Federal Budget Cuts: What Families and States Stand to Lose, New Am. (July 1, 2025), https://www.newamerica.org/new-america/blog/the-hidden-impact-of-federal-budget-cuts-what-families-and-states-stand-to-lose/; President Trump’s First 100 Days: Attacks on Human Rights, Cruelty and Chaos, Amnesty Int’l (Apr. 30, 2025), https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/04/president-trumps-first-100-days-attacks-on-human-rights/; How Project 2025 Seeks to Obliterate Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, Guttmacher (Oct. 2024), https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/how-project-2025-seeks-obliterate-srhr.
[14] Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215, 215 (2022).
[15] Talia Curhan, State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy, Guttmacher (July 7, 2025), https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-abortion-bans; Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 113 (1973), overruled by, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org. 597 U.S. 215, 215 (2022).
[16] Trump Administration Defies Global Rights Review, Glob. Just. Ctr. (Aug. 28, 2025), https://www.globaljusticecenter.net/press/trump-administration-defies-global-rights-review/ (“The coalition in Geneva includes: Jane’s Due Process, The Holy H.O.E. Institute, Reproductive Justice Action Collective (ReJAC), Birthmark, Global Justice Center, Ipas, Guttmacher, Pregnancy Justice, Louisiana Abortion Fund, and Physicians for Human Rights.”).
[17] Id. (quoting delegation members who spoke about the reproductive healthcare crisis happening in Texas and Louisiana).
[18] Global Justice Center, et al., Diminishing Reproductive and Bodily Autonomy in the USA: Centering Lived Experiences, Glob. Just. Ctr. www.globaljusticecenter.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/USA-UPR-Submission.pdf (last visited Sep. 26, 2025).
[19] Kimya Forouzan, Amy Friedrich-Karnik & Isaac Maddow-Zimet, The High Toll of US Abortion Bans: Nearly One in Five Patients Now Traveling Out of State for Abortion Care, Guttmacher (Dec. 7, 2023), https://www.guttmacher.org/2023/12/high-toll-us-abortion-bans-nearly-one-five-patients-now-traveling-out-state-abortion-care.
[20] Mabel Felix, Laurie Sobel & Alina Salganicoff, Criminal Penalties for Physicians in State Abortion Bans, KFF (Mar. 4, 2025), https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/criminal-penalties-for-physicians-in-state-abortion-bans/.
[21] EMTALA is a federal act which requires emergency departments to take interventions to stabilize patients including those that necessitate an abortion, regardless of state abortion law. See 42 U.S.C.§ 1395dd; Lizzie Presser et al., Texas Banned Abortion. Then Sepsis Rates Soared, ProPublica (Feb. 20, 2025, at 05:00 ET), https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-abortion-ban-sepsis-maternal-mortality-analysis; see also Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe, Guttmacher (Sep. 24, 2025), https://states.guttmacher.org/policies/texas/abortion-policies (indicating which 41 states have abortion bans).
[22] Rebecca Cohen, Funeral Held for Brain-Dead Woman Kept Alive Due to Georgia Abortion Law, NBC News (June 28, 2025, at 18:34 ET), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/funeral-brain-dead-woman-kept-alive-due-abortion-law-held-saturday-geo-rcna215753.
[23] Id.
[24] Trump Administration Defies Global Rights Review, Global Just. Ctr. (Aug. 28, 2025), https://www.globaljusticecenter.net/press/trump-administration-defies-global-rights-review/.
[25] Id.
[26] Marshall & Le Poidevin, supra note 2.
[27] U.S. Achievements in Advancing Human Rights Globally, U.S. Mission to Int’l Orgs. in Geneva (Dec. 10, 2024), https://geneva.usmission.gov/2024/12/10/advancing-human-rights-globally/; Women Who Shaped the UDHR, United Nations: Human Rights Day, https://www.un.org/en/observances/human-rights-day/women-who-shaped-the-universal-declaration (last visited Oct. 6, 2025).
[28] Karen DeYoung, Trump Starves U.N. of Funding, as Global Body Faces Cash Crunch, The Wash. Post (Sep. 22, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/09/22/trump-united-nations-payments-speech/.
[29] Withdrawing the United States from and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to All International Organizations, The White House (Feb. 4, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-and-ending-funding-to-certain-united-nations-organizations-and-reviewing-united-states-support-to-all-international-organizations/; Colin Dwyer, U.S. Announces Its Withdrawal from UN Human Rights Council, NPR (June 19, 2018, at 17:09 ET), https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621435225/u-s-announces-its-withdrawal-from-u-n-s-human-rights-council.
[30] The White House, supra note 27; Richard Roth & Maegan Vazquez, US Officially Rejoins Controversial UN Human Rights Council, CNN (Oct. 14, 2021, at 20:03 ET), https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/14/politics/us-united-nations-human-rights-council.
[31] Richard Spencer, UN at 70: Five Greatest Successes and Failures, The Telegraph (Sep. 15, 2015, at 07:00 ET), https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/11700969/UN-at-70-Five-greatest-successes-and-failures.html; Kaleah Haddock et al., The UN Security Council, Council on Foreign Rels.: Backgrounders (Aug. 27, 2025, at 12:45 ET), https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/un-security-council.
[32] Kaleah Haddock et al., supra note 31; Oona A. Hathaway & Stewart Patrick, Can the UN Security Council Still Help Keep the Peace? Reassessing Its Role, Relevance, and Potential for Reform, Carnegie Endowment for Int’l Peace (Jul. 2, 2024), https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2024/07/can-un-security-council-still-help-keep-the-peace?lang=en.
[33] Trump Administration Defies Global Rights Review, Glob. Just. Ctr. (Aug. 28, 2025), https://www.globaljusticecenter.net/press/trump-administration-defies-global-rights-review/.
[34] Marshall & Le Poidevin, supra note 2.
[35] Trump Administration Defies Global Rights Review, Glob. Just. Ctr. (Aug. 28, 2025), https://www.globaljusticecenter.net/press/trump-administration-defies-global-rights-review/.
[36] Marshall & Le Poidevin, supra note 2.
[37] Marshall & Le Poidevin, supra note 2.
[38] Marshall & Le Poidevin, supra note 2.
[39] Marshall & Le Poidevin, supra note 2.
[40] Marshall & Le Poidevin, supra note 2; Glob. Just. Ctr., supra note 16.
[41] United Nations Hum. Rts. Council, supra note 12.
[42] Marshall & Le Poidevin, supra note 2.
[43] Glob. Just. Ctr., supra note 16.
[44] Glob. Just. Ctr., supra note 16. (The United Nations process is one of accountability. When a state isolates itself from the international community, there are few options to curtail violations of human rights if domestic measures fall short, as we are seeing with the United States.)
University of Baltimore Law Review 