By Justin Michal

The Human Rights and Alliance of Civilizations Room at the Palais des Nations in Geneva was charged with tension. As I sat among diplomats and human rights advocates at the 58th Session of the Human Rights Council, discussions unfolded with intensity. Delegates from nations embroiled in conflict presented impassioned testimonies, condemning abuses in war zones, the persecution of minorities and the suppression of fundamental freedoms. Yet, as I observed the proceedings, amidst the fractious debates and power struggles, something more striking than the spoken words lingered: absence. The seat that should have been occupied by the United States – a nation that has long declared itself a beacon of democracy and human rights – was empty. Why was the United States missing from this crucial global dialogue? Furthermore, what does its retreat mean for the future of human rights?

The absence of U.S. representation at the Human Rights Council is not merely a diplomatic oversight – it is arguably a stark signal of the nation’s waning commitment to the values it espouses on the world stage. This disengagement comes at a time when human rights are under unprecedented assault, with autocratic regimes gaining ground, war crimes proliferating and democracy in retreat. For a country that once championed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, withdrawing from these discussions represents an abdication of responsibility. However, is this merely a reflection of shifting foreign policy priorities, or does it indicate a more fundamental reckoning with the role the U.S. seeks to play in the international order?

To understand the significance of this absence, we must place it within a broader historical and political context. The U.S. has had a tumultuous relationship with the Human Rights Council, often criticizing it as a forum that disproportionately targets allies while giving a pass to authoritarian states. Indeed, the council’s credibility has been questioned, with countries notorious for human rights abuses securing seats and wielding influence over resolutions. In 2018, and again in 2025, the U.S. withdrew from the council under the Trump administration, citing alleged bias against Israel and the council’s failure to implement meaningful reforms. Bias in the United Nations (UN) – the world’s largest intergovernmental institution – often stems from the political interests of powerful member states, geopolitical alliances, funding influences and the structure of voting blocs that shape resolutions and policy decisions. Though the Biden administration re-engaged in 2021, this renewed participation was often tepid, more reactive than proactive.

The absence suggests a more profound reluctance to reassert leadership in a multilateral framework where ideological adversaries, such as China and Russia, are increasingly shaping the discourse. In contrast, China has remained actively engaged in the council’s proceedings, using its platform to shape the narrative on human rights despite facing multiple accusations of abuse from member states, including allegations of repression in Xinjiang, crackdowns on dissent in Hong Kong and restrictions on freedoms by means of political imprisonment within its borders.

On the other side of the debate, critics argue that the U.S.’s selective engagement in human rights discussions undermines its credibility. Opting out of difficult conversations cedes moral authority and allows competing powers to dictate the terms of global human rights policy. The council’s flaws are undeniable, but disengagement is not reform. The only way to make the institution more effective is through persistent participation, strategic diplomacy and principled leadership.

The consequences of this retreat are profound. Without the presence of the United States, voices advocating for democratic governance and fundamental freedoms are increasingly marginalized. Autocratic regimes gain more significant influence, crafting narratives that serve their political agendas while eroding universal human rights norms. Moreover, human rights defenders around the world – activists, journalists and persecuted minorities – lose a crucial ally. If the U.S. is unwilling to champion its cause in international forums, who will?

There is a path forward, but it requires a decisive commitment. The U.S. must recognize that human rights are not an accessory to foreign policy but its foundation. Re-engaging with the Human Rights Council should not be a symbolic gesture but a strategic effort to reclaim a leadership role. It should advocate for necessary reforms while ensuring that principles are not compromised for political expediency. By doing so, the U.S. can counterbalance the growing influence of authoritarian states and reaffirm its commitment to the values it has long proclaimed.

At the Palais des Nations, the debates raged on, but the United States’ absence spoke volumes. Silence, after all, is not neutrality. It is a choice. And in the battle for human rights, that choice has real-world consequences. If the United States truly believes in its own rhetoric – that democracy and fundamental freedoms are worth defending – it cannot afford to remain a silent spectator.

Justin Michal recently returned from an exposure visit to the United Nations. A Grayling native and veteran, he is a Republican candidate for Michigan’s 1st Congressional District.