(UNITED STATES) The United States 🇺🇸 government’s refusal to take part in the United Nations Universal Periodic Review scheduled for November 2025 has sparked a public rift with human rights groups, immigration lawyers, and community advocates.
The UPR—a peer review of every UN member state’s human rights record—has included U.S. participation since 2008, and Washington’s move to skip this cycle amounts to a boycott of a process designed to bring transparency and outside recommendations. As of September 5, 2025, the decision has triggered rising concern among immigrant communities and civil society leaders who say the absence of U.S. engagement will weaken oversight at a time of sweeping enforcement actions under the current administration.
Backlash from Rights Groups and Civil Society
The backlash intensified after September 4, 2025, when five prominent organizations issued statements condemning the U.S. government’s position:
- Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
- Haitian Bridge Alliance
- Physicians for Human Rights
- Global Rights Advocacy
- Center for Victims of Torture
Their criticism centers on a simple point: by not showing up to the UPR, the government closes a rare window for peer review of its immigration and border policies and sidesteps a global forum that has, for over a decade, pressed countries to improve treatment of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers.
A coalition of 23 immigrant rights groups also filed detailed submissions to the UN Human Rights Council, documenting reported harms such as:
- mass detention
- denial of due process
- discriminatory enforcement patterns
Policy Context: Enforcement-First Approach
Officials have not released a full justification for skipping this UPR cycle. But the decision aligns with a broader enforcement-first approach that has marked President Trump’s second term since January 2025. That approach includes:
- new executive orders and legislative actions that limit asylum access
- suspensions of parts of humanitarian programs
- expanded use of detention
Advocates argue these measures, paired with a UPR boycott, reduce safety valves for external review. The result is fewer international checks at a moment of rising on-the-ground enforcement, increasing exposure to detention and removal and shrinking access to protection pathways for immigrants and asylum seekers.
Civil Society Response: “People’s UPR”
Community groups are preparing their own answer. In October 2025, advocates plan to hold a “People’s UPR,” an independent, civil society‑led review that mirrors the UN process. Goals include:
- documenting government practices
- centering affected voices
- keeping pressure on U.S. agencies
Organizers say the event will collect testimony from immigrants, attorneys, doctors, and human rights monitors to track the real-world effects of:
- mass deportation operations
- mandatory custody rules under new laws such as the Laken Riley Act (2025)
- tightened rules on humanitarian programs
The “People’s UPR” is timed to convene shortly before the official UN session where the United States would normally face questions, recommendations, and follow-up commitments. Advocates warn the practical impact of the UN session weakens when the government under review declines to appear, respond, or accept recommendations. The loss of that exchange matters most for people living closest to the policy edge—families in removal proceedings, asylum seekers at the border, and long-time residents navigating complex court systems.
“By not showing up to the UPR, the government closes a rare window for peer review of its immigration and border policies,” civil society leaders say. The absence leaves a public record without the government’s account or commitments.
Evidence of Changing Conditions
Groups tracking detention centers and ports of entry report troubling trends. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, rights organizations describe:
- increased detention
- faster deportation timelines
- limited access to counsel
For many advocates, the UPR functions as a public ledger that prompts governments to defend their choices and sometimes adjust course. Skipping that step, they argue, weakens pressure for change across areas like:
- family unity
- due process in immigration courts
- language access
- protections for LGBTI+ people, Black migrants, Indigenous communities, and children
Advocates tie the boycott to a broader retreat from international human rights systems and note the break from earlier U.S. practice, including participation in the 2020 UPR round.
Government Argument and Legal Perspective
Government defenders have not mounted a detailed public campaign explaining the decision. Their stated rationale emphasizes:
- domestic law and policy should be set by elected leaders
- sovereign prerogatives to secure the border, deter repeat entries, and enforce court orders
Legal and policy experts counter that UPR participation does not cede authority; it invites nonbinding recommendations that a state can accept or reject. Rights groups view the boycott as a choice to avoid scrutiny rather than a necessary step to maintain strong enforcement.
Policy Details and Health Concerns
The current enforcement swing includes executive actions that:
- restrict asylum at ports of entry and between them
- narrow parole and humanitarian access
- prioritize rapid removal
Advocates say these measures, combined with mandatory detention rules, heighten the risk that people with valid protection claims are removed without a fair chance to present their case. Medical groups also warn of health risks tied to longer detention stays—especially for children and people with chronic conditions or trauma histories.
The UPR Process—and What the Boycott Changes
How the UPR normally works:
- Civil society groups file reports and briefings (typically August–September before a review).
- During the session (for the U.S., November 2025), delegations face questions on issues such as asylum backlogs, detention conditions, and border practices.
- Member states issue recommendations; the reviewed country replies and may accept or reject recommendations.
- Accepted recommendations form part of a follow-up plan tracked over the next cycle.
By stepping away, the U.S. short-circuits that loop. While UN member states can still make statements, the formal rhythm—questions, replies, commitments, and follow-up—relies on the government’s participation. Rights advocates warn the loss goes beyond process: UPR peer pressure often helps domestic actors push for reforms (e.g., legal counsel in detention, community-based alternatives). Without that lever, securing change inside agencies becomes harder.
On-the-Ground Effects and Legal Challenges
Community lawyers report new rules and practices—such as rapid docketing and stricter custody decisions—make it harder for people to gather evidence, find counsel, and prepare claims. Advocates describe:
- fear of detention or deportation keeping families from attending court or seeking medical care
- particular risks for children, LGBTI+ migrants, and survivors of torture as screening standards tighten and detention stays lengthen
The legal community has flagged potential constitutional and human rights issues. Several orders and policies face ongoing court challenges that could limit or reshape enforcement, but litigation is slow and does not immediately relieve those affected.
The Role and Goals of the “People’s UPR”
Advocates say the “People’s UPR” serves two key purposes:
- create a forum to record harms now
- lay groundwork for future policy shifts that could reopen space for international engagement
The process will center local voices—faith leaders, community health workers, pro bono attorneys—whose testimony often provides vivid evidence of impact, such as:
- pregnant women in detention with limited prenatal care
- asylum seekers lacking interpreters in rare languages
- a mother unable to access counsel while detained
Although nonbinding, organizers aim to publish targeted recommendations mirroring typical UPR outputs:
- reduce reliance on detention
- expand community-based alternatives
- protect family unity
- restore broader access to asylum
- ensure language access and legal help
- implement data transparency to measure outcomes
Immediate Implications for Immigrants and Asylum Seekers
Key stakes:
- Loss of international oversight: The U.S. avoids direct peer review and the cycle of recommendations that can prompt reforms.
- Escalation of enforcement: Mass deportations, strict custody rules, and extended detention may continue, pushing people out before claims are heard.
- Disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups: Children, Black migrants, Indigenous people, and LGBTI+ individuals face greater risks if screening and custody standards harden.
Civil society will keep documenting these effects. The coalition report to the UN Human Rights Council and the October 2025 “People’s UPR” will add testimony and analysis intended to influence courts, legislators, and public opinion.
What Comes Next
Outcomes will depend on several moving parts:
- Court challenges to executive actions could narrow or block measures.
- Congressional action could change detention, parole, and removal authority.
- International actors may speak out during November 2025, though the practical effect is limited without U.S. engagement.
For now, community advice includes:
- stay informed through trusted nonprofit channels
- seek legal help early
- document enforcement encounters in detail
Medical and mental health providers encourage detained people and families to request care and keep records of those requests. Faith and community networks are preparing to assist with transportation, court accompaniment, and legal referrals.
Local Levers and the Broader Debate
Community leaders emphasize the importance of local and state actions. Although immigration is federal, practical conditions—detention contracts, access to legal aid, health care for detainees—often depend on local choices. Advocates urge:
- local bodies publish data
- open detention centers to independent monitors
- support services that stabilize families during court processes
Experts caution the UPR alone rarely forces immediate change. But it creates a shared record and keeps issues visible internationally; that record can be used by lawmakers, courts, and communities to tilt policy over time. Rights groups argue that a return to the UPR would not prevent strong enforcement; it would subject policies to peer review and evidence.
Upcoming Timelines and How to Follow Developments
As October 2025 approaches, organizers of the “People’s UPR” are finalizing witness lists and planning public forums. They intend to present findings before the official UPR window in November 2025, drawing attention to gaps created by the U.S. absence.
Expect detailed reports on:
- detention conditions
- access to counsel
- treatment of children and families
- outcomes for LGBTI+ people and Black and Indigenous migrants
These reports will likely include proposed timelines and implementation steps for use in courts, Congress, and local governments.
For readers tracking official enforcement guidance and data, consult the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s public resources on immigration enforcement and statistics. These pages outline detention, removal, and border operations and offer periodic updates: Department of Homeland Security – Immigration Enforcement.
The UN Human Rights Council also publishes civil society submissions and UPR schedules; advocates will use those channels and the “People’s UPR” to keep the record current and engage journalists and lawmakers.
Key Resources
- Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights: rfkhumanrights.org
- Haitian Bridge Alliance: haitianbridge.org
- Physicians for Human Rights: phr.org
- Global Rights Advocacy: globalrightsadvocacy.org
- Center for Victims of Torture: cvtt.org
- UN Human Rights Council: ohchr.org
- National Immigration Law Center (NILC): nilc.org
- USAHello – Immigration Policy Updates: usahello.org/2025-immigration-policies/
Final Takeaway
Advocates hope that, even amid a UPR boycott, steady documentation, community support, and legal action will protect people who might otherwise fall through the cracks. For families living with the consequences of policy, that work cannot stop.
This Article in a Nutshell
The U.S. government’s refusal to participate in the November 2025 UN Universal Periodic Review marks a significant break from its long-standing engagement since 2008, drawing condemnation from human rights groups, immigration advocates, and community leaders. Critics say the boycott comes amid an enforcement-first policy since January 2025—including expanded detention, limits on asylum access, and rapid deportations—and removes a vital forum for peer review and nonbinding recommendations. In response, five major NGOs and a coalition of 23 immigrant-rights groups have submitted evidence of mass detention, denied due process, and discriminatory enforcement to the UN Human Rights Council. Civil society plans an independent “People’s UPR” in October 2025 to document harms and keep pressure on agencies, courts, and lawmakers. Advocates warn the absence of U.S. engagement weakens international oversight and may deepen harms to vulnerable populations while urging continued documentation, legal assistance, and local monitoring.
