Secretary Rubio – It’s Not Too Late To Prioritize Human Rights

Pending the legal fall-out, last week marked a turning point in U.S. foreign policy away from safeguarding and defending human rights. As part of a planned reorganization, approximately 80 percent of employees in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor at the U.S. Department of State are expected to be put on administrative leave and democracy and human rights organizations in the U.S. and around the globe began receiving notifications that all but two previously awarded grants for this year have been cancelled.

These drastic cuts, if carried out, lack strategy and foresight, and contrary to public messaging, the vast majority of these programs have nothing to do with any “woke” agenda. Instead, many of these programs are designed to protect fundamental freedoms. These cuts would put America on its back foot as it faces challenges from rights-violating countries like China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran.

Many Americans want to eliminate wasteful spending. But a mandate to cut waste is not a directive to compromise national security. Ordinary Americans deserve to know that the types of programs being cut weaken America and undermine our ability to counter emboldened adversaries.

I have just returned from a trip to South Korea where I met with incredible leaders in civil society devoted to defending human rights in North Korea and holding the Kim regime accountable. Many of the grants fund cost-effective and life-saving information access efforts that educate ordinary North Koreans on the goodness of the U.S. and the truth about the outside world. North Koreans who have left North Korea universally acknowledge that access to information was what motivated them to escape in the first place. The U.S. has already degraded critical information access efforts conducted by Radio Free Asia which ended radio broadcasts into North Korea at the end of April. That information void is being backfilled by the Chinese Communist Party and flooding North Korea with pro-China information through other means. Other grants fund research on the Kim regime’s forced labor programs. Forced labor serves as a critical funding source that lines the private coffers of the regime and may even be used for the regime’s development of weapons — including weapons that can be used to strike the continental U.S. In other words, these grants advanced U.S. national security. Without essential support, many of these organizations will not exist by the end of the year.

Similarly, some of the most important human rights organizations countering the malign influence of the CCP will also be severely hit. Bethany Allen at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute covered this topic in great detail when “stop work orders” were issued and grants were temporarily suspended earlier this year, warning that many groups may face extinction if cuts proceed. Suffice it to say that some of the most important organizations advocating for basic freedoms for Hong Kongers, Uyghurs, Tibetans, and others persecuted by the CCP will be diminished in capacity if not outright shuttered if things proceed as planned. Among other valuable reasons, these groups are often a critical source of information to the U.S. government and civil society about the CCP. Losing access to these resources at the same time the U.S. is increasing efforts to counter the CCP is counter-productive and potentially crippling to U.S. foreign policy.

It’s fair to ask why these organizations do not have more diversified funding streams. But to put it simply, the private sector has too often found funding for human rights programs to be at odds with its financial interests and desire for market access, particularly when it comes to China.

And that’s where the US has historically come in. The US is the only country in the globe with the technical skills and capacity, historical involvement, and funding to support human rights efforts at scale.

This is to say nothing of the loss of institutional capacity. Many of the State Department staff who may be cut have saved innumerable lives. They have burned the midnight oil to secure the release of political prisoners, rescued and provided safe haven to political dissidents in closed societies, all while advancing U.S. interests. These individuals deserve promotions and to be honored for their public service, not put on leave and removed from careers devoted to the American people and advancing the cause of freedom.

If cuts to these critical programs in Asia are any indicator, these measures will not just hamstring global civil society efforts to safeguard and defend human rights, they may downright end them, at least as we know them. Apart from a swift change in course, generations of people around the globe will feel the reverberations and impacts of these decisions for years to come.

So what can be done?

First, Secretary Rubio has the authority to change course at any time. His congressional legacy of advancing human rights and freedom hangs in the balance and that legacy risks being permanently tarnished. The Trump administration’s own legacy of advancing human rights through its promotion of religious freedom in the first term similarly hangs in the balance. At minimum, grant funding for 2025 should be restored as organizations were counting on these budgets to continue their operations through the end of the year. Critical staff at DRL should also be retained. Some programs at DRL, no doubt, can and should be cut strategically, but dropping nearly all pre-existing human rights programming is like cutting off a limb and expecting US foreign policy to be able to function.

Second, Congress must act. As a conservative administration, a decision to pivot away from Reagan’s peace through strength policy paradigm which recognizes the essential values of possessing both a strong national defense as well as a strong arsenal of tools to defend human rights, merits serious questioning. The legacy and success of peace through strength stands on its own and a pivot from those successful policies requires justification. Furthermore, Congress has historically led on human rights and that means that many programs administered by DRL are congressionally mandated and appropriated. Congress must stand its ground in ensuring the continuation of those programs and work tirelessly to appropriate funding next year to try to at least mitigate some of the damage from proposed cuts.

Finally, individuals and the private sector must step up to fill in the void. Now, not next year, is the time to give generously to support civil society organizations in need. Their continued existence may depend on it.

I have faith in the resilience of civil society’s ability to weather this storm. But leaving so many groups in the lurch without funding and technical support from the U.S. is incredibly consequential. As Ronald Reagan aptly said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” May that not happen on our watch.