U.S. law states that the promotion and protection of democracy and human rights are “principal” and “fundamental” goals of U.S. foreign policy. Congress, having enacted such goals, has shaped the manner and degree to which U.S. government policy strives to achieve them in practice. Since the 1970s in particular, Congress has prescribed an array of statutory provisions and associated policy tools to address matters related to democracy and human rights promotion in foreign contexts. Congress authorizes, appropriates resources for, and oversees the use of these tools. Proponents of U.S. democracy and human rights promotion have argued for these efforts on moral grounds as well as on the basis of long-term U.S. interests. Such proponents have contended, for example, that rights-respecting democracies are more reliable U.S. partners, less likely to go to war with one another, and less frequently associated with threats to U.S. security—such as instability, terrorism, transnational crime, and migration crises—than non-democracies. Other analysts have questioned the extent to which foreign government regime types and human rights conditions abroad are vital to U.S. interests, or have expressed doubts about the effectiveness of U.S. efforts to help improve democracy and human rights conditions abroad. The extent to which presidential Administrations have prioritized promoting democracy and human rights abroad as U.S. foreign policy objectives has varied. Administrations’ political and ideological priorities also have influenced to some degree the specific issues or countries that have been the focus of democracy and human rights policies. These variations across executive branch Administrations, coupled with laws that articulate broad U.S. policy in this area and require certain executive branch actions, have resulted in both policy continuity and some discontinuities across time. Relative to other Administrations in the post-Cold War era, the second Trump Administration appears to have put less priority on the promotion of democracy and human rights in other countries as foreign policy objectives, and has asserted that some associated activities and expenditures do not align with U.S. interests. Congress for decades has debated the integration of democracy and human rights promotion concerns in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, at times pushing the executive branch to place greater and more consistent emphasis on these objectives. As it has with prior Administrations, Congress may conduct oversight over executive branch actions and consider whether to accept, reject, or seek to modify the executive branch’s policy approach. Members may consider whether to take legislative or other action to further prescribe U.S. policy related to promoting democracy and human rights in a manner reflective of congressional priorities. More broadly, Congress may assess the effectiveness of U.S. efforts to promote democracy and human rights abroad, and consider the prioritization of such efforts relative to other foreign policy objectives.
Full content not yet available.