The Leahy law prohibits the United States from providing assistance to units of foreign security forces credibly accused of perpetrating a gross violation of human rights (GVHR). To facilitate enforcement of the law, after years of internal opposition, in 2022 the State Department launched the Human Rights Reporting Gateway (HRG), an online portal that allows members of the public and NGOs worldwide to submit reports of GVHRs by foreign security forces.
However, many local NGOs and local citizens are unaware that the HRG even exists. For the HRG to more diligently enforce the Leahy law by providing valuable information about and promoting accountability for GVHRs, the Department should prioritize publicizing and explaining it worldwide. Now is the time to ensure that the HRG is a more effective tool in the State Department’s arsenal by directing embassies to brief it to local NGOs and publics, post it on embassy websites, and translate it into other languages.
Fulfilling a Leahy Law Mandate
A 2011 amendment to the Leahy law mandates that the secretary of state establish and periodically update procedures to:
…facilitate receipt by the Department of State and United States embassies of information from individuals and organizations outside the United States Government about gross violations of human rights by security force units.
The HRG uses prompts to guide submitters through the Leahy law requirements for a credible report, including the date, time, and place of the alleged gross violation of human rights, description of the type of violation, and the unit allegedly involved. In designing the HRG, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) studied similar federal, state, and local portals, including the State Department’s own Rewards for Justice tip website, which offers rewards for information on terrorism, foreign-linked interference in U.S. elections, malicious cyber activities, and certain information regarding individuals engaged in financial activities to support the North Korean regime.
Years of Friction Within the State Department
The HRG launch came after years of internal opposition from the Department’s regional bureaus. The bureaus predicted a flood of false reports, and attacks by bots and malign actors. This, they claimed, would overwhelm staff tasked with vetting units under the Leahy law at embassies and in the Department, and would lead to unjustified Leahy ineligibilities for partner security force units. Bureaus argued that ad hoc embassy efforts to gather reports were sufficient.
In many cases, those concerns were based on basic misunderstandings about how the Leahy vetting process and the HRG work. Many of those who objected wrongly believed that HRG reports about any unit would result in automatic ineligibility. In reality, HRG is effectively just another open source for Leahy vetters to consult in the normal vetting process. As with any other open source, vetters will only find HRG reports when they involve the specific unit proposed for assistance. And even when such HRG reports exist, they must still pass normal scrutiny: they are subject to the same credibility criteria – which include factors such as the past accuracy and reliability of the reporting source, how the source obtained the information, known political agendas of a source, and the level of detail regarding the GVHR allegation – as reports from any other open source.
Two Years On, Concerns Have Not Materialized
In light of those concerns, the Department launched the HRG in 2022 on a pilot basis. Two years on, none of those concerns have materialized, and the HRG will extend on a permanent basis. However, there have been very few reports to the HRG. The reason: although the HRG is posted on the Department’s website, it does not appear on U.S. embassy websites, and the Department has not directed U.S. embassy officials to brief it to local publics, NGOs, civil society organizations, and activists. Indeed, some regional bureaus continue to oppose any effort to take these steps.
Local Sources Have the Best Information on Gross Violations of Human Rights
As a result, few local publics, NGOs, and activists are aware of the HRG. One of us recently conducted an informal poll of over 40 international and local NGOs which showed that 79 percent were unaware of the HRG’s existence.
The lack of awareness undermines a central purpose of the HRG. The HRG is designed to be a way for victims, witnesses, and local NGOs to submit reports. The local individuals and groups that regularly interact with security forces, and those affected by their operations, are the best sources of information on GVHRs. Local NGOs often have the fastest and most direct access to survivors and witnesses, and the ability to quickly gather and preserve evidence.
Many GVHRs by foreign security forces take place in conflict zones or areas far from U.S. embassies. Physical access to U.S. embassies is often difficult, and survivors, witnesses, and activists may fear reprisals if they are seen walking into a U.S. embassy. And unfortunately, in some cases, embassies are reluctant to report alleged GVHRs by security forces with which they collaborate.
Although cybersecurity and confidentiality concerns may remain, the HRG provides a safer way for people to report to the U.S. government about security force GVHRs than previously available options.
The Way Forward
Established U.S. and international NGOs have endeavored to make the HRG known to local organizations and publics. They should redouble and systematize those efforts. U.S. human rights reporting structures – including not only the HRG but also the Civilian Harm Incident Response Guidance and National Security Memorandum 20 – are complex and intimidating even to those well-versed with the State Department’s bureaucracy, and U.S. and international NGOs can help demystify those processes.
However, the larger onus is on the State Department. The Department has the statutory duty, and a critical opportunity, to better implement the Leahy law. It is time to launch the HRG worldwide, with a directive to embassies to brief it to local NGOs and publics, and to post it on embassy websites. The HRG is currently only available in English, and translation into other languages will help enable broader access in non-English-speaking communities.
It is unlikely that wider awareness of the HRG will lead to a flood of unjustified ineligibilities or more work for embassies and the Department. There have always been some false reports and fabricated information in publicly available sources. Vetters routinely root them out. The existence of such reports in the HRG is no more likely to cause problems. As an additional safeguard, the HRG includes CAPTCHA technology to help detect reports produced by bots. And if any bureau objects to an ineligibility finding based on an HRG report, it can contest that through a well-established process.
People may be more willing to engage with the U.S. government’s human rights tracking and accountability mechanisms if they feel the mechanisms have some outcome beyond the halls of the State Department. Unfortunately, recent high-profile examples of apparent non-compliance with U.S. policy and law undermine faith in the likelihood of reporting having any effect. A worldwide Department directive to publicize the HRG and explain it locally would be a step toward restoring that faith.
Now is the Time to Act
Now is the time for the Department to increase awareness of the HRG. A worldwide instruction to embassies to place the HRG on their websites and brief local NGOs is not a dramatic policy change, but is simply faithful execution of an existing Leahy law requirement with an existing resource.
The incoming Trump administration has not emphasized the importance of human rights in security assistance decisions and may not prioritize faithful Leahy law implementation. For example, prospective Secretary of State Marco Rubio objected to a possible Leahy ineligibility designation of Israel’s notorious Netzah Yehuda Battalion on the grounds that it would “stigmatize the entire IDF and encourage Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian regime.” Secretary of State Antony Blinken later made a questionable decision that the unit was eligible, but Rubio’s comments do not suggest he favors robust implementation of the Leahy law.
Once the HRG is on embassy websites and briefed to local NGOs, reversal would, at a minimum, be awkward, and result in reputational costs. Removal of HRG from embassy websites would quickly become news, would be difficult to explain, and would result in widespread criticism, including from Congress, which supported Leahy vetting with steady funding increases over the years (compare, for example, funding allocations between FY 2015 and FY 2025). And local NGOs’ awareness of the HRG cannot be undone.
Now is the time to ensure that the State Department faithfully executes the Leahy law by using all of the tools at its disposal to promote accountability and empower local partners.