United States Placed on an International CIVICUS Human Rights Watchlist Amid Decline in Civil Liberties

The United States has been added to the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist due to a significant decline in civic freedoms under the current administration. CIVICUS, a global civil society alliance that tracks civic space across 198 countries, cited concerns over executive overreach, suppression of dissent, and a rollback of fundamental democratic protections as key reasons for the designation under President Donald Trump. According to CIVICUS, the climate in the U.S. aligns with countries experiencing a deterioration of civil liberties, marking an alarming shift for one the world’s most prominent democracies.

Here are four reasons why the U.S. is on the Monitor Watchlist:

1. The Executive Overreach and Targeted Policies Since January 2025

Trump has issued at least 125 executive orders, dismantling federal policies with profound implications for human rights and the rule of law. Many of the orders have eliminated federal Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEl) programs, falsely framing them as discriminatory raising human rights concerns. Additionally, some measures target and disproportionately impact marginalized groups, undocumented migrants and transgender individuals.

The United States, once known as a pillar of democracy, has drawn international criticism because of policies that raise human rights concerns. CIVICUS will closely monitor the countries on its watch list in the coming weeks to ensure greater pressure on governments.

2. Suppression of Dissent and Protest Rights

CIVICUS has documented increasing restrictions on free speech and peaceful protest in the U.S. Notably, pro-Palestinian protesters, including students, activists, and legal residents, have faced arbitrary detentions and visa cancellations. At least 12 states have introduced laws criminalizing protest activities, such as wearing masks at demonstrations. The case of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student detained by federal agents for his activism, has drawn sharp criticism from civil rights organizations. Some have argued that Trump is using pro-Palestinian students to set an example, marking a first-of-its-kind crackdown.

Trump stated, “We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it.”

“Many are not students, they are paid agitators. We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again,” Trump said, insinuating that pro-Palestine protestors are Hamas supporters in a Truth Social post.

During the March 12, 2025 press briefing, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt did not address concerns about antisemitism. Instead, she said, “these protests have put out Hamas propaganda.” The shift drew comparisons to authoritarian and fascist ideologies because suppressing protests is an infringement on first amendment rights.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump initiated Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids targeting undocumented immigrants focusing on major U.S. cities such as Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. The scope of these raids expanded to include the detention of pro-Palestinian activists, even those with legal residency.

These actions have raised concerns about the potential infringement on free speech and the rights of legal residents, marking significant escalation in immigration enforcement under the current administration. The Trump administration’s immigration crackdown faces legal and public scrutiny according to the Associated Press; their actions are being challenged in federal courts as a part of regular checks and balances to ensure that the executive power is not being abused. To the surprise of many, amidst the immigration crackdown, the administration made a controversial decision to fire 20 immigration judges.

3. Withdrawal from International Human Rights Organizations

Human Rights Commitments

Under the current administration, the U.S. has distanced itself from key international human rights bodies. The decision to withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Paris Climate Agreement signals a shift away from multilateral human rights commitments.

Additionally, sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC) have raised concerns about U.S. accountability in global justice efforts.

4. Restrictions on Civil Liberty and Federal Funding

The U.S. government has imposed significant restrictions on civil society organizations, including the freezing of federal funding for human rights initiatives. Many nonprofit groups that provide humanitarian aid and legal assistance to vulnerable populations are facing financial uncertainty, undermining their ability to operate effectively.

Implications for Democracy and Human Rights. CIVICUS’ decision to add the U.S. to its Watchlist signals a growing concern that democratic principles in the country are under threat. The erosion of protest rights, targeted crackdowns on activists, and increased government control over civic engagement raise fears of a broader authoritarian shift.

Mandeep Tiwana, Interim Co-Secretary General of CIVICUS, described the situation as “an unparalleled attack on the rule of law in the United States not seen since the days of McCarthyism in the twentieth century.

Global Reactions and the Path Forward

The international community has responded with concern. Human rights organizations urging the U.S. government to reverse restrictive policies and reaffirm its commitment to civil liberties. Legal challenges against recent executive orders and proposed legislative changes are expected, as advocacy groups push for stronger protections for free speech and democratic engagement.

While the U.S. has historically been a proponent of global human rights, its placement on the CIVICUS Watchlist serves as a stark reminder that no nation is immune to democratic backsliding. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether the country can restore its standing as a global leader in civil liberties or continue down a path of increasing restrictions.