New USDOS reports downplay human rights abuses, raising doubts over impartiality and reliability

In this blog, we take a look at how changes to the 2025 USDOS human rights reports impact the country of origin information landscape, and threaten to undermine fair and evidence-based asylum decisions.

Two weeks ago, the US State Department released its long-trailed 2025 annual report on human rights practices, covering the human rights situation in countries around the world in 2024. These reports – produced in some form since the 1970s – have historically been viewed as a ‘gold standard’ in human rights reporting, used to inform decisions about foreign policy, foreign aid and in an immigration and asylum context. But the most recent release has caused alarm following changes to the form and content of the reports that risk minimising, distorting, and at worst, erasing the existence of human rights concerns across the world.

While in-depth analysis is yet to be undertaken, the emerging picture suggests that this year’s USDOS reports have been significantly influenced by the political agenda of the Trump administration, with multiple media reports pointing to the reduction or complete omission of information on human rights abuses for Trump-allied countries. In one example, commentators highlighted that there is no mention of the dire humanitarian situation and death toll in Gaza, or of the grave conflict-related human rights issues in the report on Israel, despite extensive reporting on the situation in other country of origin information, human rights and media reports (see for example Asylos (2024), Human Rights Watch (2025), Guardian (ongoing)). In another example, the report on El Salvador, claims – in stark contrast to last year’s report – that “[t]here were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses”, despite ongoing serious human rights violations being widely reported (see for example Asylos (2023), Amnesty International (2024), BBC (2025)). This apparently selective approach to the reporting of human rights concerns casts serious doubt on the neutrality and impartiality of a source that has previously been considered highly credible

Another criticism levelled at the 2025 USDOS reports centres on the reduction, or complete omission of information relating to specific groups, including women, LGBTQI+ people, persons with disabilities, children and minorities. In parallel to these worrying developments, the future of the annual USDOS Trafficking in Persons (TiP) report, which provides vital information on anti-trafficking efforts around the world and is often used in the immigration and asylum context, is currently hanging in the balance, following a mysterious delay to its release, and with the TiP Office reportedly facing severe resource cuts. Together these challenges represent a significant setback to efforts to improve the quality and coverage of county of origin information on vulnerable, marginalised and minority groups. Absent or poor quality country of origin information on such groups is a challenge that Asylos has actively worked to redress in recent years through our thematic projects on children, persons with disabilities, stateless people and our forthcoming project on trafficking, because we know that a lack of relevant and reliable information jeopardises the proper assessment of protection needs and raises the risk that people will be sent back to harm.

A major concern going forward is that practitioners working in the field of international protection who are unaware of the changes will continue to draw on the recent USDOS human rights reports, despite concerns over their reliability, accuracy and objectivity. Where reports omit information on certain human rights concerns, there is a risk that asylum decision-makers will take this absence to mean that those human rights violations are not taking place. So what can be done to mitigate these risks?

Awareness of the nature of the changes to the USDOS reports among decision-makers, lawyers, caseworkers and COI researchers is a crucial first step to understanding whether the reports remain reliable for the purposes that users seek to rely on them for. In deciding whether to use a source, Asylos always recommends carrying out a source assessment to determine a source’s adherence to COI quality criteria, and identify any potential bias (find out more about source assessments in our 2024 Country of Origin Information (COI): Fundamentals Handbook, pages 28-29).

A second important step is to seek out alternative reliable sources of information to ensure balance, and where possible, corroboration of information. The release of the 2025 USDOS reports comes against a challenging backdrop in terms of production of, and access to information on human rights, particularly following the US funding freeze, the impacts of which are being felt globally (Human Rights Watch (2024), Amnesty International (2025), EU SEE (2025)). Despite the challenges, there are resources that can help direct COI users and researchers to a diversity of helpful sources, including Asylos’ Thematic Sources Toolkit, the Rights in Exile COI Experts Database, and ecoi.net, a specialised COI search engine that provides access to ‘high-quality and up-to-date country of origin information for all actors involved in asylum cases’.

Striving for high standards in country of origin information is essential to ensuring that every person seeking protection has access to procedures that are evidence-based and fair, and that there is no room for prejudice or preconceptions. If you have any questions or concerns related to the recent changes to the USDOS human rights reports, don’t hesitate to get in touch with Asylos via email info@asylos.org or social networks (LinkedIn, Bluesky).

Finally, don’t forget, if you are representing people seeking asylum, family reunification or applying for similar migration procedures, you can access 780+ other Country of Origin Information reports on our subscription database. If you can’t find what you’re looking for, you can request bespoke research, and we will produce it free of charge.

New USDOS reports downplay human rights abuses, raising doubts over impartiality and reliability

Subscribe to our Research Newsletter