Day: August 25, 2026

In the lead-up to the 2026 midterm elections, how is the U.S. government performing in terms of human rights? Listening to politicians, it can be difficult to know.

On one hand, some have pointed to a number of potential human rights abuses committed by the U.S. government inside and outside its borders in the past two years.

On the other hand, while marking the United States’ 250th anniversary this year, President Donald Trump called the country “the home of freedom,” “the land of liberty” and “the most extraordinary, most exceptional, most incredible nation ever to exist on the face of the earth.”

“We’re doing better now than we’ve ever done before,” he said.

So which is it?

According to many of the human rights data sources available, the U.S. lags behind most other high-income democracies – countries that are both members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and classified as high income by the World Bank. The U.S.’s poor performance spans civil and political rights, such as the right to be free from torture and the right to political participation, as well as economic and social rights, including the rights to health and food.

In fact, the U.S. has been a relatively poor performer across many of these rights for quite some time, regardless of the political party in power.

Even accounting for the U.S.’s prior poor practices, however, new data from the Human Rights Measurement Initiative shows that in 2025 the country’s civil and political rights performance deteriorated even further.

As a human rights scholar who has been measuring human rights practices for 20 years – and as one of HRMI’s co-founders – I believe this data raises serious questions about the United States’ commitment to human rights.

How are rights practices measured?

Governments rarely publish accurate information on their own human rights abuses, so the task of measuring them typically falls to advocates and scholars.

Historically, most international measures of civil and political rights have depended on public reports from the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or news organizations.

However, these reports cannot cover every human rights violation that experts know about, especially in countries with low government transparency or high levels of repression.

Thus, data produced using those sources will show fewer abuses than those that have actually occurred and will be more accurate about some places than others. Further, the Trump administration has changed one of the most important sources of human rights information, the U.S. State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, to contain more bias in favor of the administration’s foreign allies and less information on human rights abuse overall.

Since 2017, HRMI has used a different approach. Recognizing the problems with public reports, we collect information directly from researchers for human rights organizations, human rights lawyers and others, asking them about governments’ practices across several rights and using a statistical model to assess their information and ensure that the resulting metrics are comparable across countries. The result is a robust dataset that includes information previously missing from public reports.

Today, HRMI’s civil and political rights dataset covers 62 countries, with more added every year.

How does the US compare?

According to the Human Rights Scores dataset, which uses publicly available information to score more than 190 countries on physical integrity rights – such as the rights to be free from torture, killing, forced disappearance and political imprisonment – the U.S. never ranked higher than 81st from 2001 to 2021 or higher than 109th from 2010 to 2021.

Indeed, from 2003 to 2021, the United States’ score was either the worst or the second-worst every year among high-income OECD member states, which include the United Kingdom, Japan and New Zealand.

The Human Rights Scores dataset has not been updated past 2021, but HRMI’s data collected since that time suggests that the pattern has continued.

Among the six high-income OECD countries on which HRMI currently collects data, the U.S. has been the worst performer for physical integrity rights since 2017.

It has also frequently been rated as the worst performer on “empowerment rights,” or the rights to assembly, association, opinion, expression, political participation, religion and belief.

What changed in 2025?

Even starting from this poor position, the U.S.’s civil and political rights practices dramatically worsened in 2025. HRMI measures nine civil and political rights, and the U.S. significantly worsened on eight of them.

These were not small changes. Measured against every significant change HRMI has recorded since 2017, the U.S. showed the largest decline ever observed for the right to be free from forced disappearance and for the right to freedom of religion and belief.

The U.S. showed the second-largest decline ever observed for the right to be free from arbitrary or political arrest and for the right to opinion and expression.

The U.S. also showed major declines in the rights to be free from torture and extrajudicial killing, and the right to political participation – that is, the right to participate in one’s government via free and fair elections, to take part in public affairs and to have access to public service. U.S. scores likewise fell in the right to assembly and association, which are, respectively, the rights to peacefully gather in public or private and to form or join groups and organizations.

What caused the scores to fall?

Human rights experts raised several issues that led to these declines. For instance, the U.S.’s worsened scores for the rights to be free from arbitrary detention, disappearance and torture were tied to the expanded use of practices such as incommunicado detention and warrantless arrest by ICE and other immigration-related agencies.

While several killings occurred during ICE operations in 2025, the worsened extrajudicial killing score was also tied to the country’s use of airstrikes against boats in the Pacific and Caribbean, which caused the deaths of at least 123 people in 2025 alone.

Other changes enacted in 2025 contributed to large declines in the U.S.’s rights scores, including crackdowns on anti-ICE demonstrations and government pressure on universities, including limits on free speech and class subjects.

Last year also saw threats to television networks over political expression, restrictions on mail-in voting, state measures targeting American Islamic organizations by labeling them “foreign terrorist organizations” and an executive order focused on eradicating “anti-Christian bias.”

While current HRMI data does not yet cover 2026, early indicators are not promising, with continued abuses by ICE, further killings in international waters and allegations of attempts to use government powers to punish critics.

K. Chad Clay is the co-founder and Methodology Research and Design Lead of the Human Rights Measurement Initiative. He is also an associate professor of international affairs and the director of the Center for the Study of Global Issues (GLOBIS) at the University of Georgia. He has previously received funding from the National Science Foundation, the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ford Foundation, Amnesty International, the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the International Development Research Centre, and the Human Rights Measurement Initiative Charitable Trust.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

On Election Day in 2024, as voters cast their ballots, Elon Musk posted a campaign music video supporting Donald Trump’s bid for president.

Set to Van Halen’s “Jump,” with a montage of 1980s cultural references and images of Trump in various strongman poses, the video includes a line about “PATRIOTS” in which the “O” turns into a “Q,” a reference to the online conspiracy theory QAnon.

Started on the online forum website 4chan in 2017, QAnon spread false, far-right theories on social media about a shadowy cabal of satanic pedophiles among the political elite, which Trump was purportedly fighting alongside a mysterious ally named “Q.”

As a scholar of conspiracy theories and extremism, I’ve watched QAnon seep from the margins into mainstream American politics over the past decade. While Q stopped posting in 2022, the movement did not disappear. As we near the 10-year anniversary of QAnon, these theories continue to haunt America’s politics.

The afterlife of QAnon

Building on the 2016 “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory, which claimed Democrats were trafficking children in the basement of a pizza restaurant based on interpretations of Hillary Clinton’s leaked emails, QAnon appeared on 4chan in October 2017 with claims that Clinton was about to be arrested.

That’s when someone calling himself Q claimed to be an intelligence operator trying to expose the “deep state,” a purported shadow government secretly controlling global events in pursuit of a satanic agenda. QAnon invited users to build the theory by decoding messages on social media. That work, Q claimed, would expose a satanic cabal of pedophiles among the elites.

The theory is an example of what author Naomi Klein has called a “conspiracy smoothie,” mixing existing theories into a vast conspiracy map, which absorbs existing conspiracy theories about events such as 9/11 or the JFK assassination into itself. The result is a sprawling theory combining paranoid interpretations of current events with historical conspiracies.

Polls suggest that 20% of Americans had favorable views of QAnon as late as 2022.

Many of Trump’s nominations for high-ranking posts were figures who had previously been considered on the fringes of national politics. Some of them have brought conspiracy theories into the highest echelons of government.

FBI Director Kash Patel, for example, has been sympathetic to QAnon. He appeared on a show hosted by a QAnon influencer before being selected to run the agency. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has advocated anti-vaccination conspiracy theories also shared by QAnon.

QAnon haunts Washington

I’m particularly fascinated by the ghost of QAnon – how the theory continues to haunt politics today. Philosophers call this tendency “hauntology”: Political ideas and movements may die, but they continue to haunt our present.

Q’s ideas have not dissipated. It’s what I call QAnon’s afterlife, or the transformation of QAnon from a conspiracy theory to a political vocabulary. In fact, the movement’s vocabulary quickly began to appear in official government circles at the start of Trump’s second term.

In March 2026, for example, the official X account for the White House posted a photo of a mustachioed fighter pilot with the QAnon tagline “Patriots are in Control.” While the phrase may pass as mundane, I believe it is a clear reference to QAnon language, first used by Q in October 2017.

The U.S. Department of Labor posted the same phrase over an image of Trump in January 2026. Lori Chavez-DeRemer, who has publicly advocated deep state conspiracies, ran the department until she resigned on April 20, 2026.

And Musk, the former head of the Department of Government Efficiency, celebrated America’s 250th birthday with an AI-generated video called “Sweet Land.” This post generated buzz because it referenced QAnon and prompted an online scavenger hunt for Q symbols.

QAnon goes to war

Amid the U.S. war with Iran, some government officials have turned to QAnon for inspiration.

The official account for the Pentagon’s chief technology officer, Emil Michael, has posted propaganda using Q catchphrases as military slogans. For example, the department posted a picture of a Marine saluting Trump with the phrase “Trust the Plan.”

On Truth Social, Trump posted a meme of himself on the deck of a battleship with the words “It was the Calm Before the Storm,” a cryptic phrase first used by Trump while meeting with military leaders in October 2017. Almost exactly one month later, the phrase appeared as a central QAnon concept.

The use of Q phrases by government agencies during wartime has excited online conspiracy theorists. They see it as an official endorsement that “the storm” will soon be upon us, a time of upheaval and punishment of the shadowy deep state. For these conspiracy theorists, Trump and Q will bring about “the storm,” to be followed by a golden age.

The QAnon style of American politics

Whether or not these references to Q posts by official government accounts are truly ideological or simply trolling is less relevant than the effect they have.

Official uses of Q language have invigorated conspiracy theorists to advance new theories, undermining public health, governance and civil society.

And the Jeffrey Epstein files, which have exposed the late financier’s private network and financial dealings, have only lent credence to QAnon theories among believers. That’s because Q referenced Epstein Island in drops of information on 8chan and other message boards.

I believe these ghostly eruptions of QAnon conspiracy theories into the public will only continue to divide Americans at a time of social and economic crisis.

Matthew N. Hannah does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

The City Council of Pueblo, Colorado, voted to ban the distribution of syringes through syringe service programs starting in May 2024.

Also called needle exchanges, these programs are run by community organizations that provide healthcare services. The impetus for the ban, as council members noted, was syringe litter in public spaces.

Three weeks after the ban was implemented, and after pressure from the Colorado American Civil Liberties Union, it was overturned by a Pueblo District Court judge who ruled it violated state law.

We are researchers who study the public health effects of services and policies that address substance use. When the Pueblo syringe ban went into effect, our team of epidemiologists, addiction medicine physicians and health services researchers collaborated with local Pueblo harm reduction leaders to understand the ban’s impact on their work both immediately and months after it was overturned.

Needle exchanges reduce HIV transmission

Needle exchanges have been operating in the United States since the 1980s in Connecticut, Washington and other states. Today there are more than 400 of them throughout the nation.

In addition to providing clean syringes and collecting used needles, these programs distribute the lifesaving overdose reversal medication naloxone. The programs also connect individuals to treatment for opioid use disorder and provide other forms of care, including testing for HIV and hepatitis C.

In Colorado, needle exchanges were authorized by state legislation in 2010. Pueblo’s two syringe exchanges began operating in 2014 and 2017. Even while the ban was in effect, the programs stayed open to provide other services to their clients.

Decades of evidence suggest that needle exchanges reduce the transmission of HIV and other infectious diseases by reducing needle sharing. A Seattle study in the late 1990s found that new users of a needle exchange were five times more likely to enter drug treatment than individuals who never used a needle exchange. They were also three times more likely to stop using illegal drugs altogether.

Furthermore, these programs generally do not lead to an increase in crime or syringe litter. In fact, people who receive syringes from a needle exchange are less likely to dispose of them improperly than those who do not use needle exchanges – in part because these programs encourage the return of used needles.

Ban’s impact on community

To evaluate the effect of Pueblo’s ban on the community, we analyzed data from one of the city’s two needle exchanges and the Pueblo Department of Parks and Recreation. We evaluated the number of syringes distributed and the amount of syringe litter collected from public spaces, including parks and parking lots.

We also collected and analyzed data on the number of visits to the needle exchange and the number of naloxone kits given out.

We found that syringe distribution decreased by about 2,400 units weekly. Litter decreased by about 120 units weekly. After the ban was overturned, however, the number of discarded syringes on public land did not rise again. That was true as the number of syringes that were distributed by the needle exchange increased beyond levels prior to the ban.

We concluded that after the ban was overturned, there was likely pent-up demand for new, clean syringes. However, there was also potentially increased awareness of proper disposal practices or promotion of used-syringe collection by needle exchange programs.

This is consistent with prior evidence that demonstrates needle exchanges can be key community partners in efforts to reduce syringe litter.

Naloxone distribution was of particular interest to our community partners, given that its distribution to people who use opioids is directly associated with reduced overdose deaths. While the ban lasted only three weeks, both the number of weekly visits to the needle exchange and the number of naloxone kits distributed were lower than expected for at least the 20 weeks after the ban was overturned. That was the entire period for which data was collected.

If preban trends had continued, there would have been over 150 naloxone kits distributed weekly by one program, on average. After the ban was overturned, that number was only about 125 per week.

Comparing the expected trajectory of naloxone distribution with observed data, we estimated that the ban resulted in 900 fewer kits of naloxone distributed throughout the community in the 20 weeks observed. Previous research has shown that on average, one death is prevented for every 230 naloxone kits distributed, so even this brief ban may have resulted in several preventable overdose deaths.

Decreased visits to the needle exchange also mean fewer opportunities for people who use opioids to access substance use disorder treatment, HIV and hepatitis C testing, and make connections to housing and other social services.

The initial concern driving the passage of Pueblo’s ban was syringe litter, but our study suggests that restrictions on harm reduction services may have significant unintended consequences that hinder community public health efforts.

Impact beyond Colorado

Cities across the U.S., from California to West Virginia, are making cuts to syringe service programs. At the federal level, the Trump administration issued an executive order in July 2025 that prohibits federal funding being used to purchase syringes. This ended a crucial funding source for many needle exchanges.

While overdose is still a leading cause of death in the U.S., it has been decreasing for the past several years. This is due, in part, to evidence-based public health efforts such as naloxone distribution, which the overwhelming majority of Americans supports.

This evidence and our own findings suggests placing restrictions on specific harm reduction services may undermine public health efforts to prevent overdoses and save lives.

Read more of our stories about Colorado.

Katherine LeMasters is affiliated with Right Response Colorado, a statewide organization advocating for community care rather than incarceration for those with mental health and substance use needs.

Paul Christine receives funding from National Institute on Drug Abuse for work unrelated to this article. He is affiliated with Right Response Colorado, a statewide organization advocating for community care rather than incarceration for those with mental health and substance use needs..

Pranav Padmanabhan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation