The Universal Periodic Review: What is it and why does it matter?

The Universal Periodic Review is a peer-to-peer review mechanism led by the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council that examines the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States. But on 10 November 2026, the United States failed to attend its rescheduled Universal Periodic Review (UPR) for the second time, an unprecedented refusal to participate in the process. International organisations warn that allowing the US to repeatedly avoid scrutiny risks undermining a mechanism designed to hold every country to the same standard.

Established in 2006, the UPR operates on a 4.5-year cycle, during which every country is reviewed by other Member States and receives recommendations for improving human rights protections and addressing violations. 

Ahead of each review, the UN considers information submitted by the government under review, UN human rights bodies and mechanisms, and civil society organisations. During the review, which takes place through an interactive dialogue, other Member States raise questions and make recommendations on how the country can better meet its human rights obligations. Following the review, the country indicates which recommendations it supports and which it notes, before the Human Rights Council formally adopts the outcome report. 

While the UPR cannot compel governments to change their laws, Member States can use the process to recommend concrete changes, highlight gaps in legal protections and call on governments to meet their human rights obligations. The recommendations create a public record of what governments have been asked to address and provide a basis for monitoring progress and advocating for implementation ahead of the next review cycle.

Engaging in this process is especially important when governments actively retreat from international human rights principles and engagement opportunities. As anti-rights policies continue to gain traction globally, participation in processes like these can enable human rights defenders to explore accountability frameworks that extend beyond national contexts. 

Why was the US human rights review rescheduled?

The United States was originally scheduled for its fourth UPR on 7 November 2025. However, the US government did not attend the review, making it the first time a country failed to participate in its scheduled UPR Working Group session.

The Human Rights Council subsequently rescheduled the US review to its 53rd Working Group session, which runs from 2–13 November 2026. The US again did not attend its review on the afternoon of 10 November 2026; as a result, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a decision on its “continued noncooperation” with the process and deferred the evaluation again, scheduling it for January 2027.

The rescheduling provides another opportunity for Member States to examine the country’s human rights record and make recommendations. Equality Now recognises that US representatives may again fail to attend the review, and calls on the President of the Human Rights Council and Member States to take further action to press US compliance with the process. We further urge participating governments to nevertheless make recommendations to the US in absentia to establish a clear record.  

What human rights issues will the UN examine in the United States?

The UPR is a broad examination of a country’s human rights record, covering any issue that falls within its human rights obligations assessed against the international human rights treaties it has ratified, as well as other applicable international human rights standards and commitments. 

While the review considers information from the government, UN bodies and other sources, civil society organisations play an important role in bringing evidence, lived experiences and overlooked concerns to the attention of Member States, which can help inform the questions raised and recommendations made during the review. 

As gender equality experts, Equality Now, the US End FGM/C Network, Unchained At Last, the Alliance of Universal Digital Rights and The ERA Coalition submitted evidence and recommendations highlighting gaps in protections affecting women and girls in the United States.

Our updated submission identifies several areas requiring action:

• Constitutional sex equality: Recognising and implementing the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as an explicit constitutional guarantee of sex equality and a foundation for advancing gender equality in law and practice.
• Child marriage: Establishing 18 as the minimum age of marriage without exception in every US state, alongside a holistic response addressing the underlying drivers and consequences of early, forced and child marriage.
• Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C): Strengthening legal protections, prevention and accountability, and applying international human rights standards consistently without conflating FGM/C with gender-affirming care.
• Online sexual exploitation and abuse (OSEA): Advancing binding international standards for online platforms and technology companies, including equality- and safety-by-design principles to prevent and address technology-facilitated gender-based violence.
• International human rights commitments: Strengthening US engagement with international human rights treaties and mechanisms, including through ratification and implementation of treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

Gender equality must be central to all discussions about human rights. Legal protections, government accountability and access to justice are interconnected. 

Why does the US UPR matter alongside the 2026 midterm elections?

The US review was scheduled to take place just one week after the 3 November 2026 midterm elections. This timing offered the potential to connect the international review of US human rights with a changing political landscape, creating an opportunity to bring international standards and civil society recommendations into conversations with newly elected representatives. With the US failing to participate, that opportunity has been postponed. 

While the UPR cannot compel the US government to change its laws or policies, the recommendations made by other UN Member States provide an important advocacy tool that civil society can use to hold decision-makers accountable. 

For women and girls in the US, the UPR provides an opportunity to highlight gaps in legal protections against discrimination and violence, failure to implement existing laws, and barriers to accessing justice. The resulting recommendations can help civil society advocate for reforms and engage with newly elected representatives to address these shortcomings.

A country’s human rights obligations do not change with its political leadership or election outcomes. International standards provide a basis for assessing government action over time, including when domestic protections or political priorities change.

The timing of this review is therefore an important opportunity to keep women’s and girls’ rights on the international agenda and reinforce the need for lasting legal and institutional protections.

What happens after a country’s UPR, and how can civil society support accountability?

Following the review, the UPR Working Group prepares a report documenting the recommendations made by participating Member States. The country under review then indicates which recommendations it supports and which it notes, before the Human Rights Council adopts the outcome report.

Civil society can then take this forward by monitoring government responses, documenting progress and setbacks over time and across review cycles, engaging with policymakers and continuing to bring outstanding concerns back to national and international human rights mechanisms.

Accountability requires collaboration beyond the legal and advocacy sectors. Local governments, health professionals, educators, technology experts, survivor advocates and community organisations all have a role in addressing the conditions that affect whether people can exercise their rights. Initiatives such as Cities for CEDAW demonstrate how international human rights standards can inform local policies, public services and government accountability.

The US’ UPR is an opportunity for Member States to make clear that gender equality and the rights of all women and girls are central to human rights. We’re advocating for recommendations to translate into action. 

Read Equality Now’s updated submission and recommendations ahead of the US review: Submission Update to the Universal Periodic Review – United States of America, 53rd Session

For civil society organisations hoping to engage in this process, our submissions guide offers additional information.