It’s both ironic and unfortunate that the State Department’s latest restructuring could negatively affect the United States’ approach to international religious freedom.
The recent changes have effectively placed the Office of International Religious Freedom under the direction of the Office of Human Rights, which may lead to a regression to previous bureaucratic isolation of religious freedom initiatives.
If this trend continues, it could undermine the international religious freedom policies seen during the Trump administration, establishing a troubling precedent for future administrations that could be used for less favorable agendas.
This irony is particularly striking considering that during his first term, Trump issued a Presidential Order defining religious freedom as a “moral and national security issue,” aiming to bolster meaningful international religious freedom policies that resonate with a majority of Americans.
Since the International Religious Freedom Law was enacted in 1998, it has faced challenges within the State Department’s liberal bureaucratic framework.
However, things started to improve under Sam Brownback, the ambassador for international religious freedom during Trump’s tenure. The Office gained more authority and responsibility, commensurate with its vital role in foreign policy.
The tragedy lies in the fact that this potential is now threatened as the Office of International Religious Freedom returns to a lesser status, both for those globally suffering from religious persecution and for U.S. national security. The ambassador has essentially reverted to an insignificant role within the vast State Department bureaucracy.
To understand the context, it’s worth noting that the International Religious Freedom Law established an ambassadorial position focused on advancing religious freedom, reflecting the founders’ views of America.
For a long time, many Democrats have disagreed with this perspective. Back in 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright asserted that emphasizing international religious freedom created an illegitimate “hierarchy” of human rights, suggesting it overshadowed other rights.
As a result, Albright placed this office under the umbrella of the Human Rights office, aligned with progressive social issues, and this arrangement lasted nearly two decades.
In 2016, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FLA.) sought to rectify this situation by proposing amendments that enhanced the authority of the international religious freedom ambassador.
With these changes, ambassadors were empowered to “report directly to the Secretary of State,” enabling better coordination of international religious freedom efforts. This shift coincided with Trump’s election and laid a solid foundation for Ambassador Brownback.
He adeptly showcased how a well-defined international religious freedom policy could contribute to moral obligations and national security.
Brownback invited numerous foreign ministers and civil society leaders to Washington to explain America’s commitment to international religious freedom and its benefits.
During these sessions, the critical role of religious freedom in defending human dignity and countering terrorism was emphasized, asserting that it can help limit governmental power and deter external threats.
He traveled extensively to present these arguments, condemning major violators such as Xi Jinping of China, Iran’s Ayatollah, ISIS, the Taliban, and Vladimir Putin of Russia.
Under his leadership, U.S. international religious freedom policies illustrated how they could positively impact all human rights and contribute to national security.
However, under the Biden administration, Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared a “equal” approach to human rights, which suggests there are no non-negotiable rights. This perspective has overshadowed the authority of the international religious freedom ambassador, granted through the 2016 amendments.
Interestingly, some of the rights promoted by Democrats—including those for “atheists and humanists”—have been actively pursued under Blinken’s Human Rights Office, with initiatives aimed at promoting atheism funded and categorized under “Freedom of Religion.”
Earlier this year, Trump nominated Marco Rubio—a strong advocate for religious freedom—as Secretary of State, sparking renewed hope for international religious freedom policies.
The most recent changes in organization suggested a new focus for the Secretary-General on foreign aid, humanitarian issues, and religious freedom.
Nevertheless, these positive developments do not address the central issue: the international religious freedom ambassador and office should not have been relegated under the Human Rights Office. It raises questions about how this reorganization aligns with the objectives of the 2016 law.
So, what can be done?
First, State Department leadership must uphold the full authority bestowed on the International Religious Freedom Ambassador by law, especially amidst these significant structural changes. Brownback’s tenure clearly demonstrated the ambassador’s value to both America and the wider world.
Second, any substantial reorganization requires a thorough evaluation of key state functions and policy effectiveness. When this review occurs, the reasoning behind moving the Office of International Religious Freedom back under Human Rights should be examined closely by congressional committees.
If the operational integrity of the Office of International Religious Freedom is compromised, it should rapidly be restored to its original standing, reporting directly to the Secretary of State.
Finally, history suggests that the precedents established by this reorganization may lead future administrations to neglect the U.S. commitment to international religious freedom.
The State Department must exercise utmost caution in this restructuring to prevent repeating past errors that weakened the U.S. stance on international religious freedom by placing it within the sprawling State Department bureaucracy.
