State Department’s New Focus on Natural Rights

Last month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio put into action a significant restructuring plan aimed at reinforcing what he sees as America’s top priority in foreign policy. This plan has resulted in the consolidation of several offices, while also establishing new ones, including a dedicated position for natural rights.

The term “natural rights” may evoke traditional debates about “human rights,” often considered the standard in diplomatic discussions. While important, such discussions sometimes obscure deeper truths. After all, without recognizing human nature, can we truly claim to have rights?

When we fail to acknowledge the limitations of our shared humanity, discussions about rights risk devolving into mere rhetoric.

If our rights are not derived from a fundamental human nature, they become contingent on governmental whims. Rights granted by the government can just as easily be rescinded.

This was a point of caution during the Trump administration. Vice President JD Vance highlighted a significant threat to Europe in his Munich speech, which sparked considerable attention at the State Department.

U.S. officials are concerned about natural rights around the world, not because of political affiliations, but because the acknowledgment of these rights is foundational to our government.

The Right to Conflict

Our nation’s founders committed themselves to the principle that “all people are created equal” and recognized that certain inalienable rights are bestowed by a Creator. Today, we find ourselves in the oldest constitutional republic, which remains a pillar of a peaceful world order. Conflict has always existed and will continue to do so, yet America symbolizes freedom through its commitment to natural rights.

Rights, in essence, are robust claims. They must be inviolable except under dire circumstances. Laws that infringe upon natural rights stand against their very essence. Politicians who undermine these rights threaten the fabric of society itself.

However, over the years, the concept of rights has increasingly drifted away from its foundational ties to human nature, leading to what some call a rights inflation crisis. Today, we witness violent disagreements arising from various conflicting rights—often at the expense of others.

In the absence of recognizing our shared limitations as humans, conversations about rights can devolve into mere assertions of power, stripped of moral weight. This explains why zealous advocates for new “rights” often resort to coercive tactics rather than genuine discourse, resulting in public outcries and shame campaigns.

This coercive approach endangers the genuine exercise of true rights. Authentic natural rights are, by their nature, compatible with order and generally only conflict in marginal situations. The introduction of so-called human rights often disrupts this balance and can create outright opposition between old and new rights.

Consider free speech, which has been compromised in many places to accommodate a more authoritarian form of “tolerance.” Thousands in the UK face legal action for so-called “hate speech” each year. Fundamental rights to property, personal safety, and self-defense are similarly threatened by a fervor for diversity and inclusion that may prioritize identity over individuality.

Distinguishing Genuine Rights

It’s essential to differentiate between true natural rights and those distorted by special interests pursuing their agendas. Three criteria can help clarify this distinction: functional universality, necessity of nature, and obligation to respond.

Firstly, functional universality implies that rights can be upheld without interference from the government. For instance, free speech can be universally practiced, while universal education cannot.

Secondly, necessity means that people must follow their natural inclinations without obstruction. We should be free to provide for ourselves and our families, connect with others, and engage in religious practices. Governments operate based on an understanding of human nature but cannot promise what isn’t universally available.

Lastly, all true rights come with a responsibility to respect others. For instance, the right to own property comes with the duty to honor others’ property too. A right that possesses no associated obligation is simply a guise for entitlement.

By applying these benchmarks, the Bureau of Natural Rights aims to bring clarity to our foreign policy and curb the influence of self-serving interests masquerading as advocates for human rights. Rights that fail to fit this framework might seem well-intentioned, but misrepresenting them as natural rights is misleading.