The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom’s 2026 annual report, released on March 4, focused on international issues — but was overshadowed by controversy over its critique that other branches of government have undercut protections for religious freedom.
It criticized, for example, cuts to USAID programs, since many of those programs were specifically aimed at protecting religious freedom.
The report stated that the State Department’s suspension of foreign aid “left hundreds of victims of religious persecution receiving support in immediate need of lifesaving assistance in countries such as Afghanistan, Burma, Egypt, Nigeria, and Vietnam.” It added that U.S. funding cuts “contributed to 11.6 million refugees, including many fleeing religious persecution, losing access to humanitarian assistance,” and that as a result 130,000 refugees, including about 15,000 registered Iranian Christians, remain in limbo.
The USCIRF — established as an independent, bipartisan legislative branch agency by the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act — has a mandate to monitor violations of religious freedom globally and make recommendations to the president, secretary of state, and the U.S. Congress.
Republican members of the commission officially dissented from these statements. They did not say that the findings were wrong but that they went far beyond the scope of USCIRF's own mandate, which is specifically international in focus.
My own view is that the criticism that many of the Trump Administration's acts have undercut religious freedom is important and correct, but that it does fall out of USCIRF's authority and scope.
It is disturbing that this issue has divided the Commission on partisan grounds. Hitherto, it has been successfully bipartisan, and in its international focus continues to be so.
The commission is required to recommend to the State Department that governments that have “engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom,” defined as “systematic, ongoing, and egregious,” be designated as “Countries of Particular Concern.”
Other, slightly lesser offenders should be put on a “Special Watch List.” Finally, it recommends the designation of "Entities of Particular Concern" to violent non-government bodies, most of which are Islamist terrorist groups in Africa, as well as the Iran-funded Houthis in Yemen.
One highlight is its special attention to the hideous violence in Nigeria. Since 2009, USCIRF has recommended that the U.S. Government designate Nigeria a CPC. The Trump administration did so in 2020, but in 2021, while the situation worsened, the Biden administration removed the designation without offering any explanation. President Trump re-designated Nigeria in October 2025, and this has helped focus attention and action on the tens of thousands killed there in religion-related violence.
The commission recommended that Burma, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan continue to be designated as CPCs and that another five countries — Afghanistan, India, Libya, Syria and Vietnam — be added to the list.
It also urged that Algeria and Azerbaijan continue to be on the SWL and that nine countries be added: Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Qatar, Turkey and Uzbekistan.
It also proposed adding the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan to the EPC list.
Note that these are recommendations made to the State Department, which is the body that actually makes the final decision on a country's status. Despite the Commission's proposals in 2025, the State Department did not add India, Nigeria and Afghanistan as CPCs. Similarly, apart from Algeria and Azerbaijan, the Department did not follow USCIRF's SWL recommendations.
Even if the U.S. Government does give a CPC designation, it is not required to apply any sanctions to the offending country. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are CPC’s but have been granted “national Interest waivers,” a declaration that any proposed sanctions would not be in the US national interest.
Now, the U.S. Government is highly unlikely to accept the new recommendation that Qatar be designated a SWL. The country often works closely with the U.S. and is home to the Al Udeid Air Base, the largest U.S. military installation in the Middle East, and is central to the war on Iran. Similarly, America will not want to antagonize India, with whom it is seeking increased partnership.
The result is that the U.S. largely ends up sanctioning those, such as Iran, China, and North Korea, whom it is already sanctioning on other grounds.
Does this mean that these designations are essentially merely virtue signaling without real results? Not at all. Many countries do not want to be embarrassed by appearing on the State Department or USCIF lists and take affirmative steps to avoid it.
The report also creates and shapes media coverage. There are many, usually small, NGOs that faithfully report on religious freedom worldwide but do not receive much coverage, especially because they often do not fit dominant media interests or narratives. Reports by a bipartisan government agency draw attention to many otherwise ignored conditions around the world.
In addition, this year's USCIRF report is both deeper and more expansive than previous ones. Its overview highlights Syria, China, India, Central Asia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Since the U.S. State Department has not issued its own legally required annual religious report for almost two years now, USCIRF's report is the best available global overview. It remains an indispensable resource.