The United States and several Western nations have shifted away from treating international religious freedom as a core diplomatic priority, a report from Dallas Baptist University’s Centre for Global Religious Freedom concluded, saying this change has contributed to rising persecution affecting Christians and other faith communities worldwide.
Report outlines institutional and policy shifts
Published on 27 July, the report details what it describes as a retreat of Western nations from human rights such as religious liberty. The authors argue that policy since the start of President Donald Trump’s second administration in January 2025 has emphasised "hard interests" — military, economic and territorial concerns — over alliances, values and soft-power tools.
Among the specific changes cited are reductions in funding and staffing for agencies and non-governmental organisations that advance international religious freedom; the absence of an ambassador-at-large for the issue at the State Department; and a reorganisation that moved human rights initiatives into regional bureaus, which the report says often prioritise relationship maintenance over rights advocacy.
“The U.S. retreat,” the report said, included cuts to USAID and suspending the refugee resettlement programme, measures the authors link to a decline in support for victims of religious persecution.
Practical consequences highlighted
The report links institutional change to practical outcomes: smaller budgets and fewer specialists reduce the capacity to monitor abuses, engage partners and provide assistance to victims. It notes the suspension of the US refugee resettlement programme as an example of a policy that reduced a pathway formerly available to people fleeing religious persecution.
- Funding and staffing for international religious freedom initiatives were reduced, the report says.
- The ambassador-at-large post remained unfilled for a period, according to the authors.
- Human rights work was shifted into regional bureaus, seen as less equipped to prioritise religious-freedom concerns.
Not all actors view the shift the same way. The State Department is reported to have countered that the administration has made the United States "a global leader" on religious freedom, presenting an alternative interpretation of policy outcomes and priorities.
| Issue | Report's finding |
|---|---|
| Agency capacity | Cuts to USAID and staffing reductions |
| Institutional prioritisation | Human rights initiatives shifted to regional bureaus |
| Refugee resettlement | Suspension reduced options for those fleeing persecution |
Implications for South Africa and the international order
While the report focuses on Western governments, its findings carry implications for countries outside North America and Europe. A deprioritisation of religious freedom by a major diplomatic actor can affect multilateral forums, funding streams for civil-society groups and the availability of resettlement options for refugees — all areas that intersect with South Africa’s foreign-policy priorities and obligations under international law.
South Africa, which has been active in some human-rights fora and hosts refugees from various countries, may find coordination with Washington and like-minded partners altered if the US emphasises strategic interests over rights-led diplomacy. Nongovernmental organisations working on faith-based persecution could also see changes in partnership opportunities and grant availability if funding trends identified in the report continue.
The report’s authors frame the shift as a return to a historical norm in foreign affairs where states prioritise power and territory. If that interpretation is accepted more broadly, it raises questions about how value-based diplomacy will be sustained in multilateral institutions and bilateral relationships.
For now, the debate between the report’s findings and official US statements on global leadership in religious freedom underscores a tension in contemporary diplomacy: how to balance security and economic priorities with the promotion and protection of fundamental rights abroad.
