Imagine that the United States had a national human rights institution (NHRI) today. In Pittsburgh, community coalitions working on affordable housing would have a powerful ally at the federal level. In Los Angeles, local officials addressing homelessness would be able to access a global clearinghouse of human rights–aligned best practices. In Indigenous, rural, and farming communities facing water contamination, residents would have a nationally recognized body to monitor local remedies and promote access to water as a basic human right. In New York City, lawmakers working to safeguard the rights of LGBTQIA+ residents would have national-level research to support their local policy efforts. In sanctuary cities like Boston, mayors pushing back against abusive federal immigration policies would have independent support for the legality of their actions that prioritize the safety and well-being of all residents. And cities nationwide would have assistance when creating budgets that consider human rights to counteract any federal chainsawing of funds.
This vision isn’t far-fetched. Globally, more than 120 nations have established independent NHRIs compliant with the Paris Principles. Their mandates and functions vary, but many monitor human rights compliance, offer recommendations to governments, investigate complaints, and/or engage with United Nations (UN) mechanisms. Yet the United States stands conspicuously absent from this list, despite repeated recommendations from UN bodies and the advocacy of domestic civil society.
Cities as human rights laboratories
Cities have recently emerged as critical sites for human rights innovation and implementation, as “human rights globalization” propels local activism. The Human Rights Cities Alliance (HRCA), a North American network of advocates and scholar-practitioners, has promoted the human rights city model as a vehicle for local change. This initiative is part of a global movement that embeds human rights standards directly into local governance and policy, emphasizing public participation, transparency, and accountability.
Local approaches gained particular urgency during the first Trump administration, when federal disengagement from international bodies prompted local leaders to step into the breach. Cities for CEDAW (the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), for instance, saw an increase in municipalities implementing human rights policies like gender budgeting, even without federal ratification of the women’s rights treaty. The pattern is repeating during the second Trump administration. For example, the Climate Mayors have renewed their efforts as the United States again withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement.
These “people-centered” initiatives are led by those most directly impacted by rights violations and prioritize intersectionality and participatory governance. This approach makes cities more responsive to persistent challenges like housing insecurity, environmental justice, and racial discrimination.
Enhancing the Universal Periodic Review
A US NHRI would today be deeply engaged in preparations for the country’s upcoming Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in November 2025. It would conduct nationwide consultations in diverse communities, ensuring minoritized populations’ voices are heard, and produce a comprehensive, independent assessment of the nation’s human rights record.
Perhaps most importantly, an independent NHRI would promote continuity in human rights commitments across administrations. Presently, UPR recommendations may be embraced by one administration and ignored by the next. For example, during the last US UPR review in November 2020, the Trump administration declared that there was no police violence problem in the United States. However, while the Biden administration was in power, it fully acknowledged the police violence crisis and supported the recommendations on this issue. An effective NHRI would maintain institutional memory and accountability, issuing regular progress reports, coordinating implementation and consistency across all levels of government, and providing technical assistance.
Building independence and sustainability
To be effective, an NHRI must be independent and protected from shifting political winds. As such, a US NHRI must be established through legislation rather than executive order. This legislation would provide a mandate and guarantee funding, shielding the institution from annual budget battles.
Functional independence could be reinforced through a pluralistic process for selecting human rights experts to make up commissions, staggering terms of service beyond election cycles, and distributing appointments among different branches of government and civil society. All of these measures would help to ensure that diverse perspectives are represented.
To make it more resilient, an NHRI could be embedded within existing networks of state and local mechanisms, establishing its relevance to local concerns.
A shadow NHRI: Cities lead the way
Unfortunately, a US NHRI exists only in our imaginations. Given the urgent need for coordinated action and the untapped potential of municipal leadership, we propose a civil society-led “shadow” NHRI that builds on the human rights cities movement. It will recruit grassroots and municipal human rights experts to fulfill core NHRI functions: offering recommendations on human rights matters affecting local communities, promoting local implementation through knowledge-sharing, and engaging municipal leaders in preparing reports to UN bodies. This “shadow” NHRI could attract philanthropic support and draw on local equality and human rights commissions, universities, and others with expertise in data collection and analysis.
Inspired by the Human Rights Cities and Cities for CEDAW movements, this approach recognizes that civil society need not wait for national leadership. By building human rights practices from the ground up, such efforts create immediate improvements in people’s lives. For example, the LA County Human Relations Commission is already preparing for the 2028 Olympics in the city, considering memorials and markers at Olympic sites to tell human rights stories. US cities have increasingly submitted their own human rights reports to UN bodies and implemented frameworks like the Sustainable Development Goals when federal leadership has been absent. “International” engagement is no longer limited to nations—cities are playing a crucial and innovative role.
While a shadow institution is no substitute for an internationally recognized, government-supported NHRI, a grassroots movement can both make a real impact now and lay the groundwork for a more official and comprehensive institution, and cities can be powerful partners in realizing this vision. City-led trans-local networks, joined by regional bodies in their human rights assessments, can amplify calls for a US NHRI. International sister cities can inspire and support budding human rights cities in the United States. Finally, human rights cities activists might rally around—and draw strength from—the campaign for a shadow NHRI. Through its innovative approaches to persistent challenges, direct engagement with affected communities, and willingness to incorporate international standards into local governance, such a movement can provide a practical foundation for national reform and build political momentum.
The United States urgently needs an NHRI. The question is how to achieve one that will effectively translate international commitments into tangible protections for all communities. Human rights cities point the way forward.
This article is part of a series in partnership with the Human Rights Cities Alliance. See other articles in this series here.