Democrats call on Rubio to preserve State Department human rights bureau

A group of 10 Democratic senators are urging Secretary of State Marco Rubio to save the State Department's human rights arm amid his sweeping reorganization effort.
The State Department notified Congress last month that most offices in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) would be shuttered under the current proposal.
The DRL's work focuses primarily on pro-democracy efforts in developing countries and autocracies including in Cuba, China, Nicaragua, North Korea, Iran, Russia and Venezuela.
'The proposed reorganization of DRL raises serious concerns about the Department's prioritization of democracy and human rights and the role of DRL in advancing U.S. national security priorities,' the senators wrote in a letter to Rubio, who was a senator for 14 years before President Trump appointed him to be the nation's top diplomat.
The senators' letter was dated last Thursday, but it was released to reporters Monday.
'The proposed reorganization would result in a structural and substantive demotion of human rights promotion that runs counter to the spirit of the law and your personal legacy working on these issues,' the senators wrote.
The letter was signed by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Chris Coons (Del.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), Jacky Rosen (Nev.) and Peter Welch (Vt.).
The senators acknowledged in the letter that they were trying to appeal to Rubio's 'longstanding commitment to U.S. support for emerging democracies and the brave dissidents and human rights defenders who challenge authoritarianism across the globe' and pointed to remarks he made in a 2017 Senate subcommittee hearing about the link between international assistance and national security interests.
'As you stated in the subcommittee hearing previously mentioned, 'millions of people around the world who live in societies dominated by fear and oppression look to the United States of America to champion their cause to fully exercise their God-given rights,'' they wrote. 'There are no greater champions more capable of advancing this noble cause than the dedicated staff in DRL.'
The State Department didn't immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment.
Rubio said in a May 29 news release that the departmental overhaul plan was drafted after 'thoughtful and deliberative work' that considered input from lawmakers, long-time employees and others with vested interests.
'The reorganization plan will result in a more agile Department, better equipped to promote America's interests and keep Americans safe across the world,' he said.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Chicago Tribune

19 minutes ago

• Chicago Tribune

Mohammad Hosseini: Civilians like my family are caught in the crossfire between Iran and Israel

Ordinary people are in total shock and stress in Iran. The capital city Tehran, a megacity with more than 10 million inhabitants — and 17 million in the metropolitan area — has thousands of hospitals and other civilian facilities that can't be evacuated immediately. Many people, including my parents, have responsibilities that prevent them from leaving Tehran. Then there are many who have no other place to go. Those who have left Tehran are stuck on roads for hours on their way to nearby cities that are being inundated with the influx, and they face a shortage of food, fuel and other essential resources. In short, we are dealing with a nightmare in which even the official media that communicates emergency warnings and supports civilians has been a target. I was born in Iran at a time when the armed forces were fighting an Iraqi invasion, a war that lasted from 1980 to 1988. My only recollection of that horrible event is the sound of sirens. At school, our books told us that America and Israel are enemies: 'The Americans exploited us until 1979, and now that we are finally free of their tyranny and have finally pushed the Iraqis out, we should contain the American military offshoot, Israel, to fully push colonial interests out of our region.' This and other messaging that was much more radical — involving weekly chants of 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' during Friday prayers — were promoted by the state media. Nevertheless, the ordinary people of Iran have not acted on these sentiments and, based on anecdotes from visitors to Iran, are very welcoming toward Americans. Perhaps the biggest fear in Iran and Israel has been the prospect of a direct confrontation. On both sides, people have tried to moderate harsh rhetoric or encourage their political establishment to find peaceful solutions such as the 2015 nuclear deal. Nevertheless, hard-liners in both countries have remained resolute, telling the public that moderates are naive and fail to grasp the true nature of the threat. Iranian hard-liners have consistently pointed to the presence of American military bases in the region as a major source of danger. Meanwhile, Israeli leaders have argued that, given Iran's support for regional proxies, it is better to strike first than to risk destruction, as captured by the doctrine 'rise and kill first.' This time, though, we are all afraid that the current conflict will go on for weeks before one of the parties backs off. Many Iranians and Israelis who have left their country have family and friends back home who are caught in the crossfire. My retired parents are both taking care of their moms. My maternal grandmother has Parkinson's disease and cannot do much. My paternal grandmother has severe arthritis with significant cartilage damage and bone issues in her back, which have made her completely immobile. Health care services are overwhelmed or short-staffed, and chaos is rising in both countries. In Israel, empty supermarket shelves and uneven distribution of bomb shelters are causing stress to rise among its residents. In Iran, the internet has been shut down nationwide, and international landline calls have been blocked since Wednesday, cutting off citizens from contact with loved ones. Having heard explosions in recent days, my mom told me in one of our last calls that she is reminded of when the nearby Imam Khomeini Hospital was hit by a missile in 1987. She had left her children at home to buy groceries and was on her way back when the attack happened. 'When I heard the blast, I dropped everything and ran,' she recalled. By the time she reached home, the windows were shattered, and her ears were still ringing, a problem she continues to suffer from. She walked into the house and found my sister and me with wet pants, crying. There are many stories like this one, and many far worse, but more importantly, new ones are unfolding as ordinary people in both countries are terrorized by the conflict. Indeed, the outcome of this conflict, whether a fragile ceasefire or a regime change in Iran, is likely to be disastrous for the Iranian and Israeli people. In the case of a ceasefire, it would leave behind weakened governments that, despite decades of propaganda, failed to protect their citizens. On the other hand, regime change could plunge Iran into chaos, triggering a protracted, uncertain process of drafting a new constitution, forming a stable government and rebuilding public trust, a process that may ultimately fail. Consider the ongoing instability in Libya. In Israel, hard-liners would tighten their grip on all facets of the political establishment, push Arabs back and destroy any chance of building a democratic society. A ceasefire would at least prevent further bloodshed in both countries and give grassroots communities a chance to regroup and heal the trauma of the war. Further escalation, on the other hand, would cause only more death and destruction and limit opportunities for reconciliation.

Chicago Tribune

19 minutes ago

• Chicago Tribune

Editorial: U.S. bombs fall in Iran

Saturday evening, President Donald Trump announced on social media that the U.S. had dropped 'a full payload of bombs' on Iran's most important nuclear site, Fordow, as well as completing strikes on Natanz and Isfahan. The stunning action, which came sooner than even close observers anticipated and is without obvious precedent, embroiled the U.S., for better or worse, in the middle of the ongoing war between Israel and Iran. Saturday June 22 turned out to be a historic day with likely far-reaching consequences for the Middle East. Consider: An American attack unfolded inside Iran. Many Americans were unnerved by the President's action and understandably so, given the likelihood of an Iranian response, as we write yet unknown. What should be made of Trump's action? We would have preferred the President had given more time to diplomacy, always preferable to war. His 'two-week' deadline appears to have been a ruse and we prefer that the President of the United States keep his word. And we would have preferred the involvement of Congress. Our qualms do not mean we believe that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's oppressive and theocratic Iranian regime, which has fought proxy wars by propping up the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, should be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Nobody wants that to happen, beginning with Israel, of course, but including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and, well, every nation where rational people dominate public discourse. How close the Iran regime really is to building a nuclear weapon is contested. Those of us with long memories can remember Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talking about the imminence of an Iranian nuclear bomb as far back as 1996. More than 20 years ago, Netanyahu was again saying that Iran was very close to building a bomb that could reach the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. All this time, Iran has kept insisting its nuclear program is only for peaceful, civilian purposes. On the other hand, nuclear watchdogs also have consistently raised concerns about the growth of Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium, and Khamenei's regime has not exactly been a model of cooperation. Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency has said, 'is the only non-nuclear-weapon state in the world that is producing and accumulating uranium enriched to 60 percent.' That does not constitute evidence of a plan to build a bomb in and of itself, but the higher the level of enrichment, the closer the uranium gets to 90% weapons grade, and Iran's enrichment level is widely viewed by experts as a significant step closer to weapons grade. For the average American, the truth is not easy to discern even from our own officials. Take U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's testimony to Congress this past March. On the one hand, she said the view of the intelligence community was that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.' On the other, she also said Iran was suddenly talking a lot more about nuclear weapons. That might sound vague, but it's actually highly significant, given the regime's hatred of Israel and the battles with the Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. It's likely that the intra-Iranian discourse has shifted in the light of Israeli aggression. As one of the attendees at the American Nuclear Society's conference in Chicago this past week told us, there likely are those within the Iranian program who are more than interested in building a nuclear bomb to protect the regime, even if the majority are scientists interested only in peaceful, civilian uses and either ambivalent or silently hostile toward Khamenei. The question that does not get enough attention is the balance of power. Some in the latter category, she told us, already have been killed by Israel, much to their colleagues' regret. Some of those in the former category who are still alive thus are most likely newly emboldened. At the time of writing, it was unclear how much Saturday night changed that equation. No doubt there are Iranian voices speaking in favor of a major response. One can only hope other voices are arguing for caution, not least for the people of Iraq who awoke in fear Sunday morning. In terms of realpolitik, of course, Israel most wants regime change in Iran. So does the vast majority of the Iranian diaspora, including some we know in Chicago. So does the vast majority of the Iranian people, given Khamenei's repression of women, his stealing of elections, his meeting of dissent with brutal violence, his funding of terror, his denouncement of opposing voices. And that's only the start of the list. This is not a regime worth defending, and recent progressive attempts to link the situation in Iran with the war in Iraq, ostensibly fought over weapons of mass destruction that did not prove to exist at scale, are illogical. This time around, the question in Iran is more about intent, not the existence or otherwise of weapons. And people's intent can change as circumstances change. What is worth debating is whether the Israeli attacks will make the end of the Khamenei regime more likely. You could argue the events of the last several days are weakening Khamenei. You could also argue that spring does not arrive when the sky is full of bombs and people are fleeing Tehran as fast as humanly possible. So where should you stand? Not with the MAGA isolationists, certainly, who claim that none of this has anything to do with this country, a view widely assumed to be cleaving the MAGA movement in two, which is no bad thing in our view. That's not to say the likes of Tucker Carlson are wrong about the potential costs of a war with Iraq; all wars extract their price and too little stateside attention is being paid in our view to the danger of nuclear contamination, which is rightly front of mind in the Persian Gulf States, even though those states are no fans of the Iranian regime and want it gone. But the horse bolted decades ago when it comes to U.S. involvement in the Middle East. But we also don't recommending standing with those far leftists who view Iran as benign, its hatred of Israel as overblown and who overlook Khamenei's human rights abuses to fit some anti-capitalist narrative. When you see the extremes of American political discourse getting into bed together, that's a great moment to leave the bedroom. What has changed the most, of course, is that the Oct. 7 attacks changed the Israeli mindset vis-a-vis Iran, and that Netanyahu calculated that the Trump administration would be more supportive of the kind of systemic change in the region that Israel now sees as crucial to its security. He was not wrong. Trump, we all know by now, is a born improviser, which can be dangerous in situations like these. Some would argue his application of force was necessary if we want to get Iran to halt its nuclear activities. The other view is that actually dropping some massive bomb deep down into the uranium enrichment facility at Fordo will not be worth the cost. Adding to the complexity, arguably the redundancy, of that question is the reality that Israel was not going to stop, whatever the U.S. did or did not do in its support. One hopeful interpretation is that the U.S. action ends with this move against the nuclear facilities and that the talking now starts again. This weekend, though, there is reason to worry about the Iranian people, most of whom long for a deal wherein Khamenei and his crew hop a plane and set the Iranian people free. In his social media post, Trump said this was the time for peace. May he be good for his word.

CBS News

21 minutes ago

• CBS News

U.S. strikes on Iran nuclear facilities see Hamas and the Houthis vow retaliation, as world leaders react

The U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear sites has fueled fears that Israel's war with Tehran could escalate into a wider regional conflict, and other countries reacted Sunday with calls for diplomacy and words of caution. President Trump had said Thursday that he would decide within two weeks whether to get involved. In the end, it took just days, and Washington inserted itself into Israel's campaign with its early Sunday attack­­­. It remained unclear early on how much damage had been inflicted, but Mr. Trump lauded the "massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear assemblies in the Iranian regime: Fordo, Natanz and Esfahan," as a "massive military success." Iran had pledged to retaliate if the U.S. joined the Israeli assault, and President Trump reiterated his stern warning to the Islamic Republic on Sunday night against targeting any U.S. assets in the region. President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are seen in the White House Situation Room, June 21, 2025, amid strikes on Iran. White House/Handout Some have questioned whether a weakened Iran would capitulate or remain defiant and begin striking with allies at U.S. targets scattered across the Gulf region. There are roughly 40,000 American troops deployed in the Middle East, many of them based within easy striking distance of Iran's missiles, though its stockpile of such weapons has been depleted by a week of Israeli attacks. Below is a look at reactions from various governments and other officials around the world. Israeli leaders laud U.S. strikes on Iran Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke following the strikes, the officials said. And in a video address, Netanyahu praised the president for conducting the strikes. "President Trump and I often say peace through strength. First comes strength, then comes peace. And tonight President Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength." Israeli President Isaac Herzog, in a post on social media, called the U.S. strikes "a moment when the principles of liberty, responsibility, and security have triumphed. A decisive moment between the axis of terror and evil and the axis of hope." He thanked the U.S. and President Trump specifically, saying: "This brave step serves the security and safety of the entire free world. I hope it will lead to a better future for the Middle East — and help advance the urgent release of our hostages held in captivity in Gaza." U.N. chief says he's "gravely alarmed," pushes for diplomacy U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said he was "gravely alarmed" by the use of force by the United States. "There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world," he said in a statement posted on social media. "I call on Member States to de-escalate." "There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy." Iran's allies Hamas, Houthis condemn "American aggression," vow to join retaliation Both the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hamas have condemned the U.S. strikes. The Houthis vowed to support Iran in its fight against "the Zionist and American aggression." In a statement on Sunday, the Houthi political bureau called on Muslim nations to join "the Jihad and resistance option as one front against the Zionist-American arrogance." Hamas and the Houthis are part of Iran's so-called "Axis of Resistance," the collection of pro-Iranian proxies stretching from Yemen to Lebanon that for years gave Iran considerable power across the region. Hamas, long designated a terrorist organization by the U.S., Israel and the European Union, has ruled the Gaza Strip for almost 20 years. It has been under blistering attack by Israeli forces since it launched its unprecedented Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel, sparking the ongoing war in the Palestinian territory. Virtually all of Hamas' senior leaders have been killed, and it remains unclear how much capacity the group still has to mount major attacks on Israel. The Houthis, too, have seen their missile and other military assets in Yemen pounded by Israeli warplanes for months, along with U.S. and British strikes aimed at reducing the Houthi threat to shipping in the region. Lebanon's leader says country must avoid being drawn in Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said that Lebanon needs to stay away from any possible regional spillover from the conflict. "It is increasingly important for us to adhere strictly to the supreme national interest, which is the need to avoid Lebanon being ... drawn into the ongoing regional confrontation in any way," Salam said in a post on X. Lebanon, which sits just north of Israel, is the long-time home of the Iranian-backed, Hamas-allied Hezbollah group. Long designated a terrorist organization by the U.S., Hezbollah has also engaged in warfare with Israel since the Hamas-orchestrated, Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack. Hezbollah has for many years been considered one of Iran's best-armed and most potent proxy forces in the region, but much of its leadership has been killed and its fighting capacity reduced by successive Israeli strikes and months of cross-border ground operations that saw Israeli forces push deep into southern Lebanon. It remains unclear whether Hezbollah will join in any Iranian retaliatory strikes against Israel or U.S. installations in the region, or what capacity it retains to do so. China's state-run media say U.S. could repeat "Iraq mistake" A flash commentary from China's government-run media asked whether the U.S. is "repeating its Iraq mistake in Iran." The online piece by CGTN, the foreign-language arm of the state broadcaster, said the U.S. strikes mark a dangerous turning point. "History has repeatedly shown that military interventions in the Middle East often produce unintended consequences, including prolonged conflicts and regional destabilization," it said, citing the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. It said a measured, diplomatic approach that prioritizes dialogue over military confrontation offers the best hope for stability in the Middle East. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer calls on Iran to negotiate "Iran's nuclear program is a grave threat to international security. Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the U.S. has taken action to alleviate that threat," British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Sunday on a statement posted on social media. "The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority," he added. "We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis." EU urges dialogue, with bloc's foreign ministers set to meet "Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, as it would be a threat to international security. I urge all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation," European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said in a tweet. She added that Foreign Ministers from the EU's 27 member states would meet Monday, "to discuss the situation." New Zealand's leader says it's "critical further escalation is avoided" New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters urged "all parties to return to talks." He wouldn't tell reporters Sunday whether New Zealand supported President Trump's actions, saying they had only just happened. The three-time foreign minister said the crisis is "the most serious I've ever dealt with" and that it was "critical further escalation is avoided." "Diplomacy will deliver a more enduring resolution than further military action," he said. Australia appeals for "dialogue and diplomacy" Australia, which shuttered its embassy in Tehran and evacuated staff Friday, pushed for a diplomatic end to the conflict. "We have been clear that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security," a government official said in a written statement. "We note the U.S. President's statement that now is the time for peace." "The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy."