1948 1998 

A RETROSPECTIVE

TH

2018 2023 
2

USCIRF’S MISSION

To advance international freedom of religion or belief, by independently 

assessing and unflinchingly confronting threats to this fundamental right.

COMMISSIONERS

Abraham Cooper, Chair

Frederick A. Davie, Vice Chair

David Curry, Commissioner

Susie Gelman, Commissioner

Mohamed Magid, Commissioner

Stephen Schneck, Commissioner

Nury Turkel, Commissioner

Eric Ueland, Commissioner

Frank Wolf, Commissioner

Erin D. Singshinsuk, Executive Director

UNITED STATES COMMISSION

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
3

WHO WE ARE

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) is an 

independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission created 

by the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) that monitors the 

universal right to freedom of religion or belief abroad.

USCIRF uses international standards to monitor violations of freedom 

of religion or belief abroad and makes policy recommendations to the 

President, the Secretary of State, and Congress. USCIRF Commissioners 

are appointed by the President and Congressional leaders of both 

political parties. The Commission’s work is supported by a professional, 

nonpartisan staff. USCIRF is separate from the State Department, although 

the Department’s Ambassador at Large for International Religious 

Freedom is a non-voting, ex officio Commissioner.

WHAT IS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Inherent in religious freedom is the right to believe or not believe as 

one’s conscience leads, and live out one’s beliefs openly, peacefully, 

and without fear. Freedom of religion or belief is an expansive right that 

includes the freedoms of thought, conscience, expression, association, 

and assembly. While religious freedom is America’s first freedom, it also 

is a core human right international law and treaty recognize; a necessary 

component of U.S. foreign policy and America’s commitment to defending 

democracy and freedom globally; and a vital element of national security, 

critical to ensuring a more peaceful, prosperous, and stable world.

ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

USCIRF
LEAD-UP TO IRFA

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

17 IRFA and the Legislative Process

17 The Freedom from Religious Persecution Act

20 Secretary of State’s Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom 

Abroad

22 The International Religious Freedom Act

26 In the Trenches

30 Getting to the Vote

32 Summary of Outcomes

06 Introduction

07 Research Strategies

08 Prelude

12 Lead-up to IRFA

Above left: Eleanor Roosevelt holding 

UDHR 

Above right: Former Rep. Frank Wolf

GETTY IMAGES

SCOTT J. FERRELL/CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY / ALAMY

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

34 IRFA in the First Decade

44 IRFA in the Second Decade

58 IRFA Turns 25

59 Hopeful Milestones

68 A Pandemic and Many Perilous Patterns

74 IRF Moving Forward

76 IRFA on the Homefront

80 IRFA’s Impact Abroad 

82 The Power of Advocacy

92 Ambassadors at Large for International Religious Freedom

94 USCIRF Commissioners

98 Resources

109 Glossary of Terms

115 Authors

116	 USCIRF Staff

 USCIRF

 USCIRF

Above left: Former Senator Nickels 

and former Rep. Frank Wolf at USCIRF 

25th Anniversary Event

Above right: USCIRF meeting with U.S. 

Ambassador to the United Nations 

Linda Thomas-Greenfield and U.S. 

Ambassador at Large for International 

Religious Freedom Rashad Hussain

TABLE OF CONTENTS
6

INTRODUCTION

n the world of software engineering, development teams conduct 

meetings at the end of a project to determine what worked and 

what needs improvement. The meetings are called retrospectives 

and provide a forum for team members to reflect on important 

collaborative aspects of the project — process, effectiveness, mistakes, 

satisfaction, and quality. The end-goal of a well-conducted retrospective 

is clearer vision for the future and, hopefully, a plan for building better 

software.

This publication is a retrospective of the International Religious Freedom 

Act (IRFA), landmark legislation signed into law in the fall of 1998 that has 

been a driver of considerable human rights initiatives during the past 25 

years. In it, participants reflect on more than two decades of collaborative 

efforts to integrate international religious freedom (IRF) with U.S. foreign 

policy. It is a historical memory of the process of creating a law whose aim 

was to promote and protect religious freedom for all people, in all nations, 

of all faiths or no faith at all.

This retrospective includes candid conversations and observations about 

the effectiveness of the IRF Act — what has worked and what has fallen 

short, the mistakes and the milestones. It includes the voices of IRF 

participants who helped craft, implement, measure and refine IRFA. The 

intended end-goal, of course, is a clearer vision for the future and how to 

advance and strengthen the principles of the IRF Act in a world of growing 

persecution based on religion and beliefs.

Often, software development teams discover an unintended consequence 

from conducting retrospectives. The act of intentional reflection and 

thoughtful critique frequently leads to a renewed sense of team spirit, a 

refreshed camaraderie. It is the hope, then, that this IRFA retrospective 

also will inspire and reinforce a spirit of solidarity and motivation among 

those who seek to foster a full embrace of the respect for human dignity 

and freedom of conscience.

I

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
7

RESEARCH STRATEGY

The 25th Anniversary of the International Religious Freedom Act: A 

Retrospective includes content from its precursor, which was published in 

2018. Work began on this updated Retrospective in August 2023.

The research entailed reviewing legislation, policy, books, white papers, 

research reports and articles about international religious freedom 

published since the original Retrospective, between 2018 and 2023. 

When appropriate, hyperlinks are included to provide more information 

for readers of the digital PDF version.

The team followed its initial examination by conducting qualitative 

research through in-depth interviews with individuals working in 

government, academia, and non-governmental organizations. Asking 

open-ended questions evoked responses that were meaningful to 

those interviewed and allowed the flexibility to probe initial responses. 

Collecting information on stakeholder personal experiences and 

perspectives provided information about the human side of the issue, 

which at times revealed contradictory beliefs and opinions.

Our recruitment strategy and sample size were informed by materials 

read and referrals from stakeholders. For this updated version of 

the Retrospective, a total of 54 out of 60 attempted interviews were 

conducted. When added to the original count, the total number of 

completed interviews surpassed 109. Using informed consent for data 

collection, all interviews were conducted “on the record.” The complete 

interview list appears in the Resources section.

The authors have worked diligently to ensure that all information in 

this report is accurate as of the time of publication. We thank all the 

individuals who agreed to be interviewed for this project. Additionally, we 

thank Judith Golub for her contributions to this report.

Cover and interior design Distillery Creative Marketing Group, Inc. 

RESEARCH STRATEGY
8

“Congress shall make no law 

respecting an establishment of 

religion, or prohibiting the free 

exercise thereof; or abridging 

the freedom of speech, or of the 

press; or the right of the people 

peaceably to assemble, and to 

petition the government for a 

redress of grievances.” 

– U.S. Constitution, First Amendment

wenty-five years ago, members of Congress made a deliberate 

and unanimous choice to stand as beacons for the most 

fundamental of all human rights. Passage of the International 

Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) in 1998 sought to underscore 

America’s centuries-old commitment to the freedom of religion or belief 

and codify its importance within U.S. foreign policy.

As most scholars and casual observers would agree, religious freedom 

is foundational to the American character, as articulated in the 

Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Yet, despite the 

intrinsic value ascribed domestically to this first freedom, it is important 

to recognize that the design and approval of IRFA, which focuses on 

religious freedom abroad, was neither instant nor certain. Rather, IRFA 

has been (and remains) a journey.

Broader studies have been made as to the importance of religious 

freedom in shaping American sensibilities about culture and 

international relations. This account will focus instead on the unique 

historical context of IRFA — the domestic and international forces at 

play, the crafting and compromises of legislation, implementation of 

and changes to the act, and milestones achieved in the quarter century 

since its enactment. To begin, then, requires a brief look at what came 

before, a short examination of a few watershed moments of the 20th 

century.

The modern-day international religious freedom movement can be traced 

back to December 1948 with the adoption of the Universal Declaration 

of Human Rights (UDHR). Serving at the newly formed United Nations, 

former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt spearheaded the campaign to craft 

an international document aimed at preventing future human rights 

atrocities, such as the grand-scale abuses of the First and Second World 

Wars. Echoes of her husband’s earlier Four Freedoms speech (freedom 

of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from 

want) are evident in the final language of the UDHR. Article 18 focuses 

narrowly on the guarantee of freedom of religion or belief.

PRELUDE 

T

1948 Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights, Adopted December 10

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
9 9

PRELUDE

While not legally binding, 48-member nations at the UN General 

Assembly approved this international declaration, which has animated 

the international religious freedom conversation for 75 years. UDHR 

language has been embedded in numerous international treaties, 

national constitutions and laws and serves as a standard by which to 

measure the preservation or deprivation of basic human rights.

The significance of the UDHR as a unifying and transformative 

statement for the international community, particularly in the aftermath 

of the Second World War, cannot be overstated. Yet from the start, its 

curative properties have remained limited.

As the Cold War settled in during the second half of the 20th century, 

human rights violations and religious persecution persisted, particularly 

in Eastern Europe where communism held a firm grip. New initiatives 

and mechanisms to mitigate the suffering intensifying in Soviet bloc 

countries were needed. One such instrument, adopted by the United 

States in 1975, was the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, a powerful tool that 

established a linkage between U.S. foreign policy and human rights.

At the time, the Soviet Union was restricting the emigration of many of 

its citizens — mostly Jews, but also evangelical Christians, Catholics, 

and other religious minorities. The Jackson-Vanik Amendment

prohibited the U.S. President from extending most-favored-nation 

(MFN) trade status to any non-market economy that denied its citizens 

the right to emigrate or imposed more than a nominal tax on emigration 

or exit visas. Basically, the message from the United States was: if you 

want to enjoy the benefits of trade with us, start by treating your own 

people well.

“Everyone has the right to 

freedom of thought, conscience 

and religion; this right includes 

freedom to change his religion or 

belief, and freedom, either alone 

or in community with others 

and in public or private, to 

manifest his religion or belief in 

teaching, practice, worship and 

observance.” 

– UDHR, Article 18

WIKIPEDIA

PRELUDE

1975 Jackson-Vanik Amendment

The Trade Act of 1974 includes this 

provision establishing a linkage between 

U.S. foreign policy and human rights, 

particularly as related to the Soviet Jewry 

Movement. (January 3)
10

“The participating States 

will respect human rights 

and fundamental freedoms, 

including the freedom of 

thought, conscience, religion 

or belief, for all without 

distinction as to race, sex, 

language or religion.” 

– Helsinki Final Act, Principle VII

PRELUDE

The Jackson-Vanik Amendment fortified human rights as a priority 

within U.S. foreign policy and would remain an active lever for the next 

seven administrations. Another significant development of 1975 came 

at the conclusion of the first Conference on Security and Cooperation 

in Europe (CSCE), held in Helsinki, Finland. The CSCE addressed 

questions of European security and cooperation in three critical areas, 

or “baskets”: political and military issues; economics; and human rights, 

cultural cooperation, and freedom of the press.

The diplomatic agreement — known as the Helsinki Final Act —

that resulted between Soviet bloc countries and western nations 

participating in the CSCE was not originally pursued as a human rights 

initiative. In fact, many critics argued that negotiations with the Soviets 

would contribute to even greater, systemic human rights abuses 

throughout Eastern Europe. Over time, however, the Helsinki Final Act 

would prove to be a potent remedy to some of the most widespread 

humanitarian abuses within the Soviet Union and would hasten the 

demise of the Soviet regime.

Like Jackson-Vanik, the Helsinki Final Act linked trade and foreign 

policy with human rights. In exchange for agreements by the United 

States and other western nations on security and economic concerns, 

the Soviet leadership had to agree to honor the “third basket,” which 

focused specifically on human rights issues, including matters of 

religious freedom. In the years that followed, the United States firmly 

held the Soviets accountable to their basket-three promises.

Jackson-Vanik and the Helsinki Final Act helped fuel other human 

rights initiatives aimed at the dark corners of the Soviet bloc countries, 

such as Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the Baltics. 

Most notably, the international Soviet Jewry Movement in support 

of Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union gained traction after 

1975 and reached its zenith during the Reagan administration. Many 

scholars point to the campaign as a model of how to build a successful 

grassroots movement. Indeed, many of its participants would become 

active in or provide inspiration for the IRFA movement in the decades 

to follow.

1975 Helsinki Final Act

Signed by 35 nations at the height of the Cold War, the 

Helsinki Final Act addressed a variety of vital political, military, 

economic, and human rights issues.

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
11

PRELUDE

Yet, even as the Soviet Union collapsed and human rights and religious 

freedom were blossoming throughout Eastern Europe, they were 

withering in places like China, North Korea, Vietnam, and South Sudan.

More troubling, by the early 1990s, much of the conversation had begun 

to drift away from religious freedom — the emphasis instead placed 

squarely on the more generic issue of human rights, which often was 

viewed through a secular lens. Indeed, there was widespread belief that 

modernity would bring about secularization and religion would matter 

less, particularly in the realm of foreign policy. So, while economic 

and national security concerns remained at the forefront, the religious 

freedom dimension became increasingly marginalized.

Something needed to be done to ensure that the interests of 

persecuted people and America’s profound commitment to religious 

freedom were firmly integrated into foreign policy discussions. To do so 

would require a deliberate Congressional focus and legislative response 

— and a catalyst.

“Andrei Sakharov, Scoop Jackson, and Ronald Reagan...they created 

the policy of linkage: That international relations and human rights 

must be linked. That how a government treats its own people cannot 

be separated from how that government could be expected to treat 

other countries.” 

– Natan Sharansky, human rights activist and former Soviet dissident

“While religious freedom issues 

tend to be overlooked by policy 

makers in the West, religion is 

playing an increasingly greater 

role in world events.” 

– Author, analyst and advocate Nina Shea, 

from her book, In the Lion’s Den.

PRELUDE

1983 Congressional Human Rights Caucus

The precursor of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission is 

founded by Representatives Tom Lantos and John Edward Porter
LEAD-UP TO IRFA

12

Early IRF advocates (left to right): 

former Rep. Ben Gilman (R-NY), Rep. 

Joe Pitts (R-PA), Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), 

and Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) join 

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) at podium

n the final decade of the 20th century, international headlines 

were fraught with horrific stories of ethnic cleansing, religious 

persecution, and catastrophic humanitarian crises. In Africa, some 

800,000 Tutsis and Hutu moderates were butchered in Rwanda 

between April and July 1994. The following July, Bosnian Serb 

forces massacred 7,000 Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia 

and Herzegovina. An additional 20,000 civilians were displaced.

Meanwhile, ongoing civil strife in Sudan bore all 

the hallmarks of genocide against the Christian 

and traditional faiths in the south: famine, 

enslavement of women and children, two million 

killed, and another five million displaced or 

driven into refugee status. In China, reports 

were beginning to emerge of Catholic bishops 

and Protestant pastors imprisoned for decades 

because of their faith, as well as the Chinese 

government’s continued brutal suppression of 

Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhism.

Against this backdrop, and despite a creeping 

ambivalence about the significance of religion in 

world affairs, a stalwart few recognized religion 

could be a positive force for change. Even more, 

they understood religion was, in fact, an intricate 

and necessary force in the world that would 

need to play a central role in U.S. foreign policy. 

They understood that the protection of religious 

freedom requires a degree of societal maturity, 

an embrace of pluralism and tolerance. For when societies in the public 

square are able to acknowledge diverse faith traditions with equality, they 

are on the path to building a functional, peaceful and prosperous society.

I

LEAD-UP TO IRFA

FAITH MCDONNELL

1994 End of apartheid in South Africa

(April 27)

1994 Rwanda Genocide 

(April – July)

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
13

LEAD-UP TO IRFA LEAD-UP TO IRFA

During the 1990s, Congressional champions emerged and tirelessly 

pressed their colleagues on matters of religious freedom. Among them, 

Tony Hall (D-OH), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Joe Pitts (RPA), John Edward Porter (R-IL), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Tom Tancredo (R-CO), 

and Frank Wolf (R-VA) in the House, 

and Sam Brownback (R-KS), Dan 

Coats (R-IN), Joseph Lieberman (DCT), Don Nickles (R-OK), and Arlen 

Specter (R-PA) in the Senate, each 

torchbearers for those who faced 

religious persecution.

Likewise, congressional staffers like 

Alexandra Arriaga, Laura Bryant, 

Karin Finkler, John Hanford, Ann 

Huiskes, Karen Lord, Sharon Payt, 

and Dorothy Taft were devoted 

to the advancement of religious 

freedom, quietly navigating and 

creating legislative levers to bolster 

religious freedom initiatives. In the 

private sector, scholars, human rights 

activists, and faith-based leaders added 

their voices. Leading the charge were figures like international human 

rights lawyer Nina Shea, human rights advocate Michael Horowitz, 

author Paul Marshall, and a cadre of evangelical leaders, including Don 

Argue, Richard Cizik, Chuck Colson, and Richard Land.

Despite the determined work of these early advocates, by the mid1990s a cohesive and consistent vision of how to integrate religious 

freedom into U.S. foreign policy still had not been fully developed, 

though a deeper understanding of the potency and potential of such 

a vision was emerging. Then in 1996, a spark flickered, igniting what 

some would describe as the early glow of an international religious 

freedom movement.

Former Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA)

FAITH MCDONNELL

LEAD-UP TO IRFA

1995 Srebrenica Genocide 

(July)
LEAD-UP TO IRFA

14

The catalyst was a January 1996 summit on global religious 

persecution, held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. 

Organized by Michael Horowitz and Nina Shea, the gathering 

would inspire a chain of events that created a new sense of 

urgency around the topic of religious freedom. Following the 

summit, the National Association of Evangelicals issued a 

Statement of Conscience on behalf of its more than 42,000 

member congregations, pledging to end its “silence in the face 

of the suffering of all those persecuted for their religious faith.”

The following month, in February 1996, the International Operations 

and Human Rights Subcommittee of the House International Relations 

Committee, under the leadership of Representative Chris Smith, 

conducted a landmark hearing on the persecution of Christians. 

Congress held other hearings on religious persecution as well. The 

subcommittee, again under Representative Smith’s leadership, held 

a hearing on the worldwide persecution of Jews. A year prior, the 

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (the Helsinki 

Commission), also under the chairmanship of Representative Smith, 

held a hearing on genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

“Religious liberty is not a privilege to be granted or denied by an 

all-powerful State, but a God-given human right. Indeed, religious 

liberty is the bedrock principle that animates our republic and defines

us as a people...it is our responsibility, and that of the government 

that represents us, to do everything we can to secure the blessings of 

religious liberty to all those suffering from religious persecution.”

– National Association of Evangelicals, Statement of Conscience

1996 Religious Persecution Summit

Washington Mayflower Hotel (January)

Rev. (Dr.) Rich Cizik, Dr. Don Argue, 

and President Bill Clinton meet in the 

White House prior to January 1996 

summit held at the Mayflower Hotel in 

Washington, D.C.

REV. (DR.) RICH CIZIK

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
15

LEAD-UP TO IRFA LEAD-UP TO IRFA

Following these hearings on Christians and 

Jews, Congress adopted resolutions on the 

persecution of Baha’is in Iran (H. Con. Res. 102). 

By September 1996, the House and Senate also 

would pass measures (H. Res. 515, introduced 

by Representative Frank Wolf and S. Con Res. 71, 

introduced by Senator Don Nickles) in support of 

Christians worldwide. These measures called upon 

then President Clinton to strengthen U.S. policies 

to combat religious persecution, including creation 

of a special advisory committee for religious liberty 

abroad or appointing a White House special advisor 

on religious persecution.

The testimonies presented during the hearings of 1996 revealed a 

pattern of oppression against the world’s religious groups. In addition 

to the congressional resolutions, these same hearings inspired a 

requirement (included in a Managers Statement to the 1997 Omnibus 

Consolidated Appropriations Act) that the State Department report 

on U.S. policies “designed to reduce and eliminate today’s mounting 

persecution of Christians throughout the world.” Secretary of State 

Madeleine Albright would release that report in July 1997, complete 

with a catalog of U.S. policies in support of international religious 

freedom.

Finally, in November 1996, the World Evangelical Alliance would 

launch the first-ever International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted 

Church.

Moving forward, the focus would not be limited to Christian 

persecution. By the end of 1996, the small faith-based coalition that 

had gathered at the Mayflower Hotel in the beginning of the year 

had broadened. Different religious groups — evangelicals, Catholics, 

Jews, Baha’is, Tibetan Buddhists, Sikhs — began to coalesce around 

the singular belief that religious freedom was a universal human right 

and any faith persecuted was a threat to all faiths.

“The House of Representatives 

encourages the President to 

take organizational steps to 

strengthen United States policies 

to combat religious persecution, 

including the creation of a 

special advisory committee for 

religious liberty abroad which 

has an appropriate mandate and 

adequate staff or to consider the

appointment of a White House 

special advisor on religious 

persecution.” 

– H. Res. 515

URILUX

LEAD-UP TO IRFA

1996 H. Res. 515 and S. Con. Res. 71

Resolutions pass in the House and the Senate regarding religious 

persecution and persecution of Christians worldwide (September)

1996 First-ever International Day of Prayer 

for the Persecuted Church

(November)
LEAD-UP TO IRFA

16

As the conversation grew louder and more crowded, 

recognition also grew that more substantive legislation 

would be required — a stated policy of why freedom of 

religion was such an important and fundamental human 

right.

Consensus also began to build in support of a more 

robust role on the part of the executive branch, namely 

the State Department. For months, former Congressional 

staffer Alexandra Arriaga, who was by then serving 

as a senior advisor at the State Department but also 

monitoring the hearings on the Hill, had been quietly 

lobbying her superiors to elevate and integrate 

international religious freedom as a stand-alone human 

rights issue.

The Clinton administration responded in November 1996 with the 

creation of the Secretary of State’s Advisory Committee on Religious 

Freedom Abroad. Warren Christopher formed the Advisory Committee 

in his final days as Secretary of State. Members of the Advisory 

Committee would roll up their sleeves in the new year with Alexandra 

Arriaga serving as Executive Director, advising the new Secretary of 

State Madeleine Albright and her Assistant Secretary for the Bureau 

of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor John Shattuck with respect to 

issues of religious freedom, intolerance, and reconciliation abroad.

As 1996 drew to a close, the nascent international religious freedom 

movement had developed important momentum, though it remained 

a disjointed effort at best. Grassroots activism had ignited a fire, but 

gaining meaningful legislative traction would require leadership (and 

cooperation) at many levels — on Capitol Hill, at the State Department, 

and in the Oval Office. To advance the next step would take a 

trailblazer.

Former Executive Director Alexandra 

Arriaga, Assistant Secretary for the 

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights 

and Labor John Shattuck, and 

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

ALEXANDRA ARRIAGA

1996 Secretary of State’s Advisory 

Committee on Religious Freedom 

Abroad 

Established

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
17

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

It would be overly simplistic to 

credit a lone individual as the force 

behind the IRFA movement. As 

already mentioned, there were many 

visionary leaders along the way 

who shared a deep longing and heartfelt 

commitment to securing religious freedom 

and protecting the persecuted. In the 

months between January 1997 and October 

1998 when the International Religious 

Freedom Act was signed into law, the list of 

advocates contributing to the effort remained 

relatively small, but they were determined: 

some elected officials, congressional aides, 

human rights advocates, faith-based groups 

of all stripes, State Department officials, and a 

handful of non-governmental organizations.

If there were a trailblazer, however, many would point to then 

Representative Frank Wolf. He is widely recognized as the “godfather” 

of IRFA and continues to carry the message to the present day. His was 

the first bill introduced in Congress that sought to integrate religious 

freedom in U.S. foreign policy. It would not be the last. Nor, in key ways, 

would the final version resemble the initial legislation he put forth. 

Still, Wolf’s bill was the first and set the stage, and there begins the 

conversation.

The Freedom from Religious Persecution Act

When he took office in 1981, then Representative Frank Wolf had 

little intention of becoming the voice of religious freedom in the U.S. 

Congress; he was more interested in local transportation issues than 

international human rights. Then, in 1984, fellow Representative Tony 

Hall invited him on a humanitarian tour of Ethiopia, which at the time 

was experiencing a deadly famine. The trip changed Wolf’s life, and 

Former Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)

SCOTT J. FERRELL/CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY / ALAMY

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

I
18

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

the following year he joined Representatives Hall and Chris Smith on 

another humanitarian tour, this time to Communist Romania. At the time, 

the Romanian people were under the control of the brutal Ceausescu 

regime. Wolf and company met with families of jailed dissidents. 

Desperate wives and parents slipped them secret notes begging for 

relief from the repressive government. It was an emotional experience 

for Wolf, and upon his return to the U.S., he co-sponsored legislation

with Hall and Smith to strip Romania of its Most Favored Nation status. 

Then there were many trips to the Soviet Gulag, Communist China, and 

Sudan. Wolf’s encounters with repressed 

and persecuted individuals, many of them 

harassed, imprisoned, and even tortured 

because of their faith, imbued a fiery sense 

of purpose in the Virginia statesman.

In May 1997, Wolf introduced H.R. 1685, 

the Freedom from Religious Persecution 

Act, with its Senate counterpart (S. 772) 

introduced concurrently by Senator Arlen 

Specter. The Wolf-Specter bill would 

create an Office of Religious Persecution 

Monitoring, complete with a mechanism to 

impose sanctions on countries identified as 

engaging in a pattern of persecution. That 

spring and summer, after holding hearings 

on H.R. 1685, Representative Wolf revised 

the bill then reintroduced it with some 

modifications as H.R. 2431 in September 

1997.

Pivotal to the crafting of the language of H.R. 2431 was Michael 

Horowitz, the human rights activist who might be described alternately 

as a firebrand or impassioned maverick. Drawing on the lessons of the 

Soviet Jewry movement during the Cold War, Horowitz, a Jew himself, 

took up the cause of persecuted Christians abroad before the issue 

appeared on the radars of most U.S. church leaders. New York Times 

1997 Secretary of State’s Advisory 

Committee on Religious Freedom 

Abroad

Opening session convenes February 13

1997 H.R. 1685 Introduced

Rep. Frank R. Wolf introduces first 

version of the “Freedom from Religious 

Persecution Act of 1997” on May 20

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
19

editor A.M. Rosenthal would label Horowitz as the person “who 

screamed me awake, as he has so many Christians.”

Early on, Horowitz pressed for a Christians-only focus to the bill. 

Wolf took a wider approach in line with the Universal Declaration 

of Human Rights — religious freedom is an inalienable right for 

all people, of all faiths or no faith at all. From the time it was first 

introduced, H.R. 2431 would be inclusive. The bill referenced many 

religious groups including Catholic and protestant Christians in 

Communist countries, such as Cuba, Laos, China, North Korea and 

Vietnam; non-Muslims and religious converts from Islam in Islamic 

countries; the Baha’is in Iran, Buddhist monks and other Tibetans 

in Tibet, and Muslims in Sudan.

Still, the view that the Wolf-Specter bill did not sufficiently 

address non-Christian persecution, that it was a Christian issue 

only, remained a chief concern among critics. The Clinton 

administration, in particular, was sensitive to the optics that 

legislating religious freedom might elevate Christianity over Islam. 

The Christians-only impression (which some characterized as 

cultural imperialism) would factor heavily in committee debates and 

closed-door sessions. For some, this perception lingers even today.

The influence of Horowitz also can be detected in the focus of H.R. 

2431. While religious freedom provided the framework for the bill, 

the emphasis was placed on persecution, specifically defined as 

abduction, killing, imprisonment, forced mass resettlement, rape, or 

crucifixion or other forms of torture. Penalties for countries identified as 

engaging in these behaviors would be immediate sanctions and other 

punitive measures, as defined in Section 7 of the bill. With few waivers, 

countries determined to be engaged in religious persecution would be 

subject to prohibition of exports. No U.S. assistance would be provided 

and the United States would seek to deny multilateral assistance 

from the International Monetary Fund or other development funds. 

And persecution-facilitating products would be prohibited from being 

exported to countries found to have committed religious persecution.

I wrote to Mission Boards 

encouraging them to speak out, 

and I started to get responses. 

I believed it was a leadership 

issue and people could begin 

to care. If all you do is ask 

people to pray, there becomes a 

compassion fatigue. I told them 

they had to obtain meaningful 

achievable goals.” 

– Michael Horowitz, advocate

Michael Horowitz at rally

FAITH MCDONNELL

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

1997 H.R. 2431 Introduced

Rep. Frank R. Wolf introduces revised 

version of “Freedom from Religious 

Persecution Act of 1997” on September 8
20

“It would be helpful if we can 

continue to work together to 

make sure that messages do not 

sound partisan and are based on 

principle. The worst thing that 

can happen to religious liberty is 

for people to think that it is not 

for everyone.” 

– Melissa Rogers, White House Office of the

Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships 

Executive Director

The Wolf-Specter bill also would expand U.S. immigration policy, 

proposing that, “any alien who can credibly claim membership in a 

persecuted community found to be subject to...religious persecution...

shall be considered to have a credible fear of persecution.” Critics 

argued that such broad language could lead to a spike in the number of 

refugees who would qualify for being admitted to the United States, as 

individuals who were merely a member of a persecuted group (though 

not persecuted themselves) would be eligible.

As originally written, the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring 

outlined in the Wolf-Specter bill would be created within the Executive 

Office of the President, who would appoint a Director who would need 

Senate confirmation. As described, the Director was to have broad 

responsibilities and authority, including determining the countries 

that had engaged in religious persecution, the responsible entities 

within those countries, and designating sanctions. The bill included 

provisions for robust annual reporting on countries or regions engaged 

in religious persecution, and also called for training of immigration 

officers on religious persecution, as well as chiefs of mission on 

religious freedom. Finally, an entire section of the bill was dedicated to 

sanctions specifically aimed at Sudan — a section that ultimately would 

be removed.

Secretary of State’s Advisory Committee on Religious 

Freedom Abroad

As the Wolf-Specter bill was taking shape in the House, the 

Department of State was carving out its own position in the religious 

freedom conversation. After months of intense planning and in close 

coordination with the White House and the National Security Council, 

the Secretary of State’s Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom 

Abroad convened its first meeting on February 13, 1997.

Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck chaired the Advisory 

Committee, which included 20 leaders and scholars of the world’s

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
21

major religious traditions and was charged 

with collecting and assessing information 

on global persecution and the promotion 

of religious freedom. The Advisory 

Committee was assigned two principal 

tasks:

1. Call attention to problems of religious 

persecution and other violations of 

religious freedom and religious intolerance 

abroad and advise on how to end them; 

and

2. Provide information on how to bring 

about reconciliation in areas of conflict (especially conflicts where 

religion is a factor) and promote respect for human rights so that 

religious freedom could be fully enjoyed.

Diplomacy would be the Advisory Committee’s watchword. Yet in 

his remarks at the committee’s opening session, Shattuck offered a 

broad approach, saying, “We use both quiet diplomacy and public 

condemnation. We engage in frequent, bilateral dialogue with other 

countries on these issues. We conduct monitoring and intervention 

in the cases of individuals who are victims of specific forms of 

persecution.”

It was an open secret that the State Department was not keen on 

having Congress impose religious freedom mandates and policies on 

its agenda. The proposed Wolf-Specter bill was met with particular 

aggravation, perceived by many within the Department and the 

Administration as Congress encroaching on its turf. For that reason, 

skeptics viewed the Advisory Committee, and the State Department’s 

subsequent creation of the Office of International Religious Freedom, 

as a smoke-and-mirrors tactic meant to get in front of legislation that 

would, in their view, impose unwanted policies and demands on the 

Department.

Members of the Advisory Committee 

on Religious Freedom Abroad

ALEXANDRA ARRIAGA

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
22

Former Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK)

Undeterred, the Advisory Committee pressed forward with its task. It 

would produce two lengthy reports during its tenure, the first of which 

was an Interim Report issued in January 1998, months before the 

International Religious Freedom Act would be passed and signed into 

law. The Interim Report offered several recommendations to promote 

freedom of religion and belief as a priority objective of U.S. foreign 

policy, including the creation of the new IRF office.

Once the State Department had set up a dedicated religious freedom 

office, the focus became how best to structure it. Then Secretary 

of State Madeleine Albright assigned that task to the Advisory 

Committee’s executive director, Alexandra Arriaga. Arriaga tapped 

the president of World Vision, U.S., Dr. Robert Seiple, to head the new 

office as Senior Advisor for International Religious Freedom. Seiple 

would have dotted-line accountability to the Secretary of State. Thomas 

Farr later would serve as the founding Director.

In addition to the IRF Office, the Advisory Committee made several 

other recommendations in its Interim Report of 1998, which were then 

incorporated into the broader IRFA deliberations on Capitol Hill. It 

was suggested, for example, that the State Department routinely raise 

cases of individuals imprisoned for their religious beliefs. Human rights 

training for Foreign Service Officers was encouraged, as was more 

robust reporting of religious freedom conditions by U.S. embassies and 

the State Department as part of its annual Country Reports on Human 

Rights Practices.

The International Religious Freedom Act

Even as H.R. 2431 was winding its way through multiple committees in 

the House, and the Advisory Committee was collecting information for 

its assessment and recommendations, a handful of elected officials and 

staffers on the Senate side were considering different language and, 

indeed, a different strategy.

SCOTT J. FERRELL/CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

1998 S. 1868 Introduced

Sen. Don Nickles introduces International Religious 

Freedom Act on March 26

1998 H.R. 2431 Passes House

House passes H.R. 2431 with the Brady amendment on May 14

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
23

Former Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT)

SCOTT J. FERRELL/CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY

“In writing IRFA, we were 

interested in accomplishing 

three strategic goals. We wanted 

to anchor religious freedom 

promotion within international 

legal standards of religious 

freedom, as well as the broader 

framework of human liberty; 

embed it within the U.S. national 

security infrastructure; and 

then integrate it into America’s 

overall national security strategy 

and policy.” 

– Dr. William Inboden, former congressional 

staffer involved in drafting IRFA language

John Hanford, who had specialized in religious freedom issues for 

decades as a staffer with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), was the chief 

architect of S. 1868, which was introduced by Senator Don Nickles 

and Senator Joseph Lieberman on March 26, 1998. Unlike the WolfSpecter bill, which placed heavy emphasis on defending against 

egregious persecution through punitive measures, the thrust of the 

Senate bill was the promotion and protection of religious freedom 

through calibrated diplomacy. To the casual observer, the difference 

was subtle, but for the stakeholders who would debate the two 

strategies, the distinction was great.

While the House and the Senate bills shared some similar provisions, 

namely institutionalized reporting, a mandated annual review, and 

training for foreign service and immigration officials, the Senate 

bill introduced some important distinctions. Titled the International 

Religious Freedom Act, S. 1868 listed three chief aims:

1. To express U.S. foreign policy with respect to, and to strengthen 

U.S. advocacy on behalf of, individuals persecuted for their faith 

worldwide;

2. To authorize U.S. actions in response to religious persecution 

worldwide; and

3. To establish an Ambassador at Large on International Religious 

Freedom within the Department of State, a Commission on 

International Religious Persecution, and a Special Advisor on 

International Religious Freedom within the National Security 

Council.

While arguably every member of Congress was prepared to back 

legislation in support of religious freedom, many on the Hill were not 

convinced about the more assertive approach outlined in the WolfSpecter bill. Critics described the proposed sanctions scheme as a 

draconian, “one size fits all” solution that left little room for promoting 

positive and lasting change. Instead of automatic sanctions, S. 1868 

would put at the President’s fingertips a graduating (and discretionary) 

range of actions and sanctions to use against countries identified as 

engaging in or tolerating religious persecution.

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
24

Another concern some raised about the Wolf-Specter bill was its 

granting of power and decision-making authority to a mid-level White 

House official who could, in effect, supersede higher-level foreign 

policy decisions. Instead of a director-level position within the Executive 

Office, S. 1868 recommended the creation of an Ambassador at 

Large for International Religious Freedom to advise the President and 

the Secretary of State on matters of religious freedom abroad. The 

bill also called for the creation 

of a bipartisan, independent 

commission to “consider the 

facts and circumstances of 

religious persecution” and 

“make appropriate policy 

recommendations to the President, 

the Secretary of State, and 

Congress.”

Finally, some definitions included 

in S. 1868 differed from those in 

the Wolf-Specter bill. Whereas 

Wolf-Specter defined religious 

persecution as “widespread and 

ongoing persecution of persons 

because of their membership 

in or affiliation with a religion or 

religious denomination,” S. 1868 

harkened back to the Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights, and 

defined religious persecution as 

“any violation of the internationally 

recognized right to freedom 

of religion” from its Article 18. 

Proponents believed that this 

more exacting definition offered a 

lower threshold for classifying offenders. Some believed that if religious 

freedom were fortified abroad, fewer people would have cause to seek 

safe haven in the U.S. from religious persecution.

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
WOLF-SPECTER (H.R. 2431) NICKLES-LIEBERMAN (S. 1868)

Freedom from Religious Persecution Act 

• Emphasis on stopping persecution

International Religious Freedom Act

• Emphasis on promoting religious freedom

Office of Persecution Monitoring

• Housed within the Executive Office

• Headed by a Director, appointed by the 

President with consent of the Senate

Office of International Religious Freedom

• Housed within the Department of State

• Headed by the Ambassador at Large for 

International Religious Freedom, appointed by 

the President with consent of the Senate

Reporting

• Annual Report to Congress – generated by the 

Director

Reporting

• Annual Report on Religious Persecution

submitted to Congress – generated by the 

Ambassador at Large

Sanctions

• Automatic sanctions imposed against countries 

found to be involved in religious persecution

• Director determines when and against whom 

sanctions apply

• President may waive sanctions with explanation

Sanctions

• Range of actions available to the President in 

response to countries found to be involved in 

religious persecution

• Decisions informed by Annual Report on 

Religious Persecution and in consultation with the 

Ambassador at Large

Training

• Training on religious persecution for immigration 

officers and foreign service Chiefs of Mission

Training

• Training on religious freedom for foreign service 

officers

Religious Persecution Definition

• Broad definition

• Applies to membership in or affiliation with a 

religion or religious group

Religious Persecution Definition

• Narrow definition

• Aligned with UDHR Article 18

Immigration

• Modifies existing U.S. Immigration policy

Commission on International Religious Persecution

• Non-partisan, independent commission

• Tasked with policy review and recommendations 

in response to religious persecution

Sanctions against Sudan

• Comprehensive definitions and actions in 

response to specific religious persecution 

activity in Sudan

National Security Council

• Appointment of a Special Advisor on Religious 

Persecution within the National Security Council

BILL COMPARISON

H.R. 2431 versus S. 1868

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS 25
26

President Clinton signs the Religious 

Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into 

law in 1993

In the Trenches

As any serious student of civics can attest, the legislative process is 

rarely simple or straightforward. Often it is a messy conglomeration of 

debate, argument, negotiation, compromise, and the occasional sleight 

of hand. Passage of the IRFA legislation was no 

exception.

From the start, the Wolf-Specter bill met with stiff 

resistance and criticism on several fronts: the 

Clinton administration and the State Department, 

business and trade groups, even the National 

Council of Churches bristled at the scope and 

nature of the bill. Among the primary complaints: 

the bill was creating a hierarchy of human rights; 

it created the appearance of favoring Christians 

over other religious groups; and the prescribed 

penalties would do more harm than good.

From an institutional standpoint, resistance 

from the White House was to be expected, as 

most administrations do not like to be told how 

to structure their federal agencies. More important, the culture at 

the State Department for decades had been rooted in secularization 

theory, which held that as the world became more modern it would also 

become more secular, and religion would play a lesser role. That theory 

started to give way during the Clinton administration, which was also 

the era of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) domestically, 

which then President Clinton signed into law. By the late 1990s, world 

events at that time underscored the certainty that religion was a 

growing force in the world, and by extension, religion needed to play 

an important role in U.S. foreign policy.

Still, there was concern that codifying religious freedom abroad — 

whether as prescribed by Wolf-Specter or Nickles-Lieberman — would 

lead to an artificial hierarchy of human rights. In testimony before

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
27

“Frank Wolf led the fight in

a very principled way. And 

alongside him were really 

quite an array of liberals, 

conservatives, and moderates 

because religious freedom 

really touches a nerve that goes 

beyond political ideology.” 

– Former Senator Joseph Lieberman

the House International Relations Committee, Assistant Secretary of 

State John Shattuck argued that the creation of a hierarchy that set 

religious freedom above other rights would severely undermine the 

long-standing U.S. policy of ensuring that all human rights are equally 

protected.

In the end, the State Department concluded that legislation was 

inevitable, but its best version would focus on international religious 

freedom in the broader context of human rights and not take the form 

of a blunt instrument. On the issue of sanctions, the diplomatic ranks 

wanted more than a single tool in the toolbox.

Certain religious groups, including the National Council of Churches 

and groups who had done missionary work abroad, shared this view. 

They were concerned that immediate and wholesale sanctions could 

put persecuted people at even greater risk. They feared penalized 

states would blame persecuted communities, thus ratcheting up 

violence against the very groups the legislation was designed to 

aid. This contingent warned of the need to consult with people on 

the ground to discern what measures made sense for protecting the 

persecuted and for bringing about changes.

Concerns about sanctions also factored heavily in the opposition 

to Wolf-Specter from the business and pro-trade corner. The U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce and trade groups like USA Engage were 

particularly resistant to the bill’s provisions that prohibited the export 

of items perceived as facilitating persecution. The bill was seen as 

an attempt at “trade sanctions.” As argued by Robert P. O’Quinn, 

policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, the bill’s sanctions “could 

undermine U.S. security, harm the U.S. economy, and needlessly 

constrain the economic freedom of Americans — and, in the process, 

be of little if any effect in advancing religious liberty abroad.” This 

faction also firmly opposed the section of Wolf-Specter that was 

dedicated to sanctions against Sudan.

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
28

Former Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX)

SCOTT J. FERRELL/CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY

Proponents of Wolf-Specter pushed back at critics. They argued that 

strong and immediate sanctions and withdrawal of non-humanitarian 

assistance were the teeth of the bill — the assurance for holding 

accountable those nations guilty of egregious religious persecution. If 

left to State Department reporting and the President’s discretion, many 

in the Wolf-Specter camp believed the sanctions trigger would rarely, if 

ever, be pulled and persecution would continue.

The concern was not without merit. In what was thought to be an offthe-record comment at a private meeting with evangelical leaders, 

then President Clinton suggested that the Wolf-Specter bill would 

cause State Department officials to “fudge the facts” when reporting 

about religious persecution to avoid conflicts with other diplomatic 

efforts. The remark contributed to suspicions about the administration’s 

commitment to religious freedom and the integrity of its reporting 

apparatus.

While the Advisory Committee continued its efforts and H.R. 2431 

slowly moved its way through committee hearings and markups, the 

authors of the competing S. 1868 conducted their own quiet lobbying.

By May 1998, several revisions had been made to Wolf-Specter, and on 

May 14, the bill went before the full House for consideration. During the 

course of debate, three amendments were proposed and approved. 

H. Amdt.630, offered by Representative Kevin Brady (R-TX), would 

establish, among other provisions, a five-member U.S. Commission 

on International Religious Persecution. Creation of the Commission 

was meant to address concerns about accountability within the 

administration as to the implementation of sanctions and monitoring of 

sanctions effectiveness. The Brady amendment also would establish 

a published list of religious prisoners and provide for the creation 

of a religious freedom Internet site and expanded international 

broadcasting.

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
29

Former Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)

RICHARD ELLIS / ALAMY 

A second amendment, H. Amdt.631, offered by Representative Alcee 

Hastings (D-FL), would expand the responsibilities of the Director of the 

Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring. Specifically, the amendment 

would permit the Director, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 

to make policy recommendations to the President for prioritizing 

the promotion and development of legal and cultural protections 

of religious freedom in U.S. development programs, cultural and 

educational exchanges, and international broadcasting programs. The 

Hastings amendment also called for the creation of an awards program 

for meritorious service by foreign service officers in the promotion of 

human rights, including the right to religious freedom.

Finally, H. Amdt.632, offered by Representative Tom Campbell (R-CA), 

would revise a key aspect of the bill’s section on Sudan. In a nod to 

business and trade concerns, the Campbell amendment would permit 

the president to waive any of the sanctions against the government of 

Sudan included in the bill if it was determined that the national security 

interest of the United States justified such a waiver.

After months of hearings, debates, revisions and amendments, the 

House passed H.R. 2431 by a vote of 375 to 41. The final bill would 

establish a Director of the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring 

within the State Department. Among other things, the Director would 

be responsible for monitoring religious persecution and issuing an 

annual report assessing religious persecution abroad. The legislation 

would prohibit aid to states that carry out persecution and would 

prohibit export of goods likely to be used to continue persecution.

H.R. 2431 was sent over to the Senate where it would receive a fourth 

and final amendment five months later.

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
30

Former Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN)

JASON REED, REUTERS

Getting to the Vote

It has been said that legislation will never be perfect, and it will almost 

always involve compromise. The IRFA legislation underscores this 

maxim.

The companion bill to H.R. 2431 (S. 772 introduced by Senator Arlen 

Specter) never moved in the Senate. It was read twice and referred to 

committee where it was left to die. The Nickles-Lieberman bill, on the 

other hand, quickly gained traction. There was a distinct rivalry between 

the Wolf-Specter and Nickels-Lieberman camps: while they shared a 

common goal, they each had different strategies and exhibited little 

cooperation during the hashing out of details. Instead of cooperation 

and concession, there was rancor and resentment.

In October 1998, with just days remaining in the 105th Congress, the 

Senate finally took up H.R. 2431. 

There would be no time for normal 

procedures of debate between 

the Senate and the House before 

the close of session. In a stunning 

move, Senator Nickles introduced 

an amendment to H.R. 2431 in the 

nature of a substitute — SP. 3789

would, in essence, replace H.R. 

2431 in its entirety with S. 1868, 

the Nickles-Lieberman bill. On 

October 9, the Senate approved the 

substitute 98-0.

Many believed that, despite the 

unanimous vote to approve, with 

no last-minute opportunity to 

conference between the House 

and Senate, the religious freedom 

legislation was dead. But after the 

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

1998 S. Amdt.3789 Passes Senate

On October 8, Sen. Nickles amends H.R. 2431, substituting the 

language of S. 1868 for H.R. 2431. Senate passed the amended bill 

98-0

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
31

“Promoting religious freedom is a tough thing to do...we don’t know 

how bad things would be now if we didn’t have [IRFA], but I think 

it’s clearly an uphill battle. I think what we’re seeing in the world is 

that democratization is not proceeding. Authoritarianism is on the 

rise. Human rights are not being respected, much less guaranteed in 

most of the world, and that includes religious freedom.” 

– Clifford May, former USCIRF Commissioner

Senate bill’s passage, Senator Dan Coats picked up the phone and 

called Representative Wolf. There were just two options left: Wolf could 

accept the Senate substitute for his own, hard-fought version, or he 

could let the legislation die all together.

“I had this decision,” says 

Wolf, looking back. “Do I take 

40 percent of a loaf? I knew 

opposition to religious freedom 

legislation was building and if 

they killed it then, it would never 

pass. I took the 40 percent loaf.”

And so, on October 10, 1998, 

the House suspended the 

rules, agreed to the Senate 

substitute, and passed it without 

objection. The bill then was sent 

to then President Clinton for his 

signature. On October 27, without 

fanfare or an official signing 

ceremony, the President signed 

the bill, and the International 

Religious Freedom Act of 1998 

became Public Law 105-292.

Surely, many hands contributed 

to the passage of IRFA, though 

many would argue it was the 

trailblazer Frank Wolf who 

got the job done in the end. 

However flawed or incomplete 

the legislation may be, that IRFA passed unanimously in both the House 

and Senate is a powerful testament to the deep convictions many 

members of Congress hold about religious freedom, the first freedom.

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

1998 IRFA Signed into Law 

President Clinton signs IRFA into law on October 27

1998 Amended H.R. 2431 Passes House

House passes Senate version of H.R. 2431 

under consent calendar on October 10

CLIFFORD MAY
32

“I tremble to think where we 

would be without IRFA, without 

USCIRF, without an Ambassador 

at Large...it really would have 

just disappeared into the 

landscape.” 

– Katrina Lantos Swett, former USCIRF Chair

SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES

The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 established the

framework to elevate religious freedom as a priority within U.S.

foreign policy. Key features included:

Department of State Activities

• Creation of the Office on International Religious Freedom

• Creation of the position of Ambassador at Large for 

International Religious Freedom

• Annual reporting — to include “countries of particular 

concern” or CPC designations

• Establishment of a religious freedom Internet site

• Training for foreign service officers

• Creation of the independent, bipartisan U.S. Commission 

on Religious Freedom (USCIRF)

National Security Council

• Creation of a Special Advisor on International Religious

Freedom

Presidential Actions

• Targeted responses to violations of religious freedom 

abroad

• Strengthening of existing law

• Promotion of Religious Freedom – through development 

assistance and international broadcasting, international 

exchanges and foreign-service awards

• Reform of refugee, asylum, and consular matters USCIRF

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE

1999 Robert A. Seiple 

Clinton Administration Sworn in as first-ever Ambassador at Large 

 for International religious freedom, May 5
IRF

33

TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX

P.L. 105-292

IRFA AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

In passing the International Religious Freedom Act, Congress provided the President with 

a range of discretionary actions, including sanctions, for dealing with countries identified 

as engaging in or tolerating religious persecution. The law also authorizes the President to 

take commensurate actions and make binding agreements, as well as grant waivers if they 

would further the purposes of the Act or are in the national interest of the United States.

 An abridged list of available actions includes:

1. A private demarche

2. An official public demarche

3. A public condemnation

4. A public condemnation within one or more multilateral fora

5. The delay or cancellation of one or more scientific exchanges

6. The delay or cancellation of one or more cultural exchanges

7. The denial of one or more working, official, or state visits

8. The delay or cancellation of one or more working, official, or state visits

9. The withdrawal, limitation, or suspension of U.S. development assistance 

in accordance with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

10. Directing the Export-Import Bank of the United States and overseas 

development banks not to approve the issuance of guarantees, insurance, 

extensions of credit, or participations in the extension of credit with 

respect to the specific government, agency, instrumentality, or official 

found or determined by the President to be responsible for violations

11. The withdrawal, limitation, or suspension of U.S. security assistance in 

accordance with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

12. Directing the U.S. executive directors of international financial institutions 

to oppose and vote against loans primarily benefiting the specific foreign 

government, agency, instrumentality, or official found or determined by 

the President to be responsible for violations

13. Ordering the heads of the appropriate U.S. agencies not to issue specific 

licenses, and not to grant any other specific authority, to export any goods 

or technology to the specific foreign government, agency, instrumentality, 

or official found or determined by the President to be responsible for 

violations

14. Prohibiting any U.S. financial institution from making loans or providing 

credits totaling more than $10 million in any 12-month period to the 

specific foreign government, agency, instrumentality, or official found or 

determined by the President to be responsible for violations

15. Prohibiting the U.S. government from procuring, or entering into any 

contract for the procurement of, any goods or services from the foreign 

government, entities, or officials found or determined by the President to 

be responsible for violations
34

nce IRFA passed and was signed into law, the task shifted to 

implementing its provisions by creating, within the existing 

foreign policy apparatus, a religious freedom infrastructure 

with designated functions and activities. From a practical 

standpoint, these actions would include sorting out 

personnel and operations details, recalibrating reporting structures, 

and establishing new processes and procedures. On a theoretical 

level, it would require an adjustment in thinking — a heavy lift by some 

accounts, including that of the Secretary of State’s.

In her 2006 book, The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on 

America, God, and World Affairs, Madeleine Albright reflected on the 

worldview shared by many within the diplomatic corps about religion 

and its place in foreign policy during the transitional, post-IRFA era 

at the State Department: “Religion...was above and beyond reason; it 

evoked the deepest passions; and historically, it was the cause of much 

bloodshed. Diplomats in my era were taught not to invite trouble, and 

no subject seemed more inherently treacherous than religion.”

Indeed, for decades the State Department had been steeped in a 

tradition undergirded by secularization theory and the belief that, in the 

march toward enlightenment and modernity, religion had lost much of 

its social and cultural significance. Thomas F. Farr, who would become 

the first-ever Director of the Office on International Religious Freedom, 

described the foreign policy establishment at the time as having a 

reticence “about addressing the religious factors in other cultures 

and indeed in seeing culture as an expression of religion at all.” IRFA 

represented a sea change, one that was both applauded and resisted.

As intended, IRFA demanded that religion be taken seriously, not 

merely on the margins of foreign policy, but in a fully integrated, wholeof-government approach. As applied, it would take many years and 

several administrations before the implementation of the law would 

begin to approach its original intent.

IRFA also established the Office of International Religious Freedom 

within the State Department, to be headed by the Ambassador at Large 

O

HARPERCOLLINS

IRFA IN THE FIRST DECADE

1999 USCIRF convenes inaugural meeting

Clinton Administration June 23 USCIRF Commissioners 1999-2000

 Rabbi David Saperstein (Chair); Michael K. Young (Vice Chair); 

 The Honorable Elliot Abrams; Leila Al-Marayati, M.D.; The Honorable 

 John R. Bolton; Firuz Kazemzadeh; Cardinal Theodore McCarrick; Nina 

 Shea; Charles Z. Smith; Ambassador Robert A. Seiple (Ex-Officio 

 Member)

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
35

Dr. Thomas Farr was the founding 

Director of the Office on

International Religious Freedom

for International Religious Freedom. By the time IRFA was enacted, a 

precursor to the IRF office already had been formed via the Secretary 

of State’s Advisory Committee. As noted, Thomas Farr was tapped to 

be director of that office, and Dr. Robert Seiple, the former president of 

World Vision, became the first-ever IRF Ambassador.

The law clearly stipulated that the Ambassador was to have autonomy 

within the constructs of the State Department, direct access to the 

Secretary of State, and was to serve as 

a principal advisor to the President and 

Secretary on matters of religious freedom 

abroad. From the start, these authorities 

were clipped. The IRF office, with its small 

budget and negligible staff, was relegated 

to what some have wryly referred to 

as a broom closet within the Bureau of 

Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. A 

clear line to the Secretary was never firmly 

established during either the Clinton or the 

George W. Bush administrations. Instead of 

reporting directly to the Secretary of State, 

Ambassador Seiple reported to the assistant 

secretary, as did Seiple’s successor, John 

Hanford, for the better part of his tenure.

Such attitudes within the State Department, upon the arrival of the IRF 

Ambassador and the IRFA mandate, reinforced criticisms about the 

Department that had prompted the enactment of IRFA in the first place. 

Early IRFA advocates believed the Department did not give proper 

attention to religious freedom and religious persecution issues. The 

new law was meant to remedy what was perceived as a lack of interest 

in or concern for these matters. Drafters of the legislation included 

what they believed would be an important safety net, a watchdog 

to ensure that IRFA would not be buried and silenced beneath the 

bureaucracy of the State Department. That assurance came in the form 

of an independent commission — the U.S. Commission on International 

Religious Freedom (USCIRF).

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM INSTITUTE

IRFA IN THE FIRST DECADE

IRFA IN THE FIRST DECADE

1999 U.S. Dept. of State issues first Annual

Clinton Administration Report on International Religious 

 Freedom

 September

1999 Rabbi David Saperstein 

Clinton Administration Elected first-ever Chair of USCIRF, June 23
36

Before the important work of the 

new commission could begin, a 

few practical matters required 

attention. Elliott Abrams, who 

was one of the original USCIRF 

Commissioners, reflected on 

setting up operations for the 

brand new entity:

“You’ve got a Congressional bill 

creating a commission, right? It’s 

law. Now what? You want space 

for an office. You want to hire a 

staff. The legislation permits this, 

but none of us knew how to do 

it. So there we were, and one of 

us said, ‘I’ve got an office. There’s 

a conference table. Why doesn’t 

everybody come over?’ So the 

first meetings of the Commission 

were held around that conference 

table with a speaker phone in the 

middle of the table.”

PRACTICAL MATTERS

VOICES

ROBERT CLAY / ALAMY

Former USCIRF Commissioner Elliott Abrams

IRF

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
37

USCIRF would be comprised of nine members, three appointed by 

the President and six appointed by the House and Senate leadership. 

The IRF Ambassador, though originally intended as a full member, 

would serve ex officio as a nonvoting member of the Commission. The 

general role of what was meant to be a temporary commission was to 

review the State Department’s annual human rights report and the new 

Annual Report on International Religious Freedom and its Executive 

Summary mandated by IRFA, and to make policy recommendations 

to the President, Secretary of State and Congress on international 

religious freedom. Critics, however, saw USCIRF as an unnecessary and 

unwanted watchdog agency that would add another layer of complexity 

to an already difficult topic while depleting scarce resources.

Both USCIRF and the State Department office, for example, were 

required to prepare annual reports, with USCIRF, unlike the State 

Department, mandated to make recommendations for U.S. policy — 

in addition to the human rights report the State Department already 

issued each year. Though cumbersome, the annual reporting process 

with the State Department’s designation of countries of particular 

concern (CPCs) would prove to be a powerful tool for holding bad 

actors accountable and elevating the plight of the persecuted. It 

would also fuel the ongoing internal debate as to the best strategy 

for promoting and securing religious freedom abroad: carrots (quiet 

diplomacy) versus sticks (naming and shaming).

As anticipated, USCIRF and the IRF office did not always arrive at 

the same conclusions. Nor were they uniformly confident about each 

other’s motives. As each worked to carve out and identify its role within 

the IRFA mandate, a certain level of tension emerged between the 

Commission and the IRF office that, by some accounts, persists two 

decades later, albeit to a lesser degree. That tension contributed to an 

underlying disconnect between the IRF office and the very department 

(the State Department) largely responsible for crafting and deploying 

U.S. foreign policy.

“I think it takes watchdogs to 

just make sure we keep raising 

our voices. If we relax for a few 

minutes, it’s gone and we have 

to work again really hard to get 

it back.” 

– Faith McDonnell, religious freedom 

advocate

IRFA IN THE FIRST DECADE

IRFA IN THE FIRST DECADE

“Most nations don’t want bad 

publicity. More often than 

not, a very public naming 

of governments and nongovernment entities is the right 

strategy, but in any particular 

case, you have to exercise 

judgment. And you are not 

always going to get that right. 

There are times when we hit 

too hard, but sometimes the 

opposite is true.” 

– Dr. Robert P. George, former USCIRF

Chairman

2000 USCIRF issues first annual report

Clinton Administration May 1

2001 9/11 Terrorist attacks

Bush Administration 
38

The Country of Particular 

Concern, or CPC designation, 

was an IRFA linchpin. Henceforth, 

countries found to be engaged in 

religious persecution would be 

identified as CPCs and subject to 

an array of punitive actions by the 

United States. In the beginning, 

the State Department would 

have preferred to ignore the CPC 

label — it was confrontational, 

and it complicated diplomacy. 

Former Ambassador at Large for 

International Religious Freedom 

Bob Seiple

SEA CHANGE

VOICES

IRF

PEWFORUM.ORG

Ambassador Robert 

A. Seiple tells the story 

of changing hearts 

and minds, beginning 

with Secretary of State 

Madeleine Albright:

“A real turning point 

for the legislation came 

at the end of the first 

year in 1999, when we 

wanted to designate 

China as a CPC. Nobody 

wanted to touch this, including 

Secretary Albright.”

Ambassador Seiple had 

visited many of the countries 

identified as candidates for CPC 

designation. On the ground in 

China, he observed the regime’s 

abuses first hand and quickly 

concluded that Chinese officials 

had little interest in changing 

their own policies. The problem 

was, the Clinton administration 

had invested considerable energy 

in cultivating a relationship with 

China. A CPC designation would 

be detrimental to that effort. 

All the same, Seiple pressed the 

matter with Albright.

“She felt she was being pressured 

by me.” So Seiple pulled back 

while Albright traveled to Asia, 

but a seed had been planted. 

“She went off to a conference 

with Asian counterparts, and the 

Chinese insulted her. She came 

back and decided to go through 

with the CPC designation. When 

that was announced, folks on the 

Hill were amazed and our office 

gained a great deal of credibility.” 

Seiple would plant more seeds 

in his two-year tenure as 

Ambassador. Some would take 

root more quickly than others. 

He believes a willingness to listen 

and respect, not merely tolerate, 

remains a worthy aim: “Toleration 

is for someone we don’t care for. 

Respect is a much better platform 

to grab onto.”

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
39

The State Department’s annual 

Religious Freedom report (which 

is informed in part by USCIRF’s 

annual report) has become a 

diplomacy mainstay. Rabbi 

David Saperstein, who served as 

the first-ever USCIRF Chairman 

and later as IRF Ambassador, 

describes the report’s influence: 

“This report has had a powerful 

impact on countries across the 

globe. First, there is an impact 

on minority communities facing 

discrimination or harassment, 

who really didn’t think anyone in 

the world knew or cared about 

them and feel supported and 

encouraged that their story is 

being told. Second, is the impact 

on the State Department because 

every embassy now has a political 

officer or researcher who tracks 

religious issues that might 

otherwise be ignored or missed, 

thus building relations between 

the embassy and oppressed 

communities. And third, other 

countries are using our report 

as a template for their own 

diplomacy.”

Former Ambassador David Saperstein 

and Elliott Abrams when they were 

USCIRF Commissioners (former 

Commissioner Nina Shea in 

background)

REPORT OR LIFELINE?

VOICES

IRF

 USCIRF

IRFA IN THE FIRST DECADE

Traveling as a USCIRF 

commissioner, Saperstein met 

with many disenfranchised 

people who often expressed a 

sense of abandonment by the 

international community. But 

when the United States began 

collecting religious data, suddenly 

those people felt connected. For 

many, the report is their lifeline. 

Embassy staff are engaged 

with the minority religious 

communities, they ask what is 

going on, what the needs are and 

how the embassy might help. 

One respondent told Saperstein, 

“We never had anyone like that 

before, and now when we run into 

problems there’s somebody in the 

embassy that we’re able to talk to. 

That means an awful lot to us to 

have someone we know is going 

to be sensitive to our concerns 

and advocate for us.”
40

2002 John V. Hanford III

Bush Administration Sworn in as second Ambassador at Large for 

 International Religious Freedom, May 2

“Some people take the approach 

that if we just yell and scream 

enough, religious persecution 

problems will be solved. I’ve 

rarely seen this approach work. 

Patterns of religious persecution 

are usually deeply entrenched in 

a nation’s culture, history, and 

politics...the goal must be to 

advance freedom, and that often 

happens only after extensive 

efforts to build relationships and

persuade foreign officials to adopt

a change in mindset and policy.” 

– John Hanford, former Ambassador at 

Large for International Religious Freedom

Despite early wrangling over form and function, however, the 

Commission and the IRF office made important headway using their 

newfound tools to inject religious freedom into the foreign policy 

conversation at the State Department. Ambassadors Seiple and Hanford 

used the CPC designation and accountability measures provided by IRFA 

to begin chipping away at abuses in places like China, Vietnam, Laos, 

Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia, even as they set about changing hearts 

and minds at the State Department. Of course, the challenge then and 

now is the nature of diplomacy — often the successes and measures 

taken behind the scenes remain quietly tucked away, lest overt attention 

to the process undermine incremental movement forward.

The changes made in those early years were particularly noteworthy 

considering the electoral events at home that would usher in a new 

administration, and the devastating geopolitical events that would follow. 

Within IRFA’s first five years, as officials wrestled with the details of 

implementation, America was blindsided by the 9/11 terrorist attacks and 

involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. foreign policy was forever 

altered, and national security became a paramount concern. Like it or 

not, factoring religious freedom into the calculus would take on greater 

urgency for the nation’s top diplomats. Yet, there was still resistance.

When terrorists flew airplanes into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, 

and an open field in Pennsylvania in September 2001, it is notable that 

the United States had no sitting Ambassador at Large for International 

Religious Freedom. Ambassador Seiple had stepped down a year prior, 

and though President Bush had been in office since January, he had 

not yet nominated a replacement. Indeed, it would be another eight 

months, May 2002, before John Hanford was sworn in as the second IRF 

Ambassador.

During the Bush administration, elevating the religious freedom mandate 

within the State Department remained a challenge, with some IRF 

officials reporting that they felt quarantined from the broader policy 

discussions. Even so, Ambassador Hanford succeeded in growing the 

IRF staff, increasing the IRF budget, and most significantly securing a 

much-needed direct line of report to the Secretary of State. President 

Bush himself demonstrated a fundamental interest in promoting 

 USCIRF

IRFA IN THE FIRST DECADE

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
41

“Our ‘enemy’ at Foggy 

Bottom...was not so much 

hostility to our mission as 

indifference to, or confusion

about, the policy value of 

religious freedom.” 

– Thomas F. Farr writing in World of Faith 

and Freedom

Former USCIRF Commissioners 

Nina Shea, Elizabeth Prodromou, 

Dr. Preeta Bansal and Michael Cromartie 

with Rebiya Kadeer, political activist for 

the Uyghurs at a 2005 press conference

international religious freedom. On more than one occasion he 

welcomed Chinese dissidents to the White House, for example, and in 

2004 he approved a CPC designation for Saudi Arabia, a controversial 

decision that reinforced the credibility of IRFA. Likewise, his 2006 

National Security Strategy included robust language in support of 

religious freedom.

Indeed, President Bush inspired a new wave of homegrown activism in 

the public square. After IRFA was signed into law, many of the original 

advocates moved on to other issues and causes like human trafficking. 

Interest in religious freedom as a movement began to wane just when 

consistent involvement was needed most. Following the 2000 election, 

a newfound enthusiasm arose as many faith-based communities and 

civil society organizations mobilized grassroots efforts to 

fight injustice in places like Sudan, China, North Korea, 

Vietnam, and the Middle East. The epicenter for much of 

this activity was Bush’s hometown of Midland, Texas.

As the first 10 years of IRFA came to a close, the 

Ambassador, the IRF office, and USCIRF had found their 

footing on a practical level. Personnel and fiscal details 

had been sorted out; processes and procedures were in 

place; even the early confusion attached to the reporting 

mandates had been largely resolved. Likewise, the 

Commission and IRF office had found a delicate rhythm, 

and the Ambassador had created some traction within 

the State Department. The annual religious freedom reporting 

provided by USCIRF and the IRF office was entrenched and 

viewed by many as the most important (albeit imperfect) legacy to date of 

the IRFA mandate.

The next decade would bring a new set of challenges and victories 

for IRFA — two new administrations, the spread of violent extremism 

and subsequent humanitarian crises, extended vacancies within the 

Ambassador’s office, funding and reauthorization battles for USCIRF, new 

tools, and a new law that strengthened and updated IRFA. Still, the need 

remained for an attitude adjustment to realize a whole-of-government 

approach and meaningful integration of religious freedom into the U.S. 

foreign policy apparatus.

 USCIRF

2008 Tom Lantos Human Rights

Bush Administration Commission established, September 24

2002 Sudan Peace Act Signed into Law

Bush Administration October

IRFA IN THE FIRST DECADE

IRFA IN THE FIRST DECADE
42

In the heart of the dry and 

dusty West Texas oil fields rests 

the city of Midland. For most 

outsiders, Midland is best known 

as the childhood home of former 

President George W. Bush and 

former First Lady Laura Bush. 

At the turn of the millennium, 

however, the quiet, industrious 

town halfway between Fort Worth 

and El Paso set off a firestorm of 

activism. Deborah Fikes was the 

unassuming teacher, wife and 

mother who lit the spark.

After Bush was elected president, 

he made frequent references to 

Midland. “If you really want to 

understand me,” he would tell 

reporters. “Go back to my roots.” 

At the signing into law of the Sudan 

Peace Act in 2002 are (left to right) 

Brad Phillips of Persecution Project 

Foundation, Faith McDonnell of IRD, 

James Tonkowich of BreakPoint, 

Deborah Fikes of Midland and President George W. Bush

IRF

FAITH MCDONNELL

And they did. Reporters flooded 

Midland, and Fikes recognized 

an opportunity: “Churches in 

Midland had one of the most 

unique opportunities to plug in at 

a high level, she says. “If they got 

involved, they would have the ear 

of the President and could make 

a difference.”

For Fikes, the obvious issue was 

to elevate the plight of believers 

persecuted for their faith. For 

years she had been reading 

literature from the Voice of the 

Martyrs. She prayed and wrote 

letters to Congress on behalf of 

the persecuted but felt frustrated 

that she couldn’t do more — until 

a Texas favorite son entered the 

MIGHTY MIDLAND

VOICES

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
43

Above and below: (Midland 2001) 

Mock Sudan village hut and mock 

Sudan village simulation of armed 

attack 

FAITH MCDONNELL

FAITH MCDONNELL

IRFA IN THE FIRST DECADE

White House. “I did not have 

a grand plan,” says Fikes, who 

simply wanted to leverage the 

sudden media attention and 

newfound access to the President 

of the United States. “I wanted the 

pastors to raise the issue of the 

persecuted church and get their 

congregations involved.” 

She approached the Midland 

Ministerial Alliance (MMA), a loose 

network of area churches, to play 

host to the 2001 International 

Day of Prayer for the Persecuted 

Church (IDOP). The flagship event 

drew more than 40 local churches 

and hundreds of participants 

and got the attention of national 

leadership in Washington, D.C.

Midland became an epicenter for 

church mobilization — a practical 

response to religious persecution 

and civil rights abuses around the 

world. Its citizen ambassadors 

helped push the Sudan Peace Act

through Congress in 2002, helped 

fund a center in Thailand for 

women and children at risk for 

sexual exploitation, and continue 

to support countless churches, 

schools and other projects in 

places like Sudan, North Korea, 

and China where persecution 

is extreme. Many ministries 

working on the frontlines of 

religious persecution have made 

Midland home base, including 

ChinaAid and Watch and Pray 

International.

For 25 years, Midland’s mighty 

faith community has rolled up 

its sleeves to combat religious 

persecution and influence U.S. 

foreign policy, not from the halls 

of Congress, but from the pews 

and the public square. As one 

observer noted about Midland, 

“God used a lot of normal 

people” to do extraordinary 

work. And as Deborah Fikes 

would earnestly note, this work 

has been important not just for 

Christians, but for all religious 

faiths and freedoms. As such, the 

arid oil-patch town of Midland 

has proven to be fertile ground 

for some of the most important 

and far- reaching applications of 

the policies and outreach inspired 

by the International Religious 

Freedom Act.

IRF
44

IRFA IN THE SECOND DECADE

2011 Dr. Suzan Johnson Cook 

Obama Administration Sworn in as Ambassador at Large

 for International Religious Freedom, May 16

T

he second decade of IRFA began against a backdrop 

of profound international conflicts, many with religious 

underpinnings. In Nigeria, the terrorist group Boko Haram 

launched its bloody military campaign to create an Islamic 

state. Syria was on the verge of a civil war that would result 

in one of the worst humanitarian crises of the 21st century. Ancient 

Christian, Yazidi and Shia religious minorities would come to suffer 

genocidal targeting in Iraq. Throughout the Middle East and North 

Africa, conditions were ripening for a wave of demonstrations, riots, 

and civil wars that would come to be known as the Arab Spring. In the 

shadows, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist cells were conspiring. ISIS had 

not yet emerged.

In the United States, new administrations would impact the State 

Department and the IRF office, including extended vacancies in the 

office of the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom 

at a time when religious extremism and persecution around the world 

were both virulent and destabilizing. With President Barack Obama 

sworn into office in 2009, Ambassador John Hanford – who had served 

nearly seven years as the senior religious freedom diplomat for the 

United States, departed. It would be a full 27 months before President 

Obama nominated, and Congress approved, a replacement, Rev. 

Suzan Johnson Cook. To critics, the lag in securing Ambassador Cook’s 

appointment was an indication that the administration did not prioritize 

IRF policy.

Despite energy and devotion for the job, Cook’s appointment was 

met with skepticism by some because her background included few 

foreign policy credentials and she was new to Washington. Prior to 

her nomination, she had been Associate Dean and Officer at Harvard 

University School of Divinity, founder and senior pastor of the Bronx 

Christian Fellowship Baptist Church in New York, and founder of 

Wisdom Women Worldwide Center, a global organization for female 

faith leaders. 

Although short on funds and staff, Cook worked to build on the 

contributions of her predecessors. Early on, she held listening meetings 

 USCIRF

“When I took office, some

Ambassadors told me that you 

get two or three deliverables. For 

me, it was bringing women, faith 

leaders and multinational NGOs 

to the table.” 

– Rev. Suzan Johnson Cook, former 

Ambassador at Large for International 

Religious Freedom

Reverend Suzan Johnson Cook, 

Ambassador at Large for International 

Religious Freedom

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
45

IRFA IN THE SECOND DECADE

Former USCIRF Commissioners Clifford May, 

Dr. John Ruskay, Dr. Daniel Mark and 

Rev. Thomas Reese with Greg Mitchell, 

co-chair of the IRF Roundtable

2012 Magnitsky Act

Obama Administration Signed into law, December 14

and 12 to 14 roundtables monthly with various groups. From that effort, 

the Religious Leaders Roundtable was formed. Cook resigned her 

position after two years to return to the private sector. 

It would be another nine months before the President nominated 

Rabbi David Saperstein, who had been named by Newsweek in 2009 

as the most influential rabbi in America. Saperstein’s impressive 

credentials and long-time involvement in religious freedom advocacy 

was widely respected. Besides serving as the first-ever Chair of 

USCIRF, he was director and counsel of the Religious Action Center of 

Reform Judaism and an adjunct professor at 

Georgetown University Law Center. Congress 

confirmed his appointment in December 2014, 

and Saperstein was sworn in the following 

month as the fourth Ambassador at Large for 

International Religious Freedom.

Even as the administration made its 

adjustments, USCIRF was fielding its own 

personnel challenges as the new decade 

of IRFA began. By many accounts, the 

commissioners were not getting along. Some 

long-term members became entrenched in particular 

interests at the expense of other projects and 

priorities. In 2009, USCIRF was hit with a lawsuit 

from a former analyst alleging religious bias. And criticism was levied at 

the Commission for an overall lackluster performance. The rancor had 

many in Congress wondering if USCIRF had served its purpose and 

should be shut down.

In fact, as provided by IRFA, the Commission originally was authorized 

to exist for four years, with reauthorization at Congress’ discretion. By 

2011, some questioned the Commission’s impact, and some Members 

of Congress sought to use reauthorization to try to achieve victories 

on unrelated issues. Reauthorization was in jeopardy. But many in the 

religious freedom community — legislators, advocates, and former 

commissioners — came to USCIRF’s defense. After a fierce debate, 

 USCIRF

IRFA IN THE SECOND DECADE
46

“Our job is to defend religious 

freedom and any belief, right? 

I hope commissioners will 

stay focused on international 

religious freedom issues...and 

not mix our personal faith, belief 

systems with our work. That’s 

a tough one, but we need to 

remind ourselves about that.”

– Former USCIRF Chair Dr. Tenzin Dorjee

2013 Dr. Suzan Johnson Cook

Obama Administration Resigns as Ambassador, October 16

Congress reauthorized USCIRF for an additional three years but 

trimmed the budget from $4 million to $3 million and imposed term 

limits on commissioners to bring in fresh ideas and perspectives.

Another challenging reauthorization debate ensued in 2015. While 

much of the confidence in USCIRF and its mission had been restored, 

the process was not smooth. At the end, Congress reauthorized

the agency for four more years and even increased annual funding 

to $3.5 million, but required the Commission to implement a new 

strategic planning process that would focus on areas including issue 

prioritization and changes in the Annual Report.

During the Obama administration, the Ambassador position again was 

quietly downgraded in terms of direct access to the Secretary of State, 

although Ambassador Saperstein cultivated a close relationship with 

then-Secretary of State John Kerry. The IRF office staff was reduced 

and underfunded in this era, though after 2014 it began receiving 

funding increases from Congress, along with other issues related to 

religious freedom abroad. In August 2013, Secretary of State Kerry 

added a new layer to the bureaucracy at the State Department with the 

creation of the Office of Religion and Global Affairs, headed by Shaun 

Casey. Its purpose was to analyze the role of religion in the world of 

diplomacy.

Also, important new tools and expansive research were changing 

the religious freedom landscape. Research provided a much broader, 

global understanding of IRF challenges, and new tools provided the 

means to respond with greater impact.

In 2012, for example, President Obama would sign into law the 

Magnitsky Act (P.L. 112-208) in response to the human rights abuses 

that led to the death of a Russian lawyer who had exposed a $230 

million tax fraud linked to the Kremlin. The Act originally sanctioned 18 

Russian officials and businessmen. It also repealed the application to 

Russia and Moldova of the decades-old Jackson-Vanik Amendment, 

which denied them permanent normal trade relations with the United 

States based on their restrictions on emigration. 

IRFA IN THE SECOND DECADE 

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
47

2015 Rabbi David Saperstein

Obama Administration Sworn in as Ambassador at Large

 for International Religious Freedom, January 6

Newly sworn in Ambassador at Large 

David Saperstein delivers remarks 

during a ceremony in his honor at the 

U.S. Department of State in Washington, 

D.C., on February 20, 2015

Then President Obama also 

signed into law in 2016 The 

Global Magnitsky Act (P.L. 114-

328), which extended the scope 

of the Magnitsky Act to apply to 

human rights abuses perpetrated 

worldwide. The new Global 

Magnitsky Act gave the U.S. 

government authority to sanction 

offenders anywhere in the world by 

freezing assets, banning use of the 

U.S. banking system, and imposing 

a visa ban to keep offenders from 

entering the country.

Additional tools were made 

available with the passage of 

the Frank R. Wolf International 

Religious Freedom Act of 2016 

(H.R. 1150), which then President 

Obama signed into law in 2016 (P.L. 114-281). The Act strengthened 

and updated the original IRFA, creating a more muscular framework to 

“improve the ability of the U.S. to advance religious freedom globally 

through enhanced diplomacy, training, counterterrorism, and foreign 

assistance efforts, and through stronger and more flexible political 

responses to religious freedom violations and violent extremism 

worldwide.”

Among other provisions, the new Act mandates that the State 

Department designate non-state actors as entities of particular concern 

(EPCs). A companion to the countries of particular concern (CPC) 

designation, the law provides that the Secretary of State work with 

Congress and USCIRF to create new political, financial and diplomatic 

tools to address the severe violations of religious freedom committed 

by non-state actors, such as ISIS and Boko Haram.

The Act emphasizes the strategic value of IRF and its position within the

STATE.GOV

IRFA IN THE SECOND DECADE

IRFA IN THE SECOND DECADE
48

“We now have all this data 

and really objective, verifiable

information... scholars can 

use that in very sophisticated, 

statistical ways to show the 

relationship between high levels 

of restrictions on religion and 

violence.” 

– Allen Hertzke, Ph.D., Department of 

Political Science, University of Oklahoma

broader foreign policy apparatus. It mandates that the IRF Ambassador 

report directly to the Secretary of State and establishes a minimum 

number of full-time staff members for the IRF office. The Act further 

mandates that the State Department establish and maintain a 

“designated persons list” of individuals who violate religious freedom.

USCIRF, too, is mandated under the Act to make public a list of persons 

it determines are imprisoned or detained, forcibly disappeared, been 

placed under house arrest, been tortured, or subjected to forced 

renunciations for their religious activity or religious freedom advocacy 

by the governments of countries USCIRF recommends for designation 

as CPCs or nonstate actors USCIRF recommends for designation as 

EPCs. Religious freedom training for all Foreign Service Officers is also 

required, as is the development of curriculum for this training.

Research also contributed to the international religious freedom 

conversation during the second decade of IRFA. IRFA’s enactment 

inspired a body of valuable research that provided the empirical data 

which analysts, government officials, and activists sought to support 

what they already knew and observed on the ground: that there is a 

strong correlation between the robust protection of religious freedom 

and a host of desirable social and other goods.

Many institutes, think tanks, and academics started collecting 

information and developing democracy and freedom scores, civil 

liberties scores, or terrorism databases. But it was Brian Grim of 

Pew Research Center and Roger Finke, a professor of sociology and 

religious studies at Penn State, who were in the vanguard of religious 

freedom research. They developed a methodology to examine 

government restrictions on religion and social hostilities involving 

religion.

Grim and Finke’s research took a holistic, global approach. The results 

were sobering but informative. As they describe in their book, The 

Price of Freedom Denied: “Michael Horowitz led an unlikely alliance in 

revealing religious persecution around the globe. But as the awareness 

2015 Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act (H.R. 1150) 

Obama Administration Introduced in the House, February 27

BAYLORISR.ORG

IRFA IN THE SECOND DECADE 

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
49

“You measure impact comparatively and on a country by country 

basis. In terms of failure in impacting a dramatic decline in 

persecution, I am not sure that was an accurate measure. It’s not 

helpful in thinking about IRF efficacy to expect a simplistic causeeffect analysis, which is what critics charge when they say that IRFA

passed but persecution is on the rise. What’s important is to consider 

the symbolic significance, as well as to evaluate the measurable

impacts and, of course, to make adjustments, so that the impact of 

IRFA is as full and positive as possible.” 

– Dr. Elizabeth H. Prodromou, former USCIRF Vice-Chair

2015 Knox Thames

Obama Administration appointed Special Advisor 

 for Religious Minorities

 in the Near East and 

 South/Central Asia, 

 September 28

 

of persecution became greater, 

explanations for the occurrence of 

violent religious persecution and 

conflict remained scarce.” In other 

words, awareness is a necessary 

first step, but it is insufficient when 

trying to understand the factors 

associated with persecution and 

conflict, let alone for alleviating 

and preventing abuse. It is not 

enough to merely react and point to 

persecution; the underlying causes 

need to be identified and addressed 

as well.

To that end, Grim and Fink 

determined that “ensuring religious 

freedoms for all serves to defuse 

the potential volatility of religious plurality,” and “to the extent that 

governments deny religious freedoms, violent religious persecution 

and conflict will increase.”

Research thus affirms the success of efforts to expose persecution, 

but also reveals that more needs to be done. To that point, The Pew 

Research Center’s analysis of religious restrictions and hostilities for 

2016 found that 83% of the global population lived in countries with 

high or very high religious restrictions, mostly targeting religious 

minorities. The numbers left many observers dismayed. How, after 

nearly 20 years of IRFA, could the numbers be so dismal? The focus, 

if Grim and Finke are correct, needs to shift from simply an awareness 

of persecution to the exploration and understanding of the underlying 

causes for persecution.

Even Thomas Farr, the former Director of the Office of International 

Religious Freedom, questioned the efficacy of post-IRFA policies 

toward religious persecution. In testimony before the House Committee 

2016 U.S. declares ISIS committed genocide

Obama Administration against Yazidis, Christians, and Shi’a Muslims in Iraq, 

 March 17

IRFA IN THE SECOND DECADE

IRFA IN THE SECOND DECADE
50

on Oversight and Government Reform 

– Subcommittee on National Security 

in June 2013, he offered a sobering 

assessment of the degree to which 

religious persecution has been 

abated or religious freedom increased 

worldwide as a result of IRFA.

In its 2018 annual report, USCIRF 

acknowledged the downward trend, 

saying it “often intersected with 

authoritarian practices characterized 

by hostility toward dissent, pluralism, 

independent media, and active civil 

society, or took place under the guise 

of protecting national security or 

countering terrorism.” Still, in the view 

of many, the study points to reasons for 

optimism. In releasing the report, then USCIRF Chair Daniel Mark said, 

“The importance of this foundational right is appreciated more now 

than ever, and egregious violations are less likely to go unnoticed.”

When the first substantive research was introduced, many in the 

religious freedom advocacy community were paying attention and 

doubled down on their efforts. The IRF Roundtable in Washington, D.C., 

for example, was born of a desire to respond to research and stem the 

tide of persecution and abuse. Quickly, the IRF Roundtable became the 

premier space for practical policy discussions and coordination among 

civil society, government, and multilateral organizations. By 2018, it had 

attracted representatives from 250 organizations and launched nearly 

100 multi-faith initiatives on behalf of persecuted communities. The 

NGO community as a whole had grown from a handful of groups in the 

late 1990s to hundreds of organizations.

Former USCIRF Vice Chair Sandra 

Jolley introducing the 2017 USCIRF 

International Religious Freedom report

 USCIRF

IRFA IN THE SECOND DECADE

2016 Frank R. Wolf International Religious 

Obama Administration Freedom Act signed into law 

 by President Obama, December 16

2016 Global Magnitsky Act signed 

Obama Administration into law, December 23

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
51

Research provides important 

empirical data that strengthens 

the work and outreach of religious 

freedom advocates like Katrina 

Lantos Swett. The President 

of the Lantos Foundation for 

Human Rights and Justice and 

former USCIRF Chair, Lantos 

Swett knows that research lends 

credibility to the often 

Former USCIRF Commissioners 

Zuhdi Jasser, Robert George and 

Katrina Lantos Swett

VOICES

MOVING THE NEEDLE

 USCIRF

 USCIRF

IRFA IN THE SECOND DECADE

emotional conversation of religious 

persecution and helps to promote 

religious freedom.

“Societies that do a good job 

protecting religious freedom tend 

to have lower levels of social 

tension, lower levels of extremism, 

and higher economic outcomes. 

Women tend to have a higher 

socioeconomic status in societies 

where conscience rights are 

robustly protected.

“In some ways, that’s almost 

counterintuitive. I think people 

might have thought historically, 

‘Well, free religious practice is 

somehow associated with fewer 

rights for women,’ but evidence 

is just the contrary. In countries 

where you have strong religious 

freedom protections, women 

are more empowered. Freedom 

of religion and belief really can 

become a pretty significant tool in 

the empowerment of women.”

IRF
LEAD-UP TO IRFA

52 IRFA RETROSPECTIVE

ADVOCATES GET BUSY

VOICES

Greg Mitchell and the IRF Roundtable STATE.GOV/DRL/IRF

“When we first started the 

Roundtable, we only had one 

purpose, and that was to engage 

the U.S. government and get it to 

do more to advance international 

religious freedom, to do what the 

people expected they would be 

doing since IRFA passed.”

The IRF Roundtable continues to 

advocate and advise on policies 

regarding international religious 

freedom around the world 

and even in the United States. 

It is a safe space where NGOs, 

individuals and government 

officials from all faiths, or no 

faith at all, can work together 

for freedom of religion or belief 

globally. As of 2023, the network 

has attracted representatives from 

800 international organizations, 

launched more than 200 multifaith initiatives and served as a 

model for other IRF Roundtables 

around the world.

Greg Mitchell is the co-founder of 

the IRF Roundtable, an informal 

network of religious freedom 

advocates that meets regularly to 

discuss IRF issues, share ideas and 

propose joint advocacy actions. 

When the statistics showed 

religious persecution on the rise, 

Mitchell got busy.

“Pew started doing research 

and started finding a rising tide 

of restrictions on religion,” says 

Mitchell. It was ten years after 

IRFA had been enacted, and 

Mitchell recognized that IRFA 

and government are only part 

of the solution. “Even with IRFA, 

even with an ambassador and 

USCIRF, you can’t just rely on 

the U.S. government to solve all 

these problems. People have now 

realized that this is going to be a 

constant struggle. Vigilance, that’s 

what religious freedom requires. 

You’re going to have to work at it 

all the time.”

IRF
53

VOICES

Former USCIRF Commissioner Clifford

May at press conference in April 2017 

to launch the Prisoners of Conscience 

project

PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE PROJECT

 USCIRF

In April 2017, USCIRF launched 

its Prisoners of Conscience 

Project to shine the light on 

individuals imprisoned around 

the world for exercising their 

freedom of religion or belief. 

Commissioners selected prisoners 

and advocated on their behalf. 

Former Commissioner Clifford 

May adopted Raif Badawi, a 

Saudi Arabian blogger, activist, 

and creator of the website Free 

Saudi Liberals, which encouraged 

debate on religious and political 

matters.

IRFA IN THE SECOND DECADE

Charged with “setting up a 

website that undermines 

general security,” 

“ridiculing Islamic 

religious figures,” and 

“going beyond the realm 

of obedience,” Badawi 

was sentenced to 10 

years in prison and 1,000 

lashes. Speaking about 

his support of Badawi, 

Commissioner May said, “In 

some cases [advocacy] may have 

helped win release earlier than 

otherwise would have been the 

case. In other instances, I think 

it’s important that those who are 

imprisoned know that somebody 

cares about them.”

“I recently had the opportunity 

to support Raif Badawi with the 

Ambassador from Saudi Arabia. I 

don’t think that’s going to get his 

release anytime soon, but at least 

he knows that there are people 

who care about him in the U.S. 

The fact that he and others are 

imprisoned is an obstacle to the 

better relations that I think the 

Saudis seek with the U.S. at this 

point.”

Commissioner May’s prediction 

was correct. Several more years 

would pass before the Saudi 

government finally released 

Badawi on March 11, 2022. Yet, 

after receiving 50 lashes and 

completing his 10-year prison 

sentence, the human rights 

activist is forbidden to travel 

outside the country or express 

himself freely online or in the 

media until 2032. Badawi’s case 

underscores the need for ongoing 

international advocacy on behalf 

of individuals denied their basic 

freedoms based on the violation 

of the freedom of religion or 

belief.

By the end of IRFA’s second 

decade, a new energy was 

brewing within the IRF 

community. Then President 

Donald Trump selected Kansas 

Governor Sam Brownback as 

his nominee for Ambassador at 

Large for International Religious 

Freedom, a choice that drew 

some partisan grumbling but was 

acknowledged by many as an 

astute and timely pick.

IRF
54

IRFA IN THE SECOND DECADE

Brownback was lauded as a principled and authoritative voice for 

international religious freedom. While in the Senate, he spoke out 

against atrocities committed against many religious minorities abroad. 

He worked to end the North-South war in Sudan, then subsequently 

pushed for passage of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 

2005; sponsored a resolution condemning persecution of the Baha’i 

minority in Iran; and was instrumental in the enactment of IRFA.

The Senate narrowly confirmed Brownback as the fifth IRF Ambassador 

in January 2018, with then Vice President Mike Pence casting the 

tiebreaking vote in his role as president of the Senate. At the time, many 

believed the combination of Brownback and Pence, in concert with 

Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State and former USCIRF commissioner 

John Bolton as National Security Advisor, would elevate the cause of 

international religious freedom and create unprecedented opportunities 

to further advance religious freedom abroad. And in many substantive 

ways, they did.

In one such demonstration, the Trump administration would be the 

first (and only) to appoint a Special Advisor on International Religious 

Freedom to the National Security Council. Both IRFA and the subsequent 

Frank R. Wolf Act called for the creation of the position. After more than 

two decades, that mandate was fulfilled with the appointment of Sarah 

Makin, who had been working with faith communities and religious 

minorities in Iraq as a member of the Vice President’s staff.

The Trump administration also incorporated meaningful religious freedom 

language into its 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS), setting apart the 

promotion of religious freedom as a priority action within the overall NSS: 

“The United States also remains committed to supporting and advancing 

religious freedom — America’s first freedom. ...We will advocate on behalf 

of religious freedom and threatened minorities. ...We will place a priority 

on protecting these groups and will continue working with regional 

partners to protect minority communities from attacks and to preserve 

their cultural heritage.”

“Religious freedom is a 

fundamental right of every 

human no matter where they 

live, who they are, or what they 

believe. It is the right to do with 

your own soul what you choose 

without interference of any 

government or group.” 

– Ambassador Sam Brownback

STATE.GOV

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE

2018 Sam Brownback sworn in as Ambassador at Large for

Trump Administration International Religious Freedom, February 1

2017 National Security Strategy identifies 

Trump Administration protection of religious freedom and religious minorities 

 a priority, December
55

AMBER BURKHEAD, PROLIFIC 

In the 20th anniversary year of IRFA, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo 

hosted the first-ever Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, a threeday summit attended by ministerial-level officials from more than 80 

nations, as well as hundreds of religious leaders, NGO representatives, 

civil society organizations, and human rights advocates. The goal: 

reaffirm the international commitment to promote religious freedom 

and identify concrete initiatives to raise religious freedom as a global 

priority.

In convening the Ministerial, U.S. leadership sought to put its “first 

freedom” in first position. Time was spent listening to survivors of 

persecution and the family members of those who did not survive — 

a reminder that persecution has a face, and religious freedom is a 

beating heart. In this way, the Ministerial helped galvanize the global 

IRF community, providing an important platform to discuss trends and 

solutions to the world’s most difficult religious freedom challenges.

With eyes to the future, the international participants discussed 

concrete steps to take for the collective protection and promotion of 

religious freedom. Secretary Pompeo issued the Potomac Declaration

and the Potomac Plan of Action at the conclusion of the Ministerial, 

promising that the U.S. would “work with others around the world 

to help those under attack for their beliefs, and that we expect 

leaders around the world to make it their priority as well.” In addition, 

three thematic statements on global trends undermining religious 

freedom were issued at the Ministerial: blasphemy and apostasy laws, 

counterterrorism as a false pretext for religious freedom repression, 

and violations by non-state actors. Three country statements — on 

Burma, China, and Iran — were introduced as well.

The first Ministerial was followed by a second, larger Ministerial in 2019, 

hosted by the United States. Reflecting on the momentum created by 

these convenings, Secretary Pompeo noted, “We gathered leaders 

from across the world — lay leaders, faith practitioners, scholars, 

pastors, priests, clerics. These were often politically influential people 

IRFA IN THE SECOND DECADE

Sarah Makin, former Deputy Assistant 

to the President for NSC

IRFA IN THE SECOND DECADE

2018 Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, hosted by 

Trump Administration the U.S. Department of State, July 24 to 26 – Potomac Declaration 

 and Potomac Action Plan are introduced
56

even though few of them were elected officials. The chance for us to 

come together around a common understanding of religious freedom 

gave the United States the capacity to influence and shape human 

dignity inside their countries in a way that no policy conference ever 

could.”

As the IRF Act moved into its third decade, the Ministerial meetings 

were representative of a growing awareness and embrace of 

religious freedom advocacy around the globe. The conversations 

and connections begun at these gatherings would prove to be either 

a launching pad or an accelerator for many important initiatives that 

would give new momentum to the IRF movement. An energized effort 

would be important as the geopolitical landscape began to shift rapidly. 

IRFA IN THE SECOND DECADE

2019 State Dept Ministerial to Advance 

Religious Freedom

STATE.GOV

“The United States of America stands for religious freedom yesterday, 

today, and always. We do this because it is right. But we also do this 

because religious freedom is in the interest of the peace and security 

of the world.” 

– Vice President Mike Pence

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE

2018 Trump Administration Deploys Global Magnitsky Act

Trump Administration in response to Turkey’s refusal release American Pastor Andrew Brunson (August)
57

VOICES

Pastor Andrew Brunson PATRICK ROBERTSON/BAKER PUBLISHING

against President Recep Tayyip 

Erdogan rattled the country in 

the summer of 2016 and forever 

changed the Brunson’s lives.

That October, Brunson was 

suddenly detained, imprisoned 

and falsely charged with espionage 

and terrorism by the Turkish 

government for a role he did 

not play in the coup attempt. 

Months later, the charge of 

“Christianization” would be added 

to his list of criminal offenses. 

For nearly two years, Brunson 

languished in prison. U.S. State 

Department officials, members of 

Congress, and USCIRF mounted 

an aggressive pressure campaign 

to secure Brunson’s release. And 

though the IRFA mandate does not 

often involve American citizens, 

per se, IRF Ambassador Sam 

Brownback and a handful of 

USCIRF Commissioners traveled to 

Turkey to appeal on his behalf.

When Turkey — a U.S. NATO ally 

— offered only a partial reprieve 

by releasing Brunson to house 

arrest, then President Trump 

deployed the full weight of the 

Global Magnitsky Act to sanction 

two Turkish officials. The move 

sent a signal and set in motion 

other economic pressures that 

ultimately resulted in the release 

of Brunson on October 12, 2018.

Brunson admits his awareness 

of the IRF Act prior to his 

incarceration was peripheral at 

best. Now, it’s top of mind. “The 

U.S. and Western Europe are 

really the ones driving religious 

freedom. It’s not a high value in 

most countries, but the United 

States and Europe have pushed 

this as a human right. They have 

modeled it and encouraged 

other countries. If there has been 

progress on religious persecution 

in other countries, often it was 

because of that pressure.” But 

Brunson cautions that that 

influence is fragile. “I think 

religious freedom is starting to 

come under pressure in the West,” 

he warns. “If we’re not giving it the 

same importance at home, I don’t 

think people are going to listen to 

us abroad.

IRFA IN THE SECOND DECADE

Sanctions are one of the many 

discretionary actions available to 

the President under the IRF Act. In 

addition, the Global Magnitsky Act 

is a robust tool that allows the U.S. 

government to sanction offenders 

identified as engaging in serious 

human rights abuses. For Pastor 

Andrew Brunson, this lever would 

prove to be his Get Out of Jail card.

For more than 20 years, the 

unassuming Brunson and his wife 

Norine had faithfully worked as 

Christian missionaries in Turkey, 

establishing churches, training 

believers, and aiding refugees. 

Their work in the Muslim-majority 

country had been challenging, but 

fruitful, and the couple had a heart 

for the Turkish people. They had 

recently applied for permanent 

resident status when a failed coup 

IRFA LEVERAGE FREES A PASTOR

IRF
58

IRFA TURNS 25

any observers would agree that widespread 

global activity and events associated with 

freedom of religion or belief have moved at a 

rapid pace between 2019 and 2023, a pivotal 

five-year span approaching the 25th anniversary of IRFA. 

On the positive side of the ledger are initiatives like the birth 

of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance 

(IRFBA), the continuation of the IRF Ministerial, the launch of 

the International Religious Freedom Summit, the formation of 

multiple IRF Roundtables around the world, the negotiation 

of the Abraham Accords Declaration, and the long-awaited 

declarations of genocide against the Uyghurs and Rohingya. 

Peter Burns, Executive Director of the IRF Summit and former 

Special Assistant at the U.S. State Department has observed, 

“The IRF movement is getting better. It’s learning. It’s getting 

stronger and learning how to play in the international space.” 

USCIRF, he says, has “come of age and woken up to its own 

ability” in the past five years, though he believes Congress 

has not necessarily matched that trajectory. “Even though 

there’s more activity driven by really effective advocacy, the actual 

Congressional engagement remains pretty tepid.” 

In fact, many would agree that a whole-of-government approach to 

IRF, as prescribed by IRFA, has remained elusive. Frequent, sometimes 

contentious debates concerning funding and reauthorizing USCIRF 

also have had a chilling effect on some important initiatives, with 

the Commission forced to focus on its very existence, rather than on 

substantive concerns. 

Unfortunately, bad actors in countries like Burma, China, India, Iran, 

Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan have 

often undermined progress. Juxtaposed with the positive milestones 

has been an alarming rise in authoritarianism, accompanied by an 

increase in persecution worldwide of religious minorities and dissenting 

members of majority communities. As one observer noted: “Civil 

IRF SUMMIT

Peter Burns speaking at 2022

IRF Summit

2018 Iraq and Syria Genocide Relief and Accountability Act

Trump Administration adopted by Congress, Dec. 11 

M

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
59

IRFA TURNS 25

Hopeful Milestones 

In the fall of 2019, then President Trump became the first U.S. 

President in history to convene a meeting at the United Nations 

General Assembly focused solely on the issue of international religious 

freedom. “That was a tremendous opportunity to educate diplomats 

and heads of state,” says Nury Turkel, a Commissioner of USCIRF and 

himself a former asylum seeker and US-educated Uyghur lawyer. “I 

was delighted to see the President, Vice President, Secretary of State 

and victims of religious persecution sitting alongside the UN Secretary 

General discussing religious freedom, showing our seriousness.”

A few months earlier, the U.S. State Department had convened the 

second Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom. Participation far 

surpassed that of the original convening, with more than 1,000 civil 

society and religious leaders and more than 100 foreign delegations in 

attendance. 

An important outgrowth of the Ministerials was the formation of the 

International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance (IRFBA) by then 

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The Alliance is a network of likeminded countries (42 as of this writing) fully committed to advancing 

freedom of religion or belief around the world. 

Critical to the mission of the Alliance has been the creation of individual 

working groups to tackle tough issues, among them atrocity prevention, 

education, protecting religious and cultural heritage, and gender. The 

group has activated a religious prisoners of conscience program. And 

António Guterres, UN Secretary 

General at 2019 UN Global Meeting 

to Protect Religious Freedom

UNITED NATIONS

society space is closing. The rule of law is not as respected as it was, 

and democracy is not growing as we all hoped it would.”

Even so, great strides have been made to elevate freedom of religion 

or belief around the world and, against this volatile backdrop, IRFA has 

remained a touchstone. The Act has provided not only a framework 

for U.S. foreign policy, but also a roadmap for other nations, nongovernmental organizations, faith-based groups and civil society.

IRFA TURNS 25

2019 Second Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, 

Trump Administration hosted by the U.S. Department of State, July 16-18 
60

IRFA TURNS 25

it has assembled a global, 40-member Council of Experts comprised 

of academics, civil society leaders, heads of international NGOs, and 

former governmental envoys.

Under the leadership of Fiona Bruce MP, the UK Prime Minister’s Special 

Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief, the UK government hosted the 

International Ministerial Conference on the Right to Freedom of Religion 

or Belief in London in 2022. Given COVID protocols, this conference 

was the first in-person international ministerial since those hosted by the 

United States in 2018 and 2019, and followed a virtual ministerial hosted 

by Poland in 2020. (At the time of this writing, IRFBA helped coordinate 

the fifth Ministerial, which was held in November 2023 in Prague on the 

topic of Freedom of Religion or Belief under Authoritarian Regimes.)

Beyond IRFBA and the continuation of the IRF Ministerials, global 

collaboration has been a hallmark of the five years leading up to IRFA’s 

25th anniversary. Countries around the world have looked to the U.S. 

model in structuring their own responses to international religious 

freedom. For example, just a dozen years after Greg Mitchell co-founded 

the IRF Roundtable in Washington, D.C. more than 25 nations have 

established their own IRF Roundtables and several more are in various 

stages of development. 

Even as the global community has embraced new ways to understand 

and promote freedom of religion or belief, the United States has worked 

to provide relief and safe harbor for many of the world’s most persecuted 

individuals. Since taking office in 2021, President Joe Biden has increased 

the United States’ annual refugee resettlement ceiling nearly tenfold — 

from the record-low cap of 15,000 established by his predecessor to 

125,000, a level more consistent with America’s long tradition of welcome 

and at pace with USCIRF recommendations.

2021 also marked the first year of the International Religious Freedom 

Summit. The now annual civil society conference seeks to create 

FOREIGN, COMMONWEALTH & 

DEVELOPMENT OFFICE 

A 2020 Executive Order issued by 

then President Trump adopted 

several longstanding USCIRF 

recommendations, including 

increased foreign assistance 

related to IRF promotion, 

development of an overall 

strategy for promoting religious 

freedom abroad, and creation 

of country-specific action

plans. Since then, the State 

Department has dedicated $50 

million annually to IRF-related 

programming.

Fiona Bruce, UK PM’s Special Envoy 

for Freedom of Religion or Belief; 

Chair, IRFBA

2020 First-ever Senior Director 

Trump Administration	 	 	 for IRF on the NSC staff

 appointed by President Trump, Feb. 4

2020 International Religious Freedom or Belief 

Trump Administration Alliance (IRFBA) launched, Feb. 5

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
61

IRFA TURNS 25

coalitions of organizations that are working together to advance 

international religious freedom, raise public awareness about IRF issues, 

and increase the political strength of the IRF movement.

“In addition to the growing civil society movement, we’ve never had more 

special rapporteurs, special envoys and ambassadors for countering 

restrictions on religious freedom as we do today,” says Rashad Hussain, 

who was confirmed as the sixth Ambassador at Large for International 

Religious Freedom in December 2021.

Both President Trump and President Biden nominated their IRF 

Ambassadors promptly compared to the long delays in earlier years, 

but Hussain’s nomination by President Biden and his near unanimous 

and bipartisan confirmation by Congress marked yet another important 

milestone. Hussain is the first Muslim American to serve as the top IRF 

First IRFBA dinner at 2019 IRF 

Ministerial

STATE.GOV

IRFA TURNS 25

2020 World Health Organization 

Trump Administration declares COVID-19 a pandemic, Mar 11
62

IRF

Many now live far from their 

ancestral home in congested 

refugee camps in countries like 

Thailand, Indonesia and Nepal. 

Most have found refuge in 

neighboring Bangladesh, where 

their presence causes a simmering 

tension with local communities. 

More than half of the Rohingya 

refugees in Bangladesh are women 

and children. 

“I have seen lots of difficult 

things, but there is nothing like 

the experience of going to an 

IDP camp in Burma,” says Mark 

Green, former Administrator 

of USAID. In one visit, he met a 

LONGING FOR HOME — THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF ROHINGYA MUSLIMS

VOICES

young father who was desperate 

for answers. “He told me that all 

of his children were born in that 

camp. He could not leave without 

written permission, which he had 

never gotten. He said there were 

health facilities but no doctors, 

classrooms but no teachers, and 

the only food he had was what the 

U.S. had provided.”

The father’s next words still haunt 

Green. “He looked at me and said, 

‘My question is, what do I tell 

my son?’ That just shattered me. 

Food assistance is crucial. Medical 

assistance is crucial. But we also 

have to find ways to have settings 

for people in which they can be 

human, where they have the space 

to express their humanity.”

For the Rohingya Muslims living 

in Buddhist-majority Burma, little 

is left that resembles humanity. It 

began with the cancelation in the 

early 1960s of Rohingya-language 

programming on the state-run 

broadcasting service. Next, 

Rohingya were segregated into IDP 

camps in Rakhine State and made 

to register with the government. 

By 1982, the nation’s revised 

citizenship law effectively excluded 

Rohingya from citizenship and 

denied them full political rights. 

Then, in wave after violent wave, 

military leaders orchestrated 

arson, rapes and mass killings of 

its Rohingya population.

In 2017 the United States withdrew 

military assistance from Burma. 

The UN and International Criminal 

Court (ICC) in turn called for 

investigations of the violence 

perpetrated against the Rohingyas. 

Finally, in March 2022 Secretary 

of State Antony Blinken concluded 

that Rohingya were the victims 

of genocide and crimes against 

humanity committed by members 

of the Burmese military.

REUTERS/MOHAMMAD PONIR HOSSAIN

REUTERS/MOHAMMAD PONIR HOSSAIN

Rohingya Muslims have called Burma home for centuries, but it is a home where they are 

despised, disenfranchised, and tormented by their fellow countrymen. Since the early 1990s, 

more than 1 million desperate Rohingya have left their home to escape unspeakable violence 

and human rights abuses. 

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
63

The Rohingya leaving their homeland for safety

REUTERS/MOHAMMAD PONIR HOSSAIN

IRFA TURNS 25

In remarks announcing the formal 

declaration of genocide, Secretary 

Blinken noted that the destruction 

of Rohingya—in whole or in part—

was the clear intent behind the 

mass atrocities in Burma: “That 

intent has been corroborated by 

the accounts of soldiers who took 

part in the operation and later 

defected, such as one who said 

he was told by his commanding 

officer to, ‘shoot at every sight of a 

person,’ burn villages, rape and kill 

women, orders that he and his unit 

carried out.”

Secretary Blinken concluded his 

remarks echoing the hope for 

humanity that motivates former 

Administrator Green and the 

global cadre of human rights and 

international religious freedom 

advocates: “Despite all they have 

endured, despite decades of being 

told they do not belong, two out 

of three Rohingya refugees still 

want to be able to return home 

to Burma one day — as long as 

they can do it safely, with dignity, 

with human rights, which is not 

possible now. And so, with today’s 

determination, the United States 

reaffirms its broader commitment 

to accompany Rohingya on this 

path out of genocide — toward 

truth, toward accountability, 

toward a home that will welcome 

them as equal members, that 

will respect their human rights 

and dignity, alongside that of all 

people in Burma.”

IRF
64

IRFA TURNS 25

official in the U.S. government, emblematic of the all-inclusive intention 

of IRFA and the many initiatives and policies that have flowed from it. The 

last three Ambassadors-at-Large have been Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, 

a fact that Hussain believes “sends a really powerful signal to the world 

about who we are as a country and what our priorities are.” 

Shortly after Hussain had settled into his new role as chief IRF diplomat 

for the United States, Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a sobering 

declaration about atrocities perpetrated against the Rohingya, a mostly 

Muslim minority ethnic group in Myanmar: “I have determined that 

members of the Burmese military committed genocide and crimes against 

humanity against Rohingya. Today’s determination . . . tells Rohingya, and 

victims in particular, that the United States government recognizes the 

gravity of the atrocities committed against them. And it affirms Rohingya’s 

human rights and dignity, something the Burmese military has tried to 

destroy.”

Just 14 months earlier, in his final act before a new administration 

stepped into the White House, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued 

a similar declaration of genocide, this one in support of the Uyghur 

community: “While the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has always 

exhibited a profound hostility to all people of faith, we have watched 

with growing alarm the Party’s increasingly repressive treatment of the 

Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minority groups.” He added, “I 

have determined that . . . the People’s Republic of China (PRC), under the 

direction and control of the CCP, has committed genocide against the 

predominately Muslim Uyghurs and other members of ethnic and religious 

minority groups in Xinjiang. We will not remain silent.”

Though the declarations were welcome and appropriate measures 

— hopeful milestones by most accounts — they also pointed to a 

disheartening reality: despite all of the movement forward to prevent such 

atrocities, genocide and religious persecution have not only continued, 

they have increased. Even as important and hopeful milestones were 

being accomplished, harmful activity was still happening. 

And in 2020, these tragedies were aggravated further by an unexpected 

foe.

2020 President Trump signs Executive Order 13926

Trump Administration on Advancing International Religious Freedom, June 2

STATE.GOV 

Rashad Hussain, Ambassador at Large 

for IRF

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
65

IRF

Chinese authorities have been 

using political repression, economic 

marginalization, curbs on religious 

practice, demographic engineering, 

and sinicization to target Uyghurs 

for years. By U.S. government 

estimates, the government of 

the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC) has systematically interned 

between 800,000 and 2 million 

Uyghurs since 2017. The statistics 

point to the most extensive 

internment campaign since the 

Second World War and underscore 

the PRC’s intention to eradicate 

Uyghur people’s ethnoreligious 

identity.

Reports of abuse are abundant 

and include a deliberate effort to 

curb Uyghur religious practices. 

To that end, the government has 

destroyed more than 100 mosques; 

punished Uyghurs for reading the 

Quran, praying, and participating 

ALL EYES ON THE UYGHUR PEOPLE

VOICES

Human Rights Watch reports over half 

a million people in Xinjiang have been 

persecuted in a vast expansion of the 

numbers of Uyghurs held in prisons. 

The New York Times tells the story of 

one of those interned — Rahile Dawut, 

one of the first Uyghur women to earn 

a Ph.D. A professor at Xinjiang University, Dawut founded a folklore institute 

and documented religious and cultural 

traditions of the Uyghurs. In 2017, she 

disappeared at the height of her career 

and was later learned to have been 

sentenced to life in prison on charges of 

endangering national security.

LISA ROSS

“All who believe in the principle 

of ‘never again’ after the horror 

of the Nazi extermination camps 

and Stalin’s gulag must speak 

up against China’s grotesque use 

of brainwashing, prisons and 

torture.” 

– Editorial Board, Washington Post (2018)

in religious activities; and banned 

Islamic weddings, burials and high 

holy days. Religious pilgrims also 

are punished for performing Hajj. 

The PRC even forbids giving infants 

Muslim names.

As Uyghur academics, religious 

scholars, businessmen, and other 

influential members of society have 

been “disappeared,” so has the 

vibrant Uyghur culture. Chinese 

authorities have incentivized 

(and often forced) inter-ethnic 

marriages; demolished Uyghur 

homes and neighborhoods; 

curtailed the use of the Uyghur 

language; and forcibly removed 

Uyghur children from their families 

and placed them in state-run 

boarding schools, pre-schools and 

orphanages where Mandarin is 

almost exclusively used — all in a 

bid to erase Uyghur customs and 

traditions.

IRFA TURNS 25
66

IRF

Chinese authorities use state-ofthe-art surveillance technology

to intensify the persecution 

of Uyghurs with cameras that 

illuminate many streets in Xinjiang. 

Iris scanners and wi-fi sniffers 

monitor the movement of everyone 

from students and storekeepers to 

government workers and artists. 

No Uyghur goes undetected.

As evidence about the scale 

and nature of this extrajudicial 

detention campaign has emerged, 

the PRC government repeatedly has 

Uyghurs holding photos of missing 

relatives

ABCNEWS.COM 

shifted its narrative, from silence 

at first, to denial, then attempts to 

frame the camps as “vocational 

training centers.” Likewise, 

Chinese authorities have sought 

to whitewash the human rights 

violations they are committing 

against Uyghurs by opening up the 

region to tourism and international 

business investment, as well 

as agricultural and industrial 

activities. 

Human rights advocates and 

organizations that focus on 

“As a country party to the 

Genocide Convention, we have 

a moral obligation and a treaty 

obligation to call it out, stop it 

and punish [it].” 

– USCIRF Commissioner Nury Turkel 

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
67

IRF

genocide and genocide prevention 

are not fooled. They have worked 

tirelessly for years to document 

abuses, raise awareness, and 

advocate for laws and sanctions 

against the PRC government 

and members of the Chinese 

Communist Party (CCP). The 

Uyghur Human Rights Project 

(UHRP) reports that, between 

October 2019 and March 2022, the 

United States has used the Global 

Magnitsky Act and other measures 

to impose nearly 120 punitive 

sanctions, as well as import, export 

and investment bans. 

Congress has passed the Uyghur 

Human Rights Policy Act of 

2020 (S.3744), the Resolution 

Condemning the Ongoing Genocide 

Against Uyghurs (H.Res.317), 

and the Uyghur Forced Labor 

Prevention Act (H.R.6256).

All of these efforts must continue. 

“Policy wins always present 

moments of hope for diaspora 

communities, but for those of 

us that are actually working in 

the policy space, we’re always 

looking ahead to implementation 

and what’s the next thing that 

happens,” says Julie Milsap, 

Government Relations Manager 

for UHRP. “We know the realities of 

implementing policies — even if it’s 

ugly or messy, work is happening. 

It’s going to move forward. I’d 

rather have that messy chaos than 

silence.”

Mess or no mess, USCIRF 

Commissioner Nury Turkel believes 

the U.S. has a duty to address 

head on the Uyghur genocide. “As 

a country party to the Genocide 

Convention, we have a moral 

obligation and a treaty obligation 

to call it out, stop it and punish [it],” 

he says. He notes that China is the 

world’s second largest economy, a 

leader in the technology space, and 

America’s second largest trading 

partner. As such, Turkel contends 

U.S. competitiveness in emerging 

technologies, robotics, AI, and 

synthetic biology are all linked to 

the ongoing Uyghur genocide. 

By his measure, It is disingenuous to 

claim democracy and human rights 

is at the center of the U.S. foreign 

policy agenda while not doing 

enough to stop this genocide. “How 

does the rest of the world look at 

us when we say something and do 

not follow our own words? This is 

not only a Uyghur struggle. This is a 

civilization struggle. This is a struggle 

for the American people. This is 

about who we are as a country, and 

this is about our future.”

IRFA TURNS 25
68

IRFA TURNS 25

A Pandemic and Many Perilous 

Patterns

In early 2020, rumors began circulating of a 

possible outbreak of the deadly Severe Acute 

Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) virus in China. 

By March of that year, after more than 118,000 

cases in 114 countries and upwards of 4,200 

deaths, the World Health Organization declared 

COVID-19 a pandemic. The crisis did more than 

create a global public health panic; human rights 

also were strained in profound ways.

In a speech before the Council of Europe in December 2020, 

Commissioner for Human Rights Dunja Mijatović remarked that the 

pandemic had “provided many governments with an ideal pretext to 

exploit fears and crackdown on dissent, restrict people’s rights and 

pass emergency legislation that risked long-term consequences.” 

Freedom of assembly restrictions, though helpful in containing the 

aggressive spread of COVID, impacted in-person religious worship and 

also undercut the ability of civil society to aid and advocate for the most 

vulnerable communities. 

From a logistical standpoint, COVID disrupted the forward momentum 

of many international religious freedom efforts. In-person IRF 

Roundtables were postponed. The third Ministerial to Advance 

Freedom of Religion or Belief, planned and hosted by Poland, was 

scaled back and convened in a fully digital format. And the allimportant, on-the-ground visits by USCIRF Commissioners and staff to 

countries with problematic policies and initiatives were curtailed.

The interruptions created by COVID were compounded by contentious 

U.S. elections in 2020, the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban following 

the withdrawal of U.S. armed forces in 2021, and the invasion of 

Ukraine by Russia in 2022. During this period of global tumult, troubling 

developments around the world have signaled the potential for longterm and pervasive threats to global IRF efforts. 

RELIGIOUSFREEDOM.IN.UA

IRF Roundtable Ukraine

2021 United States government declares

Trump Administration PRC and CCP committed genocide against Uyghur 

 Muslims, Jan 19

2020 Abraham Accords signed by Israel, 

Trump Administration UAE and Bahrain and Morocco, Sep 15

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
69

IRFA TURNS 25

“We are seeing restrictions 

that are part of a broader 

trend of democratic 

backsliding around the 

world, but the movement 

to protect international 

religious freedom is 

growing and has never been 

stronger.”

– Rashad Hussain, Ambassador at Large 

for International Religious Freedom

Topping the list of alarming patterns has been a steady increase 

of authoritarianism in some regions that poses a danger to global 

freedom. As reported by Freedom House in its 2022 Freedom of the 

World report, “Authoritarian regimes have become more effective at 

co-opting or circumventing the norms and institutions meant to support 

basic liberties and at providing aid to others who wish to do the same.” 

In some areas, the move away from democratic structures and norms 

and the growing restrictions on human rights imposed by dictatorial 

regimes has magnified the erosion of freedoms for religious minorities 

and other vulnerable communities.

Religious freedom is in the crosshairs of many authoritarian states 

whose aim is to repress religion as a means of safeguarding and 

asserting power. In its 2022 report Tolerance, Religious Freedom, and 

Authoritarianism, USCIRF reports that “authoritarian states’ concern in 

surveilling, regulating, and controlling the activities of religious groups and 

individuals stems from the wider effort to forestall the emergence of an 

independent civil society that might threaten a regime’s hold on power.”

A disturbing example of the long arm of authoritarianism in the modern 

age is China’s use of technology to censor and control members 

of faith communities, including Tibetan Buddhists, Falun Gong 

practitioners, Catholic bishops, Christian house churches, and Muslim 

Uyghurs. In many important ways, technology has provided qualityof-life benefits to struggling groups. But the abuse of technology 

by menacing regimes and other bad actors represents a second 

perilous pattern threatening the freedom of religion or belief.

For years, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has monitored and 

restricted internet use and social media activity of its citizens for 

nefarious purposes. Now, with the aid of artificial intelligence (AI), 

the CCP has added facial and gait recognition to its arsenal, and has 

developed sophisticated data collections systems that make it possible 

to capture everything from cell phone data to genetic sampling. 

IRFA TURNS 25

2021 United States Congress adopted the 

Biden Administration Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, Dec. 23

USCIRF
70

“China is no longer a rising threat; it is a risen threat,” says Katrina 

Lantos Swett, former USCIRF Chair and President/CEO of the Lantos 

Foundation for Human Rights and Justice. “Without ethical and moral 

restraints, I worry about China potentially weaponizing AI.” Indeed, 

many observers share that concern, believing China aims to export the 

technology to other authoritarian regimes, who will use it to monitor, 

imprison or otherwise restrict the freedoms of their citizens. 

The nefarious use of technology is by no means limited to bad actors 

in China. In recent years, Hindu nationalists have used social media 

to stoke mob violence on the streets of India, resulting in a surge of 

attacks on members of minority Muslim and Christian groups. Equally

troubling is the Indian government’s proclivity for shutting down the 

internet, blocking specific websites, or encouraging social media

platforms to block content under the guise of quelling violence and 

curbing disinformation. In many regions of India, such as Manipur and 

Kashmir, millions of residents have gone months without access to 

mobile internet, social media websites, or Wi-Fi hotspots, essentially 

severing the means of modern communication and crippling economic 

livelihoods in these areas.

Violent nonstate actors also have tapped into the darker side of 

technology. Notorious groups such as Islamic State (IS), al-Shabab, and 

Boko Haram use the internet, social media platforms, and messaging 

apps to recruit, spread disinformation and propaganda, and manipulate 

public opinion.

Technology is a double-edged sword. The same innovations that can 

be used for harmful purposes have also been a boon for many atrisk communities. Social media, for example, has been used to incite 

violence against religious minorities but also to connect and mobilize 

those same groups. How to leverage technology for good, while also 

addressing online harms that lead to violent behaviors offline, has been 

one of the most urgent topics of study and discussion within the IRF 

community in the years leading up to 25th anniversary of the IRF Act.

“Artificial intelligence is a

serious sea change. If not 

managed appropriately, 

it will have a detrimental 

impact on freedom in 

general, and religious 

freedom in particular.” 

– Frederick A. Davie, USCIRF Vice Chair

IRFA TURNS 25

2022 Rashad Hussain sworn in as IRF Ambassador 

Biden Administration Jan 24

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
71

Regrettably, in far too many instances, the conversation has moved 

too slowly to help prevent persecution and the mass atrocities that 

IRFA was designed to preempt. For all the promises of “never again,” 

genocide remains a scourge — a deadly and destructive pattern that 

has been accelerated in part by technology, but also perpetuated due 

to ignorance.

“What most people don’t understand about genocide is that it is not just 

mass killing,” says Gregory Stanton, Founding President and Chairman 

of Genocide Watch. “It is also creating conditions of life intended to 

destroy a group such as by starvation, causing serious bodily or mental 

harm, preventing births, and kidnapping children.” Stanton firmly asserts 

that genocide is a process, not an event. “It develops in 10 nonlinear 

predictable stages that lead up to these acts of genocide. Each stage in 

the process is preventable. But the US and UN use statistical models for 

prediction that don’t effectively combat each stage in the process.”

Most people, for example, would recognize the systematic murder 

of 9,000 Rohingya Muslims as genocide. Fewer might understand 

the term also encompasses atrocities like mass rape, burnings and 

drownings, children forcibly taken from their families and indoctrinated, 

and the forced displacement of nearly a million people from their 

homes.

After 25 years, IRFA has produced hopeful milestones and illuminated 

perilous patterns. It has been an important framework with which 

to integrate religious freedom into U.S. foreign policy, as well as a 

pathway for other nations to embark on their own journeys to preserve 

and protect freedom of religion or belief. Opinions are mixed as to its 

effectiveness. Most would agree that IRFA has been at least partially 

successful, but much work remains. 

What has been constructed is important. What comes next is essential. 

“If the Rohingya had been 

empowered, they would 

have been able to counter 

some of the false narrative. 

We didn’t have enough 

people or technology to 

directly inform the world 

what was going on.” 

– Wai Wai Nu, advocate and genocide 

survivor

IRFA TURNS 25

IRFA TURNS 25

2022 United States government declares 

Biden Administration Burmese military committed genocide

 against Rohingya, Mar 21 

 

2022 United States Congress 

Biden Administration adopted the Burma Act, Dec. 23

WIKIPEDIA

Wai Wai Nu
72

STAGE

02

STAGE

03

STAGE

05

STAGE

01

STAGE

04

TEN STAGES OF GENOCIDE

Stage 1: Classification

All cultures have categories to distinguish people into “us and them” by 

ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality: 

German and Jew, Hutu and Tutsi. Bipolar 

societies that lack mixed categories, 

such as Rwanda and Burundi, are the 

most likely to have genocide.

Stage 2: Symbolization

We give names or other symbols to the classifications. We name people “Jews” or “Roma,”, 

or distinguish them by colors or dress; and 

apply the symbols to members of groups. 

Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily result in 

genocide unless they lead to dehumanization. 

Stage 3: Discrimination

A dominant group uses law, custom, 

and political power to deny the rights of 

other groups. The powerless group may 

not be accorded full civil rights, voting 

rights, or even citizenship.

Stage 5: Organization

Genocide is always organized, usually 

by the state, often using militias to 

provide deniability of state responsibility. 

Sometimes organization is informal 

(Hindu mobs led by local RSS militants) 

or decentralized (terrorist groups). 

Stage 4: Dehumanization

One group denies the humanity of the 

other group. Members of it are equated 

with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. 

The 10 Stages of Genocide is a processual model designed by Dr. Gregory Stanton that aims to 

demonstrate how the crime of genocide is committed. It is a helpful tool for understanding the 

mechanics of past genocides, as well as providing early warning signs that can be used to prevent 

future genocides and other mass atrocity crimes. 

IRFA TURNS 25

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
IRFA TURNS 25 73

STAGE

06 STAGE

08

STAGE

10

STAGE

09

STAGE

07

Stage 6: Polarization

Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate 

groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Laws may forbid intermarriage or 

social interaction. 

Stage 8: Persecution

Victims are identified and separated out 

because of their national, ethnic, racial, 

or religious identity. The victim group’s 

most basic human rights are systematically violated through extrajudicial killings, torture, and forced displacement. 

Death lists are drawn up. 

Stage 10: Denial

Denial is the final stage that lasts 

throughout and always follows genocide. It is among the surest indicators of 

further genocidal massacres. 

Stage 7: Preparation

National or perpetrator group leaders 

plan the “Final Solution” to the Jewish, 

Armenian, Tutsi, or other targeted group 

“question.” They often use euphemisms 

to cloak their intentions, such as referring to their goals as “ethnic cleansing,” 

“purification,” or “counterterrorism.” 

Stage 9: Extermination

Extermination begins and quickly 

becomes the mass killing legally called 

“genocide.” It is “extermination” to the 

killers because they do not believe their 

victims to be fully human. 

SOURCE: OPERATIONBROKENSILENCE.ORG/BLOG/THE-10-STAGES-OF-GENOCIDE

IRFA TURNS 25
74

IRF MOVING FORWARD

ver the past 25 years, IRFA and its progeny, the Frank 

R. Wolf Act, have energized the policy conversation and 

made progress toward elevating religious freedom as an 

essential and worthy component of international relations. 

IRFA and its proponents have reinforced the urgent need 

for attentive and meaningful solutions to the full spectrum of violations 

of freedom of religion or belief — from harassment and marginalization 

to discrimination, imprisonment and death. Still, as one observer has 

noted, in every generation and with each new era, “we cannot afford to 

“take our foot off the gas.”

“People have to move forward and set down their own desire to 

stay in their silos. We need to share information, friendships, and 

relationships. We want to be cooperative for the betterment of 

mankind.” 

– David Curry, USCIRF Commissioner

In the present moment, there are unique challenges and concerns. 

Conversations with members of the IRF community underscore some 

important observations about IRFA and the current international 

religious freedom landscape:

1) Despite years of effort and measurable momentum, international 

religious freedom has not yet achieved its full potential within 

the foreign policy apparatus of the U.S. government as a highvalue topic and tool. Likewise, the use of waiver authority by 

every administration since IRFA’s adoption to spare some CPCdesignated countries from any consequences has served to 

dilute its efficacy. 

2) The emphasis within international religious freedom advocacy 

has broadened. In addition to studying the causes of the 

violations of freedom of religion or belief, using naming-andshaming tactics, and relying on sanctions as foremost policy 

tools, today’s IRF advocates recognize the added value of 

working together to empower and equip local populations with 

the tools needed to counter and prevent violations in their 

communities. 

3) The structures of democracy are eroding in many parts of the 

world as authoritarianism has gained traction, a geopolitical 

trend that has led to greater pressures on religious minorities 

and dissenting members of majority communities and an 

increase in reports of violations of religious freedom.

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE

O
75

“What gives me pause, 

especially when we think 

about freedom of religion or 

belief issues, is the rise of 

authoritarianism. Democracy 

is on its heels.” 

– Adam Phillips, former Executive 

Director, Local, Faith and Transformative 

Partnership Hubs, USAID

DAWNNEWSTV

100-year-old Sialkot mosque destroyed 

by a mob in 2018

Physical harms to humans that result from religious 

freedom abuses are an obvious source of concern 

and outrage for IRF advocates and human rights 

defenders. A more subtle (but no less sinister) 

violation of religious freedom is the assault on the 

sacred places—cemeteries, houses of worship, and 

other holy sites—believers hold dear.

Protecting the rights of all people to assemble 

for worship also requires protecting the places 

where worship takes place. When those places 

are defaced, demolished or restricted, religious 

freedom is diminished. A rise in attacks on holy 

sites is an important barometer of growing religious 

intolerance, one that officials ignore at their own 

peril. In 2019, for example, swastikas and other Nazi 

symbols and antisemitic slogans were spray-painted 

on roughly 80 gravestones in a Jewish cemetery in 

France—activity that preceded a steady resurgence 

in antisemitism there and throughout Europe. In 

2023, rioters burned and destroyed the historic El 

Hamma synagogue in Tunisia.

Russian officials forcibly installed surveillance 

cameras in a mosque under the auspices of 

improved security, but worshippers fear being 

recorded during prayers. In Pakistan, Ahmadi 

Muslims are forbidden to call their houses of worship 

mosques. Those who do can be imprisoned. The law 

has provoked attacks against Ahmadiyya houses of 

worship, such as the 100-year-old Sialkot mosque 

destroyed by a mob in 2018.

USCIRF consistently upholds the understanding that 

places of worship are an essential element of the 

manifestation of the right to freedom of religion or 

belief.

WHEN THE SACRED PLACES ARE ASSAULTED

IRF MOVING FORWARD

IRF MOVING FORWARD
76

IRF MOVING FORWARD

4) Technology is moving at warp speed, but governments have 

limited agility to keep pace with technologies that pose grave 

threats to at-risk religious minorities and dissenting members 

of majority communities. And some governments themselves 

harness technology to produce these threats. 

Clearly, today’s IRF landscape looks different than it did 25 years ago. 

Even the nomenclature has expanded, from international religious 

freedom to freedom of religion or belief. The questions have changed 

as well. For years, IRF advocates have studied and tracked data to 

understand what these violations looks like, where and when they are 

likely to occur, who is most at risk and why. This is a strong legacy. To 

move that work forward, perhaps the important question now is how? 

How does the IRF community address the harms and hostilities in all 

their forms in the context of the current terrain?

How, for example, do we affirm IRFA with today’s team of U.S. foreign 

policy professionals? If our global society provides for greater access to 

information and advocacy tools, how do we collaborate to make those 

resources more readily available and useful to local communities and 

to government? If we are walking through an era of fragile democracies 

and emboldened autocrats, how do we step in to ease the pressure 

on at-risk communities? And how do we use technology as a force 

multiplier for freedom of religion or belief instead of falling prey to its 

malicious applications?

IRFA on the Homefront

The International Religious Freedom Act is worthy of celebration for 

the important mechanisms it created: the IRF Ambassador, a dedicated 

IRF office within the State Department, USCIRF, and robust reporting 

and accountability measures. However, while much of IRFA has been 

accepted by many policymakers and incorporated into some structures 

of government, aspects of IRFA have not. 

As previously noted, the IRF Act recommended the creation of an 

IRF Special Adviser position at the National Security Council (NSC), 

a role that remains vacant. In the 25-year history of the IRF Act, just 

one person was appointed who served briefly in this role. Even then, 

“it was hard to convince some people that we needed to fill the role 

at NSC,” according to Sarah Makin, who was appointed as a Deputy 

Assistant to the President, serving on the NSC as the President’s 

adviser on international religious freedom. Once in that position, she 

often sensed her contributions were not taken seriously and attributes 

these attitudes to what she describes as a “general allergy” among 

civil servants, State Department officials, and foreign service officers to 

anything that has to do with religion.

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
77

IRF MOVING FORWARD

“If we look at national security purely through the lens of economic 

trade, military and technological aspect, we are missing the value of 

concern, which is who we are,” notes USCIRF Commissioner Nury 

Turkel. “By not filling this position, we are missing the potential positive 

role that this position can play.”

Fellow USCIRF Commissioner Eric Ueland agrees. “I continue to 

find it regrettable that the position at the NSC has remained unfilled. 

More importantly, I’ve yet to run across a set of norms or principles or 

standards that the U.S. government has adopted about international 

religious freedom beyond what we created by statute. We need to 

consider how to set that anchor deep in the water.”

These comments underscore a common observation about IRFA: 

while it has been structurally integrated to some degree, there is 

room to better incorporate IRFA into the ethos of the foreign policy 

establishment. International religious freedom has been described 

by some as a “boutique foreign policy issue” but not a mainstream 

concern that translates into top-level talking points or strategy. This 

sideline position often leads to missed opportunities.

“I’ve never quite understood how you can think you know a population 

of people without understanding their deeply held religious beliefs. 

Then you really only know half the person,” says Makin, who notes that 

many conflicts around the world have been rooted in religion.

For policymakers, the tyranny of the urgent often drives decision 

making. It is sometimes easier and quicker (even essential) to address 

short-term policy concerns. In his role as Director of the IRF office 

and Principal Deputy to U.S. Ambassador At Large for IRF, Dan Nadel 

believes that building durable partnerships with foreign countries 

requires the United States to be concerned with how members of 

societies in those countries are being treated. At the same time, he 

is sensitive to what he characterizes as the long-game/short-game 

dichotomy. 

“Those of us in the IRF office are the long-term vision folks,” says 

Nadel. “We are talking about the health of societies over generations. 

A lot of our counterparts and colleagues around the State Department 

or Ambassadors at embassies, their focus is on the one or two-year 

trajectory of the relationship.” There are different incentives “when 

you’re thinking short-term about what you need to have happen 

over the course of a single presidential administration versus how to 

guarantee the health of the society over the next 20 or 30 years so that 

they are a truly long-term partner for the U.S.”

IRF MOVING FORWARD

STATE.GOV

Dan Nadel

Director of the IRF office and Principal 

Deputy to U.S. Ambassador at Large 

for IRF
78

IRF MOVING FORWARD

The strength of IRFA moving forward may rest on how to help 

policymakers understand the intrinsic and necessary value of IRF as 

a means of addressing both immediate and long-term concerns and 

helping to provide effective solutions. 

Likewise, the moment may be right to revisit one of the earliest 

conversations about the discretionary actions (see Tools in the Toolbox 

on page 29) that IRFA provides the President. Original versions 

of the IRFA legislation included robust language about sanctions 

that ultimately was tempered to provide the President with a range 

of actions against countries designated as Countries of Particular 

Concern (CPC). A chief criticism among many modern observers is 

that when sanctions are imposed, they often are pre-existing and that 

for some countries the State Department has a pattern of waiving 

the requirement to impose any action, effectively undermining U.S. 

religious freedom diplomacy. At any given time, many CPCs have some 

sanctions imposed but those are typically associated with other human 

rights violations as well. At the time of this writing, the State Department 

had granted waivers to four CPC-designated countries: Pakistan, Saudi 

Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.

“The Executive Branch is addicted to waiving sanctions against 

Countries of Particular Concern,” says Nathaniel Hurd, Northern 

Director and Senior Fellow for Public Policy at Religious Foundation 

Institute. “It will be impossible to definitively judge IRFA’s effectiveness 

until presidents act against CPCs as Congress intended.”

Any reframing of the IRFA conversation would apply to the Oval Office, 

federal agencies, and Congress as well. The direction of religious 

freedom advocacy is not a consistent through line from administration 

to administration and from Congress to Congress. Different 

administrations prioritize IRF differently and with varying degrees 

of intensity. In Congress only a handful of champions actively and 

consistently engage in religious freedom issues. As one USCIRF staffer 

noted, “maybe a quarter of Congress is even aware of USCIRF and its 

mission.” The staffer laments that while some Congressional staff reach

“USCIRF deserves a lot more practical support from Congress. The 

mandate is clear — IRFA was written by Congress, paid for by 

Congress. It’s our responsibility to reconnect with Congress.” 

 —Rabbi Abraham Cooper, USCIRF Chair

“When I go to a foreign 

country and meet with 

embassy staff, they know

about USCIRF. They know 

how important our work 

is ... there is a level of 

sensitivity and attention to 

these issues.” 

– Stephen Schneck, USCIRF 

Commissioner

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
79

IRF MOVING FORWARD

out for information and resources, many 

don’t remain on staff for long, so the 

education process is constant. 

Still, by most accounts, USCIRF is in a 

good place after 25 years. Over time, the 

Commissioners and staff have fine-tuned 

operations, traveled to numerous countries 

to examine religious freedom conditions, 

produced world-class research and 

publications, hosted countless hearings, 

and produced an annual report on the 

state of religious freedom abroad.

USCIRF’s life-changing Religious Prisoners 

of Conscience Project has been particularly 

effective in securing the release of several 

high-profile prisoners around the world, 

including Nguyen Bac Truyen, a Hoa Hao 

Buddhist, religious freedom advocate, 

and human rights defender whom the 

Vietnamese authorities had imprisoned for 

more than six years. USCIRF helped secure 

Truyen’s release in the fall of 2023 after 

years of advocacy. As USCIRF Executive 

Director Erin Singshinsuk notes, Truyen’s 

case is just one of many examples. 

“IRFA reinforces USCIRF’s advocacy for 

religious prisoners of conscience who are languishing in prison 

merely because of their religion or belief.” She adds, “Without IRFA, 

governments would be able to get away with convincing religious 

prisoners of conscience that no one cares about them. Nothing could 

be further from the truth.”

Likewise, the Victims List mandated by the Frank Wolf Act of 2016 

is bearing fruit. As one USCIRF staff member noted, “There are 

actual people who have come forward to say thank you to the State 

Department and Congress and USCIRF for mentioning their case. This 

initiative does help actual individuals and family members who have 

been affected.” 

And of course, USCIRF’s independent annual report remains a 

bellwether for identifying IRF trends and vulnerabilities around the 

globe. The annual report is one of USCIRF’s most impactful tools for 

providing thoughtful analysis and customized recommendations to 

the U.S. government to address specific areas of concern. In recent 

years, for example, USCIRF has recommended re-designating China 

Nguyen Bac Truyen, a Hoa Hao 

Buddhist 

IRF MOVING FORWARD

FACEBOOK: KIM PHUONG BUI
80

IRF MOVING FORWARD

as a “country of particular concern,” or CPC for its systematic, ongoing, 

and egregious violations of religious freedom or belief. Beyond 

CPC designation, however, USCIRF recommended other measures, 

including continued sanctions, collaboration with like-minded countries 

to hold the PRC accountable for violations, and support of legislation 

to counter Chinese Communist Party lobbying efforts and its malign 

influence in the United States.

“Many of the bad actors, particularly China, have lobbyists. I’m 

appreciative that USCIRF is united in its recommendation to 

Congress to ban lobbying for China.” 

– Frank Wolf, USCIRF Commissioner

Despite the scope of USCIRF’s work and measurable results, certain 

issues remain challenging. Many believe that USCIRF should 

receive more funding to enable it to increase the volume of its voice 

internationally. And the reauthorization process remains a thorny issue. 

“The fact that the Commission, with a budget so small, faces this 

perennial fight every couple of years is ludicrous,” says Johnnie Moore, 

a former USCIRF Commissioner and the current President of JDA 

Worldwide. “The Commission expends an enormous amount of energy 

every couple of years trying to satisfy Congress. There’s an opportunity 

cost to that. That’s energy that’s not being put towards advocacy or 

holding violators accountable.”

IRFA’s Impact Abroad

If the first 25 years of the IRF Act has been about building a framework 

to combat the violations of freedom of religion or belief, then the next 

chapter might best be described as building bridges. Thanks to the 

pioneering work of dedicated lawmakers, advocates and survivors, 

the IRF community today is sizeable and strong. But to some degree, 

it is also scattered, which is both a strength – because of the different 

perspectives that can be shared — and a challenge — because efforts 

can sometimes be fragmented. Connecting the many IRF actors and 

initiatives may be one of the most important goals in the years ahead. 

The question again is, how? 

Surprisingly, despite its disruptive and deadly legacy, the COVID 

pandemic had one positive impact on IRF advocacy: it expedited the 

embrace of digital communication and collaboration. For example, 

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
81

IRF MOVING FORWARD

instead of suspending the regular IRF Roundtable meetings during 

the pandemic, the IRF Secretariat moved to an online digital format. 

Attendance has swelled and more people have a platform for 

engagement. Quite by accident, the pandemic and technology together 

created space for a growing number of IRF advocates. 

Increased participation and communication between groups has meant 

more personalized storytelling, more consistent data collection about 

incidents of abuse, and a new appreciation for localized solutions. 

The global leadership exists, and the infrastructure is in place in some 

instances and evolving in others. Now, many would agree the next 

phase of IRF advocacy is trending toward a grassroots effort that is 

both animated by and supportive of civil society.

For former USCIRF Chair and IRF Secretariat President Nadine Maenza 

and other like-minded advocates, civil society is the all-important bridge 

between government and the grassroots. “While at USCIRF, I learned 

the importance of government, but mostly I learned the importance 

of civil society,” she says. “When I saw real change happening, real 

improvements in religious freedom conditions, it was because civil 

society was on the ground doing real work.”

Frequently, the most effective civil society actors come from a faithbased tradition and are members of groups that often reach into 

corners of the world that nobody else can. Often times the most trusted 

voices in a community are its faith leaders. 

“There is a big movement within broader humanitarian and 

development spaces towards the localization of assistance,” says 

Jeremy Barker, Director, Middle East Action Team, Religious Freedom 

Institute. “Many of the most effective organizations working in 

communities around the world are faith-based at some level because 

most of the places around the world are faith-based and have a huge 

percentage of people who identify with a religious community. If you 

want to invest in local support structures, look at who’s already there 

and work with them.”

This bottom-up approach is precisely what the U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID) is doing with its first-ever Strategic 

Religious Engagement policy. Envisioned several years ago and 

launched in the fall of 2023, Building Bridges in Development represents 

a seismic strategic shift that will inform policy and programming 

for years, even decades, to come. The program is based on seven 

principles: Belonging, Respect, Integrity, Dignity, Growth, Equity and 

Sustainability. While USAID does not directly fall under the purview of 

IRFA — but receives policy guidance from the State Department — the 

IRF Office is an enthusiastic participant in this new initiative.

IRF SUMMIT 2022

Nadine Maenza

IRF Secretariat President

IRF MOVING FORWARD
82

“The [policy] principles offer a foundation upon which USAID staff 

can build partnerships with religious communities and faith-based 

organizations,” says Adam Philips, the former Executive Director 

of Local, Faith and Transformative Partnership Hubs at USAID. He 

likens the initiative to PEPFAR, the program introduced by the Bush 

administration 20 years ago that enlisted local imams, nuns, and 

priests to support HIV/AIDS prevention. Phillips adds, “The beauty 

about working with faith-based organizations and religious leaders 

is that they’re not just concerned about one thing. They’re looking 

for opportunities to seek transformation in their communities. Faithbased leaders are critical to the process because these are folks 

that are going to be there no matter what. They’re committed to their 

communities.”

At the community level, violations of the freedom of religion or belief 

are more than statistics. At the community level, these violations are 

personal. They have a face. And that face reminds us that human 

dignity is the core value of IRF advocacy.

“Religious freedom matters deeply because it is connected to the 

human dignity of every person.” 

– Jeremy P. Barker, Director, Middle East Action Team, Religious Freedom Institute

The Power of Advocacy

IRF advocacy is hard work and persistence is critical to success. 

Today’s IRF advocates are eager to elevate that core value through 

positive storytelling. “Traditional advocacy alone is not enough,” 

says Greg Mitchell, chair of the IRF Roundtable. “While negative 

reporting and raising awareness of violations is always needed, it is 

not enough to change behaviors. We have to start focusing more on 

solutions and positive reporting of progress being made. Let’s start 

telling the stories of the people who are doing this amazing work on 

the ground to build religious freedom and much more, like economic 

empowerment.” 

People like Pari Ibrahim, founder of the Free Yezidi Foundation 

(FYF). Ibrahim has been working tirelessly to empower women and 

survivors of the 2014 genocide against the Yezidi people by ISIS. 

FYF’s Enterprise and Training Center has helped scores of Yezidi 

women move forward by providing them with the education and work 

skills they need to support their families financially. Ibrahim credits 

IRF MOVING FORWARD

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM INSTITUTE 

Jeremy Barker testifies before 

Congress

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
83

greater awareness and accessibility of funding for these life-changing 

opportunities. “This is really important for a community that has been 

oppressed,” says Ibrahim. “Now all of a sudden, there’s education. 

There’s a framework for how Yezidis could fit into the society in Iraq if 

things improve in the future.”

There are many stories to be told about the innovative ways advocates 

are finding practical ways to support at-risk communities. How those 

stories are told, matters. “One of the things that fuels this kind of 

challenge is what gets reported and how,” notes Mariah Mercer, Deputy 

to the IRF Ambassador at Large. “As a former journalist, I can tell you 

that people click through bad news much faster than good news. That’s 

just reality.” She believes the right approach is to tell stories in a way 

that “doesn’t inflame tensions and describes the problem objectively so 

that it can be solved or best understood. They can move people to act 

and empathize with that.”

To that end, the IRF Office is working with groups who train journalists 

around the world to recognize instances when the freedom of religion 

or belief is violated, as well as the consequences of those actions. 

“We can’t stop innovating. We can’t stop asking questions. We can’t 

stop pushing our institutions to do better.” 

– Dan Nadel, Director and Principal Deputy to U.S. Ambassador at Large for IRF

IRF MOVING FORWARD

IRF MOVING FORWARD

LI MUZI/XINHUA/ALAMY LIVE NEWS 

Pari Ibrahim, Founder

Free Yezidi Foundation
84

IRF

For nearly four years, members of the Shenzhen Holy 

Reformed Church of China wandered in search of a safe 

refuge, a place to call home and to worship according to their 

most deeply held beliefs. Over Easter weekend 2023, their 

search ended in gratitude and relief.

PERSISTENCE PAYS

VOICES

RANDEL EVERETT

Mayflower Church members arrive at 

airport in Texas

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
85

The Backstory: More than 60 

members of the church (nicknamed 

the Mayflower Church in reference 

to the pilgrims who sought religious 

freedom from the Church of 

England in 1620) fled their homes 

in southern China between 2019 

and 2020. The Chinese government 

does not recognize the Mayflower 

congregation as legal and had 

been intimidating the pastor and 

members for years. 

The group decided to flee and 

first sought asylum in neighboring 

South Korea. After months of 

unsuccessful attempts, and what 

many members described as 

harassment from Chinese officials, 

the group traveled en masse to 

Thailand. There, they hoped to 

secure refugee status from the 

United Nations refugee agency. 

The government of Thailand issued 

the congregants 15-day tourist 

visas — a stopgap measure at 

best. Meanwhile, they continued to 

reach out to the UN, the U.S. State 

Department, the U.S. Embassy, and 

other friendly governments, as well 

as international aid groups, trying 

to find safe harbor.

The Collaboration: The Mayflower 

Church was in good company in 

their quest. According to the UN 

High Commissioner for Refugees 

(UNHCR) the number of asylumseekers from China escalated 

between 2012 and 2020, from 

15,362 to nearly 108,000. The fact 

that the group was attempting 

asylum as a unit instead of as 

individuals made their situation far 

more precarious. 

As the clock ticked, church 

members holed up in Bangkok 

grew increasingly anxious about 

the prospect of deportation back 

to China and the near certainty 

of prison. Behind the scenes, a 

coalition of churches, NGOs, U.S. 

and Thai government officials, 

and groups like Freedom Seekers 

International, 21Wilberforce, and 

ChinaAid were working feverishly 

to broker a solution. The answer 

came with a knock at the door in 

the middle of the night.

The Big Finish: Shortly after two 

American advocates had arrived in 

Thailand to offer church members 

encouragement and assistance, the 

government of Thailand staged an 

immigration raid. The Mayflower 

church members — and the two 

Americans — were detained 

overnight. At a deportation hearing 

the next morning, the adult church 

members were each fined for 

visa violations. When the group 

was escorted back to buses, they 

thought they were heading back 

to their hotel rooms. Instead, they 

were transported to immigration 

detention centers. They feared 

deportation was imminent.

And apparently so did the U.S. 

State Department. Having met 

the required imminent threat 

threshold, the entire congregation 

of the Mayflower Church was 

granted humanitarian parole 

status in the U.S. Among those 

welcoming the group when they 

landed in Dallas, Texas a few 

days later was Rashad Hussain, 

U.S. Ambassador at Large for 

International Religious Freedom. 

Also present was Bob Fu, President 

of ChinaAid.

After decades of speaking out for 

at-risk individuals, Fu has a cleareyed view of IRF advocacy. “The IRF 

Act is historic, impactful, and it will 

continue to make a difference,” he 

says. “We have a lot of work ahead, 

given the worsening religious 

persecution landscape.” Still, as 

he reflects on the journey of the 

Mayflower Church, he is hopeful: 

“We persevere. We persist. I 

encourage others in this field not to 

lose focus, not to be discouraged, 

because things can be done. It can 

happen.”

IRF MOVING FORWARD

IRF
86

IRF MOVING FORWARD

In the marketplace, as well, there are opportunities and benefits to 

building out the space where religion or belief is welcome. “The IRF 

Act originally approached international religious freedom mostly as a 

government and societal issue, which was correct framing,” notes Brian 

Grim, Founder and Executive Director of the Religious Freedom and 

Business Foundation. “But the economic consequences of restrictions 

on religion are significant as well.” Grim helps major corporations build 

faith-friendly workplaces by embracing religion as part of their broader 

diversity policies.

Another opportunity is tapping into the promise of some of the younger 

IRF advocates, efforts being undertaken by leaders like Dr. Nguyen 

Thang of BPSOS, Judy Golub of Religion News Foundation, Hulda 

Fahmi of Jubilee Campaign, Anna Sineva with Church of Scientology, 

and Trent Martin of 21Wilberforce. These advocates have helped shape 

a new lane within the IRF movement, including side programming at the 

Ministerials, tracks at the IRF Summit, special trainings, and advocacy 

campaigns to engage young people on the issue.

An example of innovation is the Global Youth Summit for Freedom of 

Religion or Belief in collaboration with the IFRB Alliance, Search for 

Common Ground, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, the FoRB Learning 

Platform, and BPSOS. This convening was launched in the fall of 2023 

and spearheaded by Patrice Pederson, President of First Freedom 

DEAN HOUSEHOLDER

Global Youth Summit 2023 

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
87

IRF MOVING FORWARD

Foundation, a nonprofit that works to incubate, accelerate 

and facilitate innovation in the community of global FoRB 

advocates. 

The Global Youth Summit was a participant-led Open 

Space format in which FoRB mentors paired with upand-coming advocates from around the world in a quest 

to transfer institutional wisdom to a new and tech-savvy 

generation. “It was a very different kind of conference,” says 

Pederson. “Open Space means there are no pre-planned 

agendas and no speakers. The participants self-select into 

groups according to their own interests.” The goals were 

to diversify the skill set attending to FoRB needs, build 

connections between seasoned advocates and creative 

newcomers, and support and sustain the IRF movement into the future.

Some advocates may be skeptical of this new approach, but IRFBA 

Chair Fiona Bruce thinks it’s the cutting edge that’s needed. “If you aim 

at nothing, you’ll hit it,” she says, acknowledging her aim is focused. 

“We have to inspire the next generation of FoRB ambassadors to be 

trailblazers. FoRB is not a side issue. We need to mainstream it, and if 

we can encourage the next generation, I call this the ultimate upstream 

prevention work.”

Another example of upstream work is recognizing the unique ways 

that women are impacted by religious freedom abuses and the critical 

influence they have in advocating for freedom of religion or belief.

“I think there’s not enough engagement of women in the [IRF] 

movement. They are impacted by many kinds of violations, 

whether in countries where religion has been imposed on them or 

where they are deprived of the practice of religion.” 

– Mohamed Magid, USCIRF Commissioner

Reports published since 2018 by USCIRF, Open Doors International, 

Stefanus Alliance and FoRB Women’s Alliance, all reveal that women and 

girls face compound persecution because of not only their religion or belief, 

but also gender inequality, political and economic stressors, and cultural 

norms that often masquerade as religious dicta. Further, women play a vital 

yet often overlooked role in promoting freedom of religion or belief and 

advocating for the rights of religious minorities. In Iran, for example, women 

and girls have bravely defied the Islamic Republic’s compulsory veiling laws 

and led a groundswell of anti-government demonstrations. The protests 

IRF MOVING FORWARD

USCIRF

USCIRF hosted the launch presentation 

of a global study on women and FoRB
88

IRF MOVING FORWARD

were sparked by the 2022 death of Mahsa Amini while in custody 

following her arrest for opposing mandatory hijab. What started with 

chants of “Women, Life, Freedom,” quickly turned into a widespread 

uprising and the most serious internal challenge to the Ayatollah and 

Muslim clerics in the regime’s nearly five decades.

As noted during a 2022 USCIRF hearing: Women’s Roles in Advancing 

International Religious Freedom: From Malaysia, where women fight 

for the right to interpret Islamic text through a gender-inclusive lens, to 

Sudan, where women played an integral role in ending an authoritarian 

regime that placed significant restrictions on religious practice and 

discourse, women’s approaches to advancing religious freedom 

globally are varied and diverse. They include advocating for the repeal 

of blasphemy laws, fighting discrimination against religious minorities, 

combatting anti-Semitism and fighting bans on education, employment, 

and freedom of movement.

With the IRF Act as its foundation, 

bridge building and grassroots 

advocacy may be a natural 

progression in the work ahead 

to promote freedom of religion 

or belief. But in the current 

geopolitical climate, the task will 

not be easy, and the strategy 

creates a notable tension.

“We need to engage strategically 

on religion and with faith-based 

organizations,” says international 

development expert Gretchen 

Birkle. “But we cannot let 

that limit our ability to call out 

governments, which is the central 

purpose — that is, to ensure 

that dissidents, political prisoners, religious prisoners, actions and 

governments are called to account.”

As well, many observers would concede that the linkage between 

certain governments and religious groups has led to increased 

oppression and restrictions. Conversely, there are many places where 

religious communities have been among the first to push back against 

elements that would restrict freedoms. Looking forward, perhaps the 

more important question, as posed by former Ambassador at Large for 

International Religious Freedom and long-time human rights advocate 

Rabbi David Saperstein, is this: “How do we strengthen the most positive 

The U.S. Dept. of State partners with 

faith-based actors on shared goals

STATE.GOV 

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
IRF MOVING FORWARD 89

IRF MOVING FORWARD

inclinations of religion and the most 

pluralistic expressions of religion?”

There are many examples of faith 

communities — secure in their 

own beliefs but also respectful 

of others — that are working 

together to create a better, freer 

and more just society. How might 

these efforts be scaled as part of 

the IRF community’s contribution 

to the broader conversation and 

work underway to reinvigorate 

democratic values and counter 

authoritarian influences?

Leading human rights advocate and UCLA Law professor Amjad Khan 

offers yet another nuanced consideration — how to address and secure 

freedoms within faith communities. “I worry that there’s not a lot of focus 

on accountability with respect to international religious freedom,” says 

Khan. “The reality is a lot of the atrocities that groups face is intra-faith 

not inter-faith. In the Muslim world, for example, you have 73 different 

kinds of Muslims. Some of these groups are persecuted, in part, because 

they’re not even accepted as Muslims by other Muslims. They’re being 

persecuted by the majority, and those issues are not really talked about.”

How to hold onto incremental steps forward also remains a challenge. 

In many regions, such as Sudan, backsliding is a cause for real concern. 

Between 1999 and 2018, Sudan was designated by the U.S. Secretary 

of State as a country of particular concern (CPC) due to its systemic 

violations of religious freedom. Freedom of religion or belief was 

expected to improve after the downfall of the al-Bashir regime in April 

2019. That hope seemed plausible in September 2020 when Sudan’s 

Transitional Council announced the separation of religion and state. 

The group also pledged to abolish all laws that violate fundamental 

human rights, including the apostasy law, which prohibited conversion 

from Islam to another religion.

Then, in October 2021, the army ousted the civilian Transnational 

Council in a coup and the forward progress came to a halt. As noted 

by USCIRF in its 2023 report on the Sahel region of Africa: “After the 

fall of the Bashir government, the transitional government granted 

Muslim and Christian groups some important freedoms, earning praise 

and support from the U.S. government. However, the outbreak of new 

conflict in April 2023 within the state security apparatus has severely 

diminished any possibility of safe, open religious practice in Sudan.”

IRF SUMMIT 

Amjad Khan, Co-Chair of IRF Summit 

Congressional Advocacy Day 
90

A final thought germane to the conversation is the role of technology. 

Here the lines are blurred: is it a force for good or an instrument of 

malevolence?

On the plus side, people are connected like never before thanks to 

social media and messaging apps. They can tell stories and build 

common understanding.

Wai Wai Nu is the Founder and Executive Director of the Women Peace 

Network. For seven years she was a political prisoner in Burma. In 2015 

she created a social campaign called “My Friend” to promote tolerance 

and non-discrimination in her home country. “It was so powerful,” 

she says. “Thousands of young people from different universities 

joined us to promote relationships between friends from diverse 

backgrounds and showcase the reminder that we can be friends or 

coexist regardless of our religion or backgrounds. The advantage of 

technology gives me hope.”

Nu also concedes that social media has a dark side as a platform to 

promote prejudice and hate. It’s not just social media. Governments 

and non-state actors are using artificial intelligence for increasingly 

sinister purposes. Technology in general is changing faster than 

policymakers can keep up. As noted by Freedom House in its Freedom 

on the Net 2023 report, “AI can serve as an amplifier of digital 

repression, making censorship, surveillance, and the creation and 

spread of disinformation easier, faster, cheaper, and more effective.”

“The predominance of these tools to monitor, stalk and ultimately 

extinguish individuals from the common square is incredibly dangerous, 

and that’s even before they begin to be used as monitoring, 

surveillance and ultimately imprisoning tools against groups and 

individuals,” says USCIRF Commissioner Eric Ueland. “The significant 

ignorance of many of the technology companies or technology-using 

companies to the abuses already underway of the great innovations 

they’ve pioneered and the potentiality of even worse abuse down the 

line is very worrisome.”

The challenge for IRF advocates is not to stop the march of technology 

but to ask the question how best to leverage it for the benefit of at-risk 

communities.

In the years ahead, the IRF movement faces an enormously challenging 

landscape. Many continue to step forward to accept the challenge 

because they understand that freedom of religion or belief is a 

foundational human right that is key to individual and community 

well-being and regional and global security and stability; that millions 

IRF MOVING FORWARD

“Religious Freedom touches 

people deeply. It is something 

people care about because 

it means so much to them 

personally — across faiths. 

I would love if more church 

communities would adopt or 

engage with someone who is 

Hindu or Muslim or Baha’i to 

begin to lessen our differences

and recognize the beliefs we 

share.” 

– Alexandra Arriaga, former State 

Department Senior Advisor

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
IRF MOVING FORWARD 91

care about it; understanding its power, some governments fear and 

oppress it, while other governments support it; and that many prisoners 

of conscience languish in detention because of their religious beliefs, 

actions, or identity, or their religious freedom advocacy.

The inclusion of international freedom of religion or belief into the 

broader foreign policy conversation for the past quarter century has 

been a hard-fought and noble pursuit. The work is not complete, at 

home or abroad; nor can the U.S. government drive this issue forward 

alone. It is, however, an endeavor worthy of steadfast and concerted 

effort — for this generation and those that follow.

For the past quarter century, the IRF Act has ensured freedom of 

religion or belief as a core value within American foreign policy. 

Regrettably, the global landscape for freedom of religion or belief 

remains tense and problematic; new challenges arise constantly and 

old ones persist. The devastation caused by religious persecution and 

oppression has been widespread, and we must be clear-eyed about 

the ongoing obstacles moving forward. Though the United States 

should not and cannot tackle this challenge alone, it must continue to 

uphold the spirit of the IRF Act and lead internationally in the promotion 

of freedom of religion or belief abroad.

IRF MOVING FORWARD

RELIGIONS FOR PEACE

Religions for Peace
AMBASSADORS AT LARGE

92

Ambassador Seiple (1999 – 2000) 

Robert A. Seiple was the Ambassador at Large from 1999 to 

2000. In December 1986, he was named president of World 

Vision International, where he served from 1987 to 1998. He 

founded the Institute for Global Engagement in 2000 and 

previously served as the athletic director and Vice President 

for Development at Brown University from 1975 to 1979, 

and President of Eastern University and Palmer Theological 

Seminary from 1983 to 1987. Ambassador Seiple received an AB degree in 

American Literature from Brown University in 1965. During 1966 – 1969, he served 

in the U.S. Marine Corps, attaining the rank of Captain. 

Ambassador Hanford (2002 – 2009)

John V. Hanford III was Ambassador at Large from 2002 to 

2009. Previously, he served under Senator Richard Lugar for 

14 years in the first full-time US government position dedicated 

to international religious freedom, mobilizing individual and 

Congress-wide interventions on persecution issues and 

oppressive policies around the world. As an architect of the 

1998 International Religious Freedom Act, he led the team that 

conceptualized and wrote the Act and co-led, with Senator Don Nickles’ office, 

negotiations for its passage. Ambassador Hanford earned an M.Div. from GordonConwell Theological Seminary and a BA in Economics from UNC at Chapel Hill, on 

a Morehead Scholarship.

Ambassador Cook (2011 – 2013) 

Suzan Johnson Cook served as the Ambassador at Large from 

April 2011 to October 2013. She currently is the Leader and Chief 

Inspiration Officer, Pro Voice/ Pro Voz Movement for Women 

and CEO & Owner/ Professional Speaker, Charisma Speakers. 

The Rev. Dr. Cook served in 1993 on the White House Domestic 

Policy Council, and with U.S, Department of Housing and Urban 

Development Secretary Henry Cisneros as a consultant on Faith 

Initiatives from 1994 to 1997. In 1996, she became the founder and senior pastor of the 

Bronx Fellowship Christian Church, serving until 2010. In 1990, Mayor David Dinkins 

appointed her as the first woman chaplain to the New York City Police Department. In 

1983, she was appointed pastor of the Mariner’s Temple Baptist Church in Manhattan. 

She received her B.S. degree from Emerson College, her M.A. degree in education 

from Columbia University, her M.Div. degree from Union Theological Seminary and her 

D.Min. Degree from Ohio’s United Theological Seminary.

STATE.GOV STATE.GOV PEWFORUM.ORG

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
AMBASSADORS AT LARGE 93

AMBASSADORS AT LARGE

Ambassador Saperstein (2014 – 2017) 

Rabbi David Saperstein served as the Ambassador at Large 

from December 2014 until January 2017.He serves on the 

board of numerous national organizations. Also an attorney, 

he taught seminars on Church –State law and Jewish Law for 

35 years at Georgetown University Law Center. He previously 

served for four-decades as Director and Counsel at the 

Religious Action Center (RAC). In 1999, Rabbi Saperstein 

was elected the first Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious 

Freedom (USCIRF). In 2009, President Obama appointed him to the first White 

House Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. He received 

a BA from Cornell University, an MHL from Hebrew Union College, and a JD 

from American University College of Law. 

Ambassador Brownback (2018 – 2021)

Sam Brownback was sworn in as Ambassador at Large on 

February 1, 2018. Ambassador Brownback served as Governor 

of Kansas from 2011 to 2018, a U.S. Senator (1996-2011), 

and a member of the U.S. House of Representatives (1995-

1996) from Kansas. He also served as Kansas Secretary of 

Agriculture (1986-1993) and was a White House Fellow in the 

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (1990-1991). Prior to 

his public service, Ambassador Brownback was an attorney in Kansas and 

taught agricultural law at Kansas State University, co-authoring two books on 

the subject. He earned a B.S. from Kansas State University and a J.D. from the 

University of Kansas.

STATE.GOV STATE.GOV STATE.GOV

Ambassador Rashad Hussain (2022 – Present) 

Rashad Hussain was sworn in as Ambassador at Large on January 

24, 2022. Prior to this appointment, Hussain was Director at the 

National Security Council’s Partnerships and Global Engagement 

Directorate. From 2015 to 2021, he served as Senior Counsel at 

the Department of Justice’s National Security Division. President 

Obama appointed Hussain to serve as his Special Envoy to the 

Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), U.S. Special Envoy 

for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, and Deputy Associate White 

House Counsel. Hussain worked on the House Judiciary Committee, served as a 

judicial law clerk to the Honorable Damon Keith on the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Sixth Circuit, and was an associate counsel to the Obama-Biden Transition 

Project. He received his J.D. from Yale Law School and Master’s degrees in 

Public Administration and Arabic and Islamic Studies from Harvard University. 

Hussain holds Bachelor’s degrees in Political Science and Philosophy from UNC 

– Chapel Hill. 
94

Dr. Khaled M. Abou El Fadl, Commissioner 2003-2007.

Elliott Abrams, Commissioner 1999-2001, 2012-2014, Chair 2000-2001.

Dr. Azizah Al-Hibri, Commissioner 2011-2013.

Dr. Laila Al-Marayati, Commissioner 1999-2001.

Dr. Don Argue, Commissioner 2007-2012, Vice Chair 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. 

Anurima Bhargava, Commissioner 2018-2022, Vice Chair 2020-2021, Chair May 

2021-June 2021.

Kristina Arriaga de Bucholz, Commissioner 2016-to 2019. Vice Chair, 2017- 2018, 

2018.

Preeta Bansal, Commissioner 2003-2009, Chair 2004-2005, Vice Chair 2007-

2008.

Gary L. Bauer, Commissioner 2018-2021.

John R. Bolton, Commissioner 1999-2001.

Ambassador Sam Brownback, Ex-Officio member of the Commission during time 

served as the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, 2018-2021.

Dr. James W. Carr, Commissioner 2020-2022.

Patti Chang, Commissioner 2003-2004.

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, Commissioner 2003-2007.

Ambassador Suzan Johnson Cook, Ex-Officio member of the Commission during 

time served as the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, 

2011-2014.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Commissioner 2022-2024, Vice Chair 2022-2023, 

Chair 2023-2024.

Michael Cromartie, Deceased. Commissioner 2004-2010.

David Curry, Commissioner 2022-2024.

Frederick A. Davie, Commissioner 2020-2024, Vice Chair 2023-2024.

Dr. Tenzin Dorjee, Commissioner 2016-2018, Chair 2018.

Imam Talal Y. Eid, Commissioner 2007-2011.

Felice D. Gaer, Chair 2002-2003,2006-2007, 2008-2009, Vice Chair 2003-2004, 

2004-2005, 2005-2006, Executive Committee 2001-2002.

Sam Gejdenson, Commissioner 2012-2014.

Susie Gelman, Commissioner 2023-2025.

USCIRF COMMISSIONERS

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
USCIRF COMMISSIONERS 95

USCIRF COMMISSIONERS

Dr. Robert P. George, Commissioner 2012-2016, Chair 2012-2014, 2015-2016, 

Vice Chair 2014-2015.

Mary Ann Glendon, Commissioner 2012-2016, Vice Chair 2012-2013.

Ambassador John V. Hanford III, Ex-Officio member of the Commission during 

time served as the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, 

2003-2009. 

M. Zuhdi Jasser, MD, Commissioner 2012-2016, Vice Chair 2013-2014, 2015-

2016.

Sandra Jolley, Commissioner 2016-2018, Vice Chair 2017-2018.

Firuz Kazemzadeh, Deceased. Commissioner 1999-2003, Vice Chair 2001-2002.

Khizr Khan, Commissioner 2021-2022.

Dr. Andy Khawaja, Commissioner 2018-2019.

Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum, Commissioner 2019-2020, 2021-2023.

Dr. Richard P. Land, Commissioner 2001-2004, 2005-2012, Vice Chair 2007-2008.

Leonard Leo, Commissioner 2007-2012, Chair 2009-2012.

Nadine Maenza, Commissioner in 2018-2022, Vice Chair 2019-2020, Chair 

2021-2022.

Mohamed Magid, Commissioner 2022-2024.

2023 USCIRF Commissioners with 

Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

 USCIRF
96

USCIRF COMMISSIONERS

Gayle Manchin, Commissioner 2018-2021. Vice Chair in 2018-2020 and Chair 

2020-2021.

Dr. Daniel Mark, Commissioner, 2014-2018. Vice Chair, 2016-2017, Chair 2017-

2018.

Clifford D. May, Commissioner 2016-2018.

Theodore McCarrick, Commissioner 1999-2001.

Rev. Johnnie Moore, Commissioner 2018-2021.

Most Reverend William Francis Murphy, Commissioner 2001-2003.

Dr. Elizabeth Prodromou, Commissioner 2004-2012, Vice Chair 2006-2012

Tony Perkins, Commissioner 2018-2022, Chair 2019-2020, Vice Chair 2020-

2021.

Most Reverend Ricardo Ramirez, Commissioner 2003-2007.

Reverend Thomas J. Reese, Commissioner 2014-2018, Chair 2016-2017.

Hannah Rosenthal, Commissioner 2014-2016.

Dr. John Ruskay, Commissioner 2016-2018.

Leila Nadya Sadat, Commissioner 2001-2003.

Rabbi David Saperstein, Ex Officio member of the Commission during time served 

as Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, 2015-2017.

Stephen Schneck, Commissioner 2022-2024.

Eric P. Schwartz, Commissioner 2013- 2016, Vice-Chair 2015-2016.

Ambassador Robert Seiple, Ex-Officio member of the Commission during time 

served as the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, 1999-

2000.

Pastor Reverend Dr. William J. Shaw, Commissioner 2010-2014, Vice Chair 2012-

2013.

Nina Shea, Commissioner 1999-2012, Vice Chair 2003-2007.

Justice Charles Z. Smith, Deceased. Commissioner 1999-2001.

Ambassador Charles R. Stith, Commissioner 2001-2003.

Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett, Commissioner 2012- 2016, Chair 2012-2013, 2014-2015.

Dr. Shirin Raziuddin Tahir-Kheli, Commissioner 2001-2003.

Nury Turkel, Commissioner 2020-2024, Vice Chair 2021-2022, Chair 2022-

2023.

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
97

USCIRF COMMISSIONERS

Ted Van Der Meid, Deceased. Commissioner 2010-2012.

Eric Ueland, Commissioner 2022-2024.

Ambassador Jackie Wolcott, Commissioner 2016-2018. 

Frank Wolf, Commissioner 2022-2024.

Michael K. Young, Commissioner 1999- 2003, Chair 2001-2002, Vice Chair 

1999-2000.

James Joseph Zogby, Commissioner 2013- 2017. Vice Chair 2014-2015.

USCIRF Commissioners 2020

USCIRF COMMISSIONERS

 USCIRF

C-SPAN

2023 Commissioners at USCIRF event 

on Capitol Hill commemorating the 

25th Anniversary of the International 

Religious Freedom Act
98

RESOURCES

INTERVIEW LIST FOR 20TH IRF ACT RETROSPECTIVE

Abrams Elliott Abrams

Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, 

Council on Foreign Relations;

Assistant Secretary of State for InterAmerican Affairs, Department of State 

1985- 1989; USCIRF Commissioner 1999-

2001, 2012-2014

Anderson Elyse Bauer Anderson

Staff Director, Congressional Executive 

Commission on China;

Foreign Policy Director for former 

Representative Frank Wolf 2002-2015

Argue Don Argue

Former President of the National 

Association of Evangelicals 1992-

1998; Former President of Northwest 

University 1998 -2007, Chancellor 2007-

2013; USCIRF Commissioner 2007- 2012

Arriaga Alex Arriaga

Managing Partner, Strategy for Humanity; 

Executive Director, First Advisory 

Committee for Religious Freedom 

Abroad 

Arriaga Kristina Arriaga

USCIRF Commissioner2017-2019; Becket 

1995-2017, Executive Director 2010-

2017

Bansal Dr. Preeta Bansal

HSBC General Counsel; USCIRF 

Commissioner 2003-2009

Bashir Dwight Bashir

Director of Research, USCIRF, 2002-

2022; Advisor, Advisory Committee on 

Religious 

Freedom Abroad, U.S. Department of 

State, 1997-1999 

Beuttler Dr. Fred Beuttler

Associate Dean, Graham School, The 

University of Chicago;

Associate University Historian, University 

of Illinois at Chicago 1998-2005; Deputy 

Historian, U.S. House of Representatives, 

May 2005-December 2010

Brownback Ambassador Sam Brownback

Ambassador at Large for IRF 2018-2021; 

Governor of Kansas 2014-2018; United 

States Senator 1996-2011

Cassidy Elizabeth Cassidy

USCIRF Director of International Law & 

Policy 2007-Present

Cizik Rev. (Dr.) Rich Cizik

President, New Evangelical Partnership 

for the Common Good; (=Vice President 

for Governmental Affairs, National 

Association of Evangelicals 1980-2008

Cook Ambassador Suzan Johnson Cook

Ambassador at Large for International 

Religious Freedom 2011-2013

Dorjee Dr. Tenzin Dorjee

Associate Professor, Dept. of Human 

Communication Studies California 

State University, Fullerton; USCIRF 

Commissioner 2016-2020

Farr Dr. Tom Farr

President, Religious Freedom Institute; 

Director, Office of International Religious 

Freedom, U.S. State Department 1999-

2003

Fikes Deborah Fikes

 Director Intergovernmental Relations/

Public Engagement/ World Evangelical 

Alliance; Coordinator for International 

Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church 

2001/ Midland, Texas; Director for Human 

Rights Advocacy and Spokesperson 

for the Midland Ministerial Alliance 2002-

2008

Forte David Forte

Professor of Law, Cleveland State 

University; Visiting Scholar, Liberty 

Fund, Inc. 1998-1999; Senior Fellow, 

Center for the Study of Religion and the 

Constitution, The Witherspoon Institute 

2008- 2009

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
99

RESOURCES

INTERVIEW LIST FOR 20TH IRF ACT RETROSPECTIVE

RESOURCES

George Dr. Robert George

McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, 

Princeton University; USCIRF 

Commissioner 2012-2016 

Golub Judith Golub

Board of Directors/Managers 

Religion News Foundation & Religion 

News Service; USCIRF Director of 

Congressional Affairs 2009-2017

Gombis Al Gombis, Esq.

Department of State foreign affairs 

officer; Team Lead for the Middle 

East and North Africa in the Office of 

International Religious Freedom 2006-

2011; House Foreign Affairs staffer 2011-

2013

Grim Dr. Brian Grim

President, Religious Freedom and 

Business Foundation; Director of Cross 

National Data, Senior Researcher in 

Religion & World Affair, Pew Research 

Center 2006-2014; Boston Institute on 

Culture, Religion and World Affairs 2008- 

Present

Hanford John Hanford

Former Ambassador at Large for 

International Religious Freedom 2002-

2009; IRF expert on staff Senator 

Richard Lugar (R-IN) 1987-2001

Hanford Laura (Byrant) Hanford

Congressional Aide to Representative 

Bob Clement (D-TN)

 

Hertzke Dr. Allen Hertzke

David Ross Boyd Professor and Faculty 

Fellow in Religious Freedom for the 

Institute for the American Constitutional 

Heritage; Founding director of Oklahoma 

University Religious Studies Program

Homer Lauren B. Homer, 

Attorney At Law, Homer International 

Law PLLC; President/Founder, Law and 

Liberty Trust International 1990-Present

Horowitz Michael Horowitz

Director, Religious Liberty Project, 

Hudson Institute 1994-Present

Huiskes Ann Huiskes

Chair at Columbia-Willamette Chapter of 

Women of Vision/World Vision;

Senior Legislative Assistant, 

Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA) 1992-

1999

Jasser M. Zuhdi Jasser

President and Founder, American Islamic 

Forum for Democracy; USCIRF 

Commissioner 2012-2016

Jolley Sandra Jolly, USCIRF Commissioner 

2016-2018

Land Dr. Richard Land

President of Southern Evangelical 

Seminary; USCIRF Commissioner 2001-

2004, 2006-2012

Leo Leonard Leo

Executive Vice President, The Federalist 

Society; USCIRF Commissioner 2007- 

2012 

Lieberman Former Senator Joe Lieberman

National Co-chairman, No Label; United 

States Senator (D-CT) 2007-2013

Long Larry Long, Sr, Pastor, Fellowship 

Community Church, Midland, Texas; 

President, Midland Ministerial Alliance 

2001-2017

Mark Dr. Daniel Mark

Asst. Professor of Political Science, 

Villanova University; USCIRF 

Commissioner 2014-2018

Marshall Paul Marshall

Senior Fellow, Center of Religious 

Freedom, Hudson Institute; Senior 

Fellow, Freedom House 1998-2007

May Clifford May

Founder & President, Foundation for 

Defense of Democracies; USCIRF 

Commissioner 2016-2018
100

INTERVIEW LIST FOR 20TH IRF ACT RETROSPECTIVE

McDonnell Faith McDonnell

Director, International Religious Liberty 

Program and Church Alliance for A 

New Sudan, Institute on Religion and 

Democracy

Mitchell Greg Mitchell

President, The Mitchell Company; Chief 

of Staff, Representative James Rogan 

1997-2000

Payt Sharon Payt, J.D.

Executive Director, 21Wilberforce; 

Senate staff, international human rights 

1997-2002 

Prodromou Dr. Elizabeth Prodromou

Visiting Associate Professor of Conflict 

Resolution, The Fletcher School, 

Tufts University; USCIRF Commissioner 

2004-2012

Rees Ambassador Joseph Rees

Writer, Advocate, and Former United 

States Ambassador to East Timor; 

Staff Director and Chief Counsel, 

House Subcommittee on International 

Operations and Human Rights 1995-

2001; Chief Council, Committee on 

International Relations 2001-2002

Reese Fr. Thomas J. Reese

Columnist, Religion News Service; 

USCIRF Commissioner 2014-2018

Rogers Melissa Rogers

Non-residence senior fellow in 

Governance Studies, Brookings 

Institution; Executive Director of the 

Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life 

2000-2003; Visiting Professor/Director 

of the Center for Religion and Public 

Affairs at Wake Forest University Divinity 

School 2004-2012; Special Assistant to 

the President and Executive Director of 

the White House Office of Faith-Based 

and Neighborhood Partnerships 2013 

-2017;Member, United States Holocaust 

Memorial Council, United States 

Holocaust Memorial Museum [USHMM]

2017- 2021; Special Assistant to the 

President and Director, Office of FaithBased and Neighborhood Partnerships, 

Office of Public Engagement [OPE], 

Executive Office of the President [EOP] 

2021 – Present 

Ruskay Dr. John Ruskay

Executive Vice President emeritus 

of UJA-Federation of New York and 

a senior partner of JRB Consulting 

Services; USCIRF Commissioner 2016-

2018) 

Saperstein Ambassador David Saperstein

Director Emeritus, Religious Action 

Center of Reform Judaism and Senior 

Advisor to the URJ for Policy and 

Strategy; USCIRF Commissioner 1999-

2001; Ambassador at Large for IRF 2015-

2017

Seiple Ambassador Bob Seiple

Former President, World Vision; 

Ambassador at Large for IRF 1999-2000

Seiple Chris Seiple

CEO, The Sagestone Group; President 

2003-2015 & President Emeritus 2015-

2016, Institute for Global Engagement

Shea Nina Shea

Director, Center for Religious Freedom, 

Hudson Institute; USCIRF Commissioner 

1999-2012; Director of the Center for 

Religious Freedom at Freedom House 

1996-2006

Smith Congressman Chris Smith 

Member of Congress (R-NJ) 1981-Present

Swett Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett

President, Lantos Foundation for Human 

Rights and Justice; USCIRF 

Commissioner 2012-2016

Taft Dorothy Taft

Executive Director, The Market Project; 

Chief of Staff/Deputy Chief of Staff, 

U.S. Commission on Security and 

Cooperation in Europe 1995-2007

RESOURCES

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
RESOURCES 101

Thames Knox Thames

Senior Fellow, Pepperdine University; 

Special Advisor for Religious Minorities 

in the Near East and South/Central Asia 

2015-2020; USCIRF Director of Policy 

and Research 2009-2015

Young Michael Young

President, Texas A&M; USCIRF 

Commissioner 1999-2005

Wolcott Ambassador Jackie Wolcott

Board of Governors, International Atomic 

Energy and Representative Vienna office 

2018-2021; USCIRF Commissioner 2016-

2018; Executive Director 2010-2015

Wolf Former Congressman Frank Wolf

Distinguished Senior Fellow, 

21Wilberforce

Member of Congress (R-VA) 1981-2015; 

USCIRF Commissioner, 2022-2024

Zogby Dr. Jim Zogby

Founder and President, Arab American 

Institute; USCIRF Commissioner 2013- 

2017

RESOURCES

INTERVIEW LIST FOR 20TH IRF ACT RETROSPECTIVE
102

INTERVIEW LIST FOR 25TH IRF ACT RETROSPECTIVE

RESOURCES

Ashbahian Danielle Ashbahian

Chief of Public Affairs, USCIRF

Babun Teo Babun

President & CEO, Outreach Aid to the 

Americas

Barker Jeremy P. Barker

Director, Middle East Action Team, 

Religious Freedom Institute

Bhargava Anurima Bhargava

Founder and Director at Anthem of US; 

producer of documentary films; advisor 

for Unbound Philanthropy; USCIRF 

Commissioner 2018-2022, Vice Chair 

2020-2021, Chair May 2021-June 2021

Birkle Gretchen Birkle

International Development Expert

Brownback Sam Brownback

Co-chair of the International Religious 

Freedom Summit; Senior Fellow 

at Global Christian Relief; former 

Ambassador at Large for IRF

Bruce Fiona Bruce

UK PM’s Special Envoy for Freedom of 

Religion or Belief, Chair, IRFBA 

Brunson Andrew Brunson

Special Advisor for Religious Freedom, 

Family Research Council

Burns Peter Burns

IRF Summit Executive Director

Carr James W. Carr

President & Chairman of Highland Home 

Holdings; USCIRF Commissioner 

2020-2022

Clark Elizabeth Clark

Associate Director at International 

Center for Law and Religion Studies,

Brigham Young University School of Law

Cooper Rabbi Abraham Cooper

Associate Dean and Director of 

Global Social Action Agenda for the 

Simon Wiesenthal Center; USCIRF 

Commissioner 2022-2024, Vice Chair 

2022-2023, Chair 2023-2024

Curry David Curry

President and CEO of Global Christian 

Relief; USCIRF Commissioner 2022-

2024

Davie Frederick A. Davie

Senior Strategic Advisor to the President 

at Union Theological Seminary; USCIRF 

Commissioner 2020-2024, Vice Chair 

2023-2024

Enada Stephen Enada

Executive Director, International 

Committee on Nigeria 

Fu Bob Fu

President, ChinaAid

Green Mark Green

Former Administrator, USAID; President 

& CEO, Wilson Center

Grim Brian Grim

Founder and Executive Director, 

Religious Freedom and Business 

Foundation

Henne Peter Henne

Professor, University of Vermont; author

Hill Representative French Hill

U.S. Congress (R-AR)

Hussain Ambassador Rashad Hussain

US Ambassador at Large for IRF; 

American attorney, diplomat, and 

professor

Ibrahim Pari Ibrahim

Executive Director, Free Yezidi 

Foundation 

Ispahani Farahnaz Ispahani

Author; former member of Pakistan 

Parliament; Senior Fellow, South and 

Southeast Asia & Middle East Action 

Teams at Religious Freedom Institute;

Co-founder, FoRB Women’s Alliance

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
RESOURCES 103

INTERVIEW LIST FOR 25TH IRF ACT RETROSPECTIVE

RESOURCES

Khan Amjad Khan

Partner at Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP; 

Adjunct Professor at UCLA Law

Khan Khizr Khan

Founder of Constitution Literacy and 

National Unity Center; USCIRF 

Commissioner 2021-2022

Maenza Nadine Maenza

President of International Religious 

Freedom Secretariat; Global Fellow at 

the Wilson Center Middle East Program; 

USCIRF Commissioner in 2018-2022, 

Vice Chair 2019-2020, Chair 2021-2022

Magid Imam Mohamed Magid

Executive Religious Director of All Dulles 

Area Muslim Society Center; Chairman 

of International Interfaith Peace Corps; 

Muslim Jewish Council member; CoPresident of Religions for Peace; CoFounder of the Multi-faith Neighbors 

Network; USCIRF Commissioner 2022-

2024

Makin Sarah E. Makin

VP and head of PR, JDA Worldwide; 

former Deputy Assistant to the President; 

National Security Council Official; Senior 

Advisor to President of the United 

States and Vice President of the United 

Sates

Manchin Gayle Manchin

Federal co-chair of the Appalachian 

Region Commission; First Lady of West 

Virginia; former President and member 

of West Virginia State Board of 

Education; USCIRF Commissioner 2018-

2021, Vice Chair in 2018-2020 and 

Chair 2020-2021

Martin Trent Martin

Advocacy & Training Coordinator, 

21Wilberforce

Mercer Mariah Mercer

Deputy to the IRF Ambassador and 

Deputy Director, U.S. Department of 

State

Miller Hilary Miller

Researcher, USCIRF

Milsap Julie Milsap

Government Relations Manager, Uyghur 

Human Rights Project

Mitchell Greg Mitchell

Co-chair of the IRF Roundtable; Founder, 

The Mitchell Firm & IRF Secretariat

 

Moore Johnnie Moore

President of JDA Worldwide; founder 

and CEO of the KAIROS Company; 

USCIRF Commissioner 2018-2021

Nadel Dan Nadel

Director and Principal Deputy to US 

Ambassador at Large for IRF,

U.S. Department of State

Norquist Samah Norquist

Former Public Policy Fellow at the Wilson 

Center; Former Chief Advisor to the 

Administrator for IRF at USAID

Nu Wai Wai Nu

Senior Human Rights Research Fellow, 

UC Berkeley School of Law;

Founder and Executive Director, Women 

Peace Network

Omar Representative Ilhan Omar

U.S. Congress (D-MN)

Pederson Patrice Pederson

President, First Freedom Foundation; 

Principal, Smart Social Impact

Perkins Tony Perkins

President of the Family Research 

Council; former representative in the 

Louisiana state legislature; USCIRF 

Commissioner 2018-2022, Chair 2019-

2020, Vice Chair 2020-2021

Philips Adam Philips

Former Exec. Dir., Local, Faith and 

Transformative Partnership Hubs, USAID
104

INTERVIEW LIST FOR 25TH IRF ACT RETROSPECTIVE

RESOURCES

Pompeo Mike Pompeo

Former U.S. Secretary of State; former 

Director of the CIA, Distinguished Fellow 

at the Hudson Institute

Schneck Steven Schneck

Retired professor, department chair and 

dean at Catholic University of America; 

USCIRF Commissioner 2022-2024

Singshinsuk Erin D. Singshinsuk

Executive Director, USCIRF

Stanton Gregory Stanton

Founding President and Chairman of 

Genocide Watch; Founder and Chair, 

Alliance Against Genocide

Stanton Kimberly Stanton

Democratic Staff Director at Tom Lantos 

Human Rights Commission, 

U.S. House of Representatives

Swett Katrina Lantos Swett

President and CEO of the Lantos 

Foundation for Human Rights and 

Justice; American Foreign Policy 

professor at Tufts University; USCIRF 

Commissioner 2012- 2016, Chair 2012-

2013, 2014-2015

Thang Nguyen Thang

Executive Director, Boat People SOS

Turkel Nury Turkel

Chair of Uyghur Human Rights Project 

and former president of Uyghur 

American Association; Senior fellow 

for foreign policy and national security 

issues at the Hudson Institute; USCIRF 

Commissioner 2020-2024, Vice Chair 

2021-2022, Chair 2022-2023

Udin Zack Udin

Former researcher, USCIRF

Ueland Eric Ueland

Visiting Fellow at the Heritage 

Foundation; a Public Advisor for the 

Paragon Health Institute; Board of 

Advisors for the Center for Constitutional 

Liberty at Benedictine College; USCIRF 

Commissioner 2022-2024

Wilson Luke Wilson

Researcher, USCIRF

Wolf Frank Wolf

U.S. House of Representatives (R-VA, 

1981-2015); Wilson Chair in Religious 

Freedom at Baylor University 2015-

2016; Senior Distinguished Fellow 

at 21Wilberforce 2015-2018; USCIRF 

Commissioner 2022-2024

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
RESOURCES 105

LEGISLATION / POLICY

RESOURCES

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18

• International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, Article 18

• Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974

• Helsinki Final Act, Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 1975

• Interim and Final Reports of the Secretary of State’s Advisory Committee on Religious 

Freedom Abroad, 1997 and 1998

• P.L. 105-292 — “International Religious Freedom Act of 1998”

• H.R. 2431 “International Religious Freedom Act of 1998”

• S. 1868 — “International Religious Freedom Act of 1998”

• H.R. 1150 / P.L. 114-281 — “Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act”

• National Security Strategy of the United States of America, December 2017

• S. 1158 — “Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018”

• Executive Order 13926 of June 2, 2020, Advancing International Religious Freedom 

• U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom Annual Reports

• U.S. Department of State International Religious Freedom Reports

• Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act 

 

This listing highlights foundational legislation and policy. For information on specific 

IRF legislation visit IRFscorecard.org.
106

RESOURCES

ARTICLES / WHITE PAPERS

Allen D. Hertzke, “International Religious Freedom 

Policy: Taking Stock,” The Review of Faith and 

International Affairs 6, no. 2 (2008): 17-23.

Allen D. Hertzke, “The Clinton Presidency and 

the Pivotal Era of Religious Freedom,” Religious 

Freedom Institute, July 7, 2016.

Asma Afsaruddin, “Making the Case for Religious 

Freedom Within the Islamic Tradition,” The Review of 

Faith and International Affairs 6, no. 2 (2008): 57-60.

Brian J. Grim, “Religious Freedom: Good for What 

Ails Us?” The Review of Faith and International 

Affairs 6, no. 2 (2008): 3-7.

Daniel Philpott, “In Search of the Twin Tolerations,” 

The Review of Faith and International Affairs 6, no. 

2 (2008): 9-12.

Dennis R. Hoover and Thomas F. Farr, “Introduction: 

IRFA, Ten Years On,” The Review of Faith and 

International Affairs 6, no. 2 (2008): 1.

Jason Klocek and Scott Bledsoe, “Global Trends and 

Challenges to Protecting and Promoting Freedom of 

Religion or Belief,” United States Institute of Peace, 

June 2022.

Jeffrey Haynes, “Religion and a Human Rights 

Culture in America,” The Review of Faith and 

International Affairs 6, no. 2 (2008): 73-82.

José Casanova, “Balancing Religious Freedom and 

Cultural Preservation,” The Review of Faith and 

International Affairs 6, no. 2 (2008): 13-15.

Judd Birdsall, “Understanding and Standing with the 

Persecuted,” The Review of Faith and International 

Affairs 6, no. 2 (2008): 83-84.

Keith Pavlischek, “The Diarchy of Religious 

Freedom,” The Review of Faith and International 

Affairs 6, no. 2 (2008): 85-86.

Knox Thames and Peter Mandaville, “Maintaining 

International Religious Freedom as a Central Tenet 

of US National Security,” United States Institute of 

Peace, October 2022.

Laura Bryant Hanford, “The International Religious 

Freedom Act: Sources, Policy, Influence,” The 

Review of Faith and International Affairs 6, no. 2, 

(2008): 33-39.

Lee Marsden, “International Religious Freedom 

Promotion and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Religions 11, no. 

5 (2020): 1-18. 

Liu Peng, “Religion as a Factor in Sino-U.S. 

Relations,” The Review of Faith and International 

Affairs 6, no. 2 (2008): 61-66.

Marie Juul Peterson and Katherine Marshall, “The 

International Promotion of Freedom of Religion 

or Belief: Sketching the Contours of a Common 

Framework,” The Danish Institute for Human Rights, 

April 2019. 

Melissa Rogers and E.J. Dionne, “A Time to Heal, A 

Time to Build,” Brookings Institution, October 2020. 

Monica Duffy Toft and M. Christian Green, “Progress 

on Freedom of Religion or Belief?: An Analysis of 

European and North American Government and 

Parliamentary Approaches,” The Review of Faith 

and International Affairs 16, no. 4 (2018): 4-18. 

Nina Shea, “The Origins and Legacy of the 

Movement to Fight Religious Persecution,” The 

Review of Faith and International Affairs 6, no. 2 

(2008): 25-31.

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe 

(OSCE), “Freedom of Religion or Belief and Security: 

Policy Guidance,” OSCE Office for Democratic 

Institution and Human Rights (2019).

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
107

RESOURCES

RESOURCES

ARTICLES / WHITE PAPERS

Robert C. Blitt, “The International Religious Freedom

Act: Non-State Actors and Freedom from Sovereign 

Government Control,” Marquette Law Review 103 

(2019): 547-579. 

Robert C. Blitt, “The Wolf Act Amendments to 

the U.S. International Religious Freedom Act: 

Breakthrough or Breakdown?”, University of 

Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Public Affairs 4, 

no. 2 (2019): 151-201.

Robert A. Seiple, “Methodology, Metrics, and Moral 

Imperatives in Religious Freedom Diplomacy,” The 

Review of Faith and International Affairs 6, no. 2 

(2008): 53-56.

Tad Stahnke, “A Paradox of Independence: The U.S. 

Commission on International Religious Freedom,” 

The Review of Faith and International Affairs 6, no. 

2 (2008): 47-51.

 Victor Yelensky, “Religious Freedom: The Case 

of Ukraine,” The Review of Faith and International 

Affairs 6, no. 2 (2008): 67-71.

William Inboden, “Presidential Promotion of 

International Religious Freedom,” The Review of 

Faith and International Affairs 6, no. 2 (2008): 41-45.

Pew Research Center, “International Religious 

Freedom: Religion and International Diplomacy,” 

Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, May 8, 2007.

Pew Research Center, “Legislating International 

Religious Freedom,” Pew Forum on Religion & Public 

Life, November 20, 2006.

Pew Research Center, “Ten Years of Promoting 

Religious Freedom Through U.S. Foreign Policy,” 

Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, October 16, 

2008.
108

RESOURCES

BOOKS

Abrams, Elliott. Realism and Democracy: American Foreign Policy after the Arab Spring. Cambridge, UK: 

Cambridge University Press, 2017.

Albright, Madeleine. The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs. New 

York: Harper Perennial, 2007.

Annicchino, Pasquale, Law and International Religious Freedom: The Rise and Decline of the American 

Model. New York: Routledge, 2018.

Bettiza, Gregorio. Finding Faith in Foreign Policy: Religion and American Diplomacy in a Postsecular 

World. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019. 

Farr, Thomas F. World of Faith and Freedom: Why International Religious Liberty is Vital to American 

National Security. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Grim, Brian J., and Roger Finke. The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the 

Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Hertzke, Allen D. Freeing God’s Children: The Unlikely Alliance for Global Human Rights. Lanham, MD: 

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2004.

Ispahani, Farahnaz. Politics of Hate: Religious Majoritarianism in South Asia. India: Harper Collins, 2023.

Johnston, Douglas, and Cynthia Sampson. Religion, the Missing Dimension of Statecraft. New York: Oxford 

University Press, 1994.

Macguire, James P. International Religious Freedom: The Rise of Global Intolerance. Lanham, MD: 

Rowman & Littlefield/Lexington Books, 2019.

Marshall, Paul and Lela Gilbert. Their Blood Cries Out. New York: W Pub Group, 1997.

Saiya, Nilay. Weapon of Peace: How Religious Liberty Combats Terrorism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 

University Press, 2018. 

Seiple, Chris, and Dennis Hooper. The Routledge Handbook of Religious Literacy, Pluralism, and Global 

Engagement. UK: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2022.

Shea, Nina. In the Lion’s Den: A Shocking Account of Persecution and Martyrdom on Christians Today 

and How We Should Respond. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 1997.

Thames, H. Knox, Chris Seiple, Amy Rowe. International Religious Freedom Advocacy: A Guide to 

Organizations, Law, and NGOs. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009.

Wolf, Frank R. Prisoner of Conscience: One Man’s Crusade for Global Human and Religious Rights. New 

York: Zondervan, 2011.

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
GLOSSARY OF TERMS 109

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Ambassador at Large for International Religious 

Freedom: This position was created in the 1998 

International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), P.L. 

105-292. Appointed by the President and Senateconfirmed, the Ambassador is a principal adviser to 

the President and the Secretary of State on matters 

affecting religious freedom abroad and heads the 

Office of International Religious Freedom in the 

State Department. The Ambassador also serves 

ex officio on the U.S. Commission on International 

Religious Freedom (USCIRF).

Annual Report on International Religious 

Freedom: IRFA requires the State Department 

to prepare and transmit to Congress an Annual 

Report on International Religious Freedom detailing 

the status of religious freedom in each foreign 

country, violations of religious freedom by foreign 

governments, and United States actions and 

policies in support of religious freedom. The U.S. 

Commission on International Religious Freedom 

(USCIRF) also issues an Annual Report.

Blasphemy: Blasphemy is the act of insulting or 

showing contempt or lack of reverence for God. 

Ninety-five of the world’s 193 countries have 

blasphemy laws. Some governments justify these 

laws, which criminalize acts and expressions 

deemed contemptuous of sacred things, as 

necessary to promote religious harmony. In fact, 

they do the opposite: they restrict the freedoms of 

religion and expression, thereby violating two of the 

most hallowed human rights, and lead to abuses 

and the destabilization of societies.

Civil Society: Civil society refers to a wide array 

of organized and unorganized groups: community 

groups, non-governmental organizations [NGOs], 

labor unions, indigenous groups, charitable 

organizations, faith-based organizations, 

professional associations, and foundations. When 

mobilized, civil society - sometimes called the “third 

sector” (after government and commerce) - has the 

power to influence the actions of elected officials 

and businesses. In addition to advocacy, civil society 

provides humanitarian aid and development.

Country of Particular Concern (CPC): IRFA requires 

an annual review of the status of freedom of religion 

or belief worldwide and a country of particular 

concern (CPC) designation of those countries 

whose governments have “engaged in or tolerated 

particularly severe violations of religious freedom” 

during the reporting period. (See definition below of 

“particularly severe violations of religious freedom.”) 

The President’s authority to designate CPCs has 

been delegated to the Secretary of State. 

Demarche: A demarche is a formal diplomatic 

representation of one government’s official position 

on a topic to another government or an international 

organization. In terms of IRFA, a private demarche 

or public demarche are among the many actions 

available to the President as a response to countries 

identified as engaging in or tolerating religious 

persecution.

Designated Persons List for Particularly Severe 

Violations of Religious Freedom: The Frank R. Wolf 

International Religious Freedom Act (P.L. 114-281) 

directs the Secretary of State, in coordination with 

the Ambassador at Large and in consultation with 

relevant government and nongovernment experts, 

to establish and maintain a list of foreign individuals 

to whom the consular post has denied a visa or who 

are subject to financial sanctions or other measures 

on grounds of particularly severe violations of 

religious freedom. The law also requires the 

Secretary to submit to Congress a report that 

contains the list and a description of the actions 

taken, and requires updates to the report every 180 

days thereafter and as new information becomes 

available.

Diplomacy: Diplomacy is the profession, activity, or 

skill of managing international relations, including 

by a country’s representatives abroad. It can also 

include the work of nongovernmental elements 

and international civil servants. Practices include 

dialogue, negotiation and other measures at 
110

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

summit meetings, international conferences, and 

parliamentary diplomacy.

DRL: The State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, 

Human Rights and Labor (DRL) is responsible for the 

U.S. government’s efforts to promote democracy, 

protect human rights and advance labor rights 

globally. 

Entities of Particular Concern: The Frank R. Wolf 

International Religious Freedom Act (P.L. 114-281) 

requires the President to identify non-state actors 

engaged in particularly severe religious freedom 

abuses and designate them as entities of particular 

concern, or EPCs. To qualify as an EPC, a nonstate 

actor must also exercise significant political power 

and territorial control, be outside the control of a 

sovereign government, and often employ violence 

in pursuit of its objectives. 

Ethnic Cleansing: Ethnic cleansing is the deliberate 

and systematic removal of an ethnic or religious 

group from a specific geographical area. The UN 

Security Council in 1994 confirmed a 1992 United 

Nations Report (Final Report of Experts Established 

Pursuant to the United Nations Security Council 

Resolution 780) that ethnic cleansing is a purposeful 

policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to 

remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the 

civilian population of another ethnic or religious 

group from certain geographic areas.

FoRB: The right to freedom of thought, conscience, 

religion or belief, often referred to as ‘religious 

freedom’ or most commonly as ‘freedom of religion 

or belief’ (FoRB), is a fundamental and universal 

human right articulated in Article 18 of the Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other 

international human rights treaties.

Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom 

Act (P.L. 114-281): Recognizing the need to update 

the tools in IRFA to address violations of freedom 

of religion or belief, Congress introduced and 

passed P.L. 114-281, the Frank R. Wolf International 

Religious Freedom Act. President Obama signed 

the law in December 2016. Among its provisions, 

the law required the State Department to name 

“Special Watch List” countries that engage in or 

tolerate severe violations of religious freedom 

but do not meet the CPC threshold; required the 

State Department to identify non-state actors 

that perpetrate particularly severe violations of 

religious freedom as “Entities of Particular Concern;” 

mandated religious freedom training for foreign 

service officers and made recommendations to 

the Secretary of State about the curriculum to be 

used; required the State Department to keep a 

Designated Persons List of individuals sanctioned 

for particularly severe violations of religious 

freedom; and required USCIRF to compile a 

prisoners list.

Freedom of Conscience: Freedom of conscience 

is the right to follow one’ s own beliefs in matters of 

religion and morality. The UDHR underscores that 

religious freedom is a conscience right.

Genocide: The U.S. Department of Justice defines 

genocide as including violent attacks with the 

specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a 

national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. An 

expanded definition of genocide per international 

law is found in the Convention on the Prevention 

and Punishment of Genocide.

Global Magnitsky Act (P.L. 114-328): The Global 

Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act

authorizes the President to impose U.S. entry and 

property sanctions against any foreign person or 

entity who: is responsible for extrajudicial killings, 

torture, or other gross violations of internationally 

recognized human rights committed against 

individuals in any foreign country seeking to 

expose illegal activity carried out by government 

officials, or to obtain, exercise, or promote human 

rights and freedoms; acted as an agent of or on 

behalf of a foreign person in such activities; is a 

government official or senior associate of such 

official responsible for, or complicit in, ordering or 

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
GLOSSARY OF TERMS 111

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

otherwise directing acts of significant corruption; 

or has materially assisted or provided financial, 

material, or technological support for, or goods or 

services in support of, such activities. In April 2022, 

President Biden signed into law P.L.117-110, which 

made this sanctions authority permanent. 

Human Rights: Human rights are rights inherent to 

all human beings, whatever their nationality,

place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, 

color, religion, language, or any other status. These 

rights, to which all are equally entitled without 

discrimination, are all interrelated, interdependent 

and indivisible and often are expressed and 

guaranteed in treaties, customary international law, 

general principles and other sources of international 

law. International human rights law obligates 

governments to act in certain ways or refrain from 

certain acts, in order to promote and protect human 

rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals 

or groups. The principle of universality of human 

rights, first emphasized in the Universal Declaration 

on Human Rights in 1948, has been restated in 

many international human rights conventions, 

declarations, and resolutions.

Impunity: Impunity is the exemption from 

punishment or freedom from the injurious

consequences of an action. The impunity provided 

by governments’ failure to act has facilitated the 

rise of non-state actors and encouraged vigilante 

violence.

The International Contact Group on Freedom 

of Religion or Belief (ICG-FoRB): The IGG-FoRB, 

established by Canada and the United States 

in 2015, is an international consortium of likeminded executive branches that works to enhance 

information sharing and cooperation between states 

committed to protecting and promoting the right to 

freedom of religion or belief.

The International Panel of Parliamentarians for 

Freedom of Religion or Belief (IPP-FoRB): The IPPFoRB, which was launched in 2014, is an informal 

network of more than 130 parliamentarians and 

legislators from around the world committed to 

combating religious persecution and advancing 

freedom of religion or belief, as defined by Article 18 

of the UN Universal Declaration for Human Rights. 

All participating parliamentarians agree to the 

Charter’s principles to advance religious freedom 

for all, including the right to believe or not believe, 

change faith, and share faith with others.

IRFA: President Clinton signed into law the 

International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) (P.L. 

105-292) in October 1998. IRFA sought to give the 

U.S. government the tools to address violations of 

freedom of religion or belief abroad. Among other 

provisions, IRFA stipulates that the President should 

designate as CPCs those countries that commit 

“systematic, ongoing, and egregious” violations 

of religious freedom, and provides a menu of 

actions that the U.S. government should take in 

consequence of this designation.

International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance 

(IRFBA): Launched in February 2020, the Alliance is 

a network of like-minded countries fully committed 

to advancing freedom of religion or belief around 

the world. Alliance members must fully commit to 

the Declaration of Principles. The Declaration is 

grounded in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration 

for Human Rights, which states everyone has 

freedom to believe or not believe, to change faith, 

to meet alone for prayer or corporately for worship. 

The Alliance is predicated on the idea that more 

must be done to protect members of religious 

minority groups and combat discrimination and 

persecution based on religion or belief. The Alliance 

brings together senior government representatives 

to discuss actions their nations can take together 

to promote respect for freedom of religion or belief 

and protect members of religious minority groups 

worldwide. As of fall 2023, 42 countries have joined 

the Alliance.

International Religious Freedom Roundtables:

IRF Roundtables are informal groups of individuals 
112

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

from non-governmental organizations who gather 

regularly to discuss IRF issues on a non-attribution 

basis. They are safe spaces where participants 

gather, speak freely in sharing ideas and 

information, and propose joint advocacy actions 

to address specific IRF issues and problems. In 

response to various participant-led initiatives 

regarding the protection and promotion of freedom 

of religion, conscience, and belief abroad, all 

participants have the opportunity to self-select into 

coalitions of the willing. Currently, there are 25 IRF 

Roundtables operating around the world and 17 

more in additional stages of launching.

The Marrakesh Declaration: In January 2016, 

Muslim scholars, politicians, activists, and

interfaith clergy from around the world gathered 

in Marrakesh, Morocco, to address the rights of 

minorities living in Muslim-majority areas of the 

world. The conference resulted in the Marrakesh 

Declaration, a call to action grounded in the historic 

Charter of Medina, which was forged by Prophet 

Muhammad as a form of contractual citizenship 

to ensure equal treatment of all in a multicultural 

society. Those signing the Marrakesh Declaration 

affirmed that minority rights have a precedent in, 

and are essential to, Islamic law and tradition in 

accordance with international legal standards. 

They further called on politicians, scholars, artists, 

and others in Muslim-majority societies to advance 

the protection of minority rights based on equal 

citizenship through legal, political, and social 

processes, to ensure that minority communities, 

indigenous for centuries in the present-day Muslim 

world, can continue to flourish there.

Mass Atrocities: While there is no formal legal 

definition of mass atrocities, the consensus is that 

mass atrocities are large scale and systematic 

violence, deliberately inflicted against civilians. 

The legal categories most often associated with 

mass atrocities are genocide, crimes against 

humanity, and war crimes. Ethnic cleansing also is 

considered a mass atrocity but does not have a 

legal codification. Also, the conceptual boundaries 

between these terms can be unclear. Key to 

responding to mass atrocities is taking actions in 

countries in which early warning signs exist and 

nations use a full range of diplomatic and program 

interventions to mitigate risks stemming from 

atrocities.

Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom: The 

State Department hosted the first-ever Ministerial 

to Advance Religious Freedom July 24-26, 2018.

The Ministerial sought to reaffirm international 

commitments to promote religious freedom, 

convening a broad range of stakeholders, including 

foreign ministers, international organization 

representatives, religious leaders, and civil society 

representatives, to discuss challenges, identify 

concrete ways to combat religious persecution 

and discrimination, and ensure greater respect for 

religious freedom for all. Additional Ministerials to 

Advance Religious Freedom have been convened 

by the United States in July 2019, Poland in 

November 2020, the United Kingdom in July 2022 

and the Czech Republic in November 2023.

National Security Council Adviser on International 

Religious Freedom: The National Security Council 

Adviser is the special adviser to the President called 

for in the International Religious Freedom Act of 

1998 (IRFA).

Non-Governmental Organization (NGO): NGOs are 

non-profit citizens’ groups that function separately 

from governments to provide advocacy and 

assistance at the local, national and international 

levels. NGOs focus on a variety of social and 

political issues, such as human rights, religious 

freedom, and development.

Non-State Actors: The Frank R. Wolf International 

Religious Freedom Act (P.L. 114-281) defines a nonstate actor as “a non-sovereign entity that exercises 

significant political power and territorial control; is 

outside the control of a sovereign government; and 

often employs violence in pursuit of its objectives.”

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
113

RESOURCES

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

Office of International Religious Freedom: The 

Office of International Religious Freedom promotes 

universal respect for freedom of religion or belief 

for all as a core objective of U.S. foreign policy. 

The office monitors religiously motivated abuses, 

harassment, and discrimination worldwide, and 

recommends, develops, and implements policies 

and programs to address these concerns. The IRF 

Office sits directly below the Under Secretary for 

Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights.

Particularly Severe Violations of Religious 

Freedom: As defined in IRFA, “particularly severe

violations of religious freedom” are “systematic, 

ongoing, egregious” violations of religious freedom 

including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading 

treatment or punishment; prolonged detention 

without charges; causing the disappearance 

of persons by the abduction or clandestine 

detention of those persons; or other flagrant 

denial of the right to life, liberty, or the security of 

persons. The Secretary of State’s determination 

that the government of a country has engaged 

in or tolerated particularly severe violations of 

religious freedom is to the basis for a country being 

designated a CPC, “Country of Particular Concern.”

Persecution: Persecution is hostility and persistent 

mistreatment of a person or group of people 

based on ethnicity, political or religious beliefs, or a 

combination thereof. The impact of persecution can 

range from mild discrimination, marginalization and 

harassment to hostility, imprisonment, torture and 

even death.

Pew Report: Since 2009, Pew Research Center 

annually has issued a study on global restrictions 

on religion, measuring both government restrictions 

and social hostilities. The most recent study, 

released in November 2022 using data from 2020, 

found that the global median level of government 

restrictions imposed in the 198 countries and 

territories examined fell slightly from the prior year, 

but the global median level of social hostilities 

increased slightly. 

Pluralism: Pluralism is the presence of people of 

different races, religious beliefs, and cultures within 

the same society, or the belief that this is a good 

thing.

Prisoners of Conscience: Prisoners of 

Conscience(POCs) are individuals who have been 

unjustly imprisoned for the peaceful exercise of 

their political, religious, or other conscientiously 

held beliefs, in violation of their fundamental human 

rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of 

Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil 

and Political Rights, and other international human 

rights instruments and standards.

Refugee: A refugee is someone who has been 

forced to flee his or her country because of

 a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons 

of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or 

membership in a particular social group.

Religious Freedom: Freedom of religion is the right 

of an individual to choose a religion (or no

religion at all) in which to believe, and to practice 

and express that religion or belief without 

interference by the government or actors within 

society. 

Religious Minorities: Religious minorities are 

members of religious groups that comprise a

minority of the population within a country, state or 

region. In nations worldwide, they are the targets 

of harassment, discrimination and persecution 

because of their religious beliefs, affiliations, 

actions, and/or advocacy.

Sanctions: Sanctions are a tool that nations 

use to influence or punish other nations or nonstate actors. While most sanctions are economic, 

they also may carry the threat of diplomatic or 

military consequences. Sanctions can be imposed 

unilaterally by one nation or multilaterally by a group 

of nations.
114

Specially Designated Nationals List: As part of its 

enforcement efforts, the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) 

publishes a list of individuals and companies owned, 

controlled by, or acting on behalf of targeted 

countries. The list also includes individuals, groups, 

and entities that are not country specific. Their 

assets are blocked and U.S. persons generally are 

prohibited from dealing with them.

Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Religion 

or Belief: The Special Rapporteur on freedom 

of religion or belief is an independent expert 

appointed by the UN Human Rights Council. The 

mandate holder has been invited to identify existing 

and emerging obstacles to the enjoyment of the 

right to freedom of religion or belief and present 

recommendations on ways and means to overcome 

such obstacles.

Special Watch List (SWL): Those countries whose 

governments are identified as having engaged in or 

tolerated severe violations of religious freedom, but 

which do not meet the criteria to be designated as 

countries of particular concern, are instead included 

on the President’s “Special Watch List.” The new 

class of designation was added to IRFA with the 

Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act of 

2016 (P.L. 114-281). This authority was delegated to 

the Secretary of State.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

(UDHR):The United Nations General Assembly 

adopted the UDHR on December 10, 1948. Drafted 

by representatives with different legal and cultural 

backgrounds from all regions of the world, it is the 

most universal human rights document in existence, 

delineating the thirty fundamental rights that form 

the basis for a democratic society.

USCIRF: The U.S. Commission on International 

Religious Freedom (USCIRF) was created under 

IRFA. USCIRF monitors the violations of religious 

freedom abroad, makes policy recommendations 

to the President, Secretary of State, and 

Congress, and tracks the implementation of those 

recommendations. . USCIRF issues an annual report 

and other publications, holds hearings and other 

public events, is active in the media and on social 

media, and maintains a public list of victims of 

certain religious freedom violations. USCIRF’s nine 

Commissioners are appointed by the President or 

congressional leaders from each political party and 

are supported by a nonpartisan professional staff of 

about 20. 

U.S. Helsinki Commission: The U.S. Helsinki 

Commission, also known as the Commission on

Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), is an 

independent U.S. government agency created 

in 1975 to monitor and encourage compliance 

with the Helsinki Final Act and other Organization 

for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) 

commitments. The CSCE seeks to promote human 

rights, military security, and economic cooperation 

in 57 countries in Europe, Eurasia, and North 

America. The Commission consists of nine members 

from the House of Representatives, nine members 

from the Senate, and one member each from the 

Departments of State, Defense, and Commerce. The 

House and Senate share the positions of Chair and 

Co-Chair, which rotate every two years when a new 

Congress convenes. A professional staff assists the 

Commissioners in their work.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE
AUTHORS 115

AUTHORS

Erin Rodewald

Erin Rodewald is a freelance writer, editor and 

communications strategist based in Northern 

Virginia. Her topics include civil society, community 

engagement, faith and family, international religious 

freedom, and foreign policy. Rodewald is the author 

of the Writing for the Public Square blog and a 

contributing author and fellow with The Washington 

Institute for Faith, Vocation and Culture. 

With more than 35 years of communications 

experience, Rodewald has provided strategic 

public relations council for public affairs, businessto-business, and high-tech clients. She is the coowner and strategic management partner of a 

global high-tech public relations firm. While serving 

as digital editor for 21Wilberforce, Rodewald was 

an original co-author of The 20th Anniversary 

of the International Religious Freedom Act: A 

Retrospective.

Rodewald holds a Masters of Public Policy degree 

from Pepperdine University and a bachelor’s degree 

in Communications from California State University, 

Fullerton. She volunteers her time as an ESOL 

teacher.

Lou Ann Sabatier

Ms. Sabatier has four decades of experience in 

publishing, marketing and communications. Early 

in her career Sabatier was in senior management 

for publishing operations in the U.S. and globally. 

Sabatier then pivoted to consulting to publishers 

and content creators. For 25 years she has led a 

global consulting consortium with 15 professionals 

experienced in multiple disciplines of publishing and 

communications. 

With more than 200 assignments completed, 

clients include a list as diverse as World Vision/

Save the Children, the International Monetary Fund, 

the OECD, the Federal Reserve Bank, National 

Geographic, the U.S. Marine Corps, and the 

Chronicle of Higher Education. Sabatier served on 

the board of Magazine Training International (MTI) 

for five years and continues to provide training for 

MTI around the world.

Sabatier currently serves as the Director of 

Communications for 21Wilberforce where she 

oversees the website, newsletters, social media, 

collateral material, press and the International 

Religious Freedom Congressional Scorecard.

In 2021, she co-founded FoRB Women’s Alliance, 

a global accelerator focused on informing and 

connecting individuals, organizations, faith 

communities and networks across regions countries 

and sectors working on issues relevant to women 

and FoRB.
116

USCIRF PROFESSIONAL STAFF

Elizabeth K. Cassidy, Director of Research and Policy

Danielle Ashbahian, Chief of Public Affairs

Thomas Kraemer, Chief Administrative Officer

Jamie Staley, Supervisory Policy Advisor

Scott Weiner, Supervisory Policy Analyst

Michael Ardovino, Policy Analyst

Susan Bishai, Policy Analyst

Mollie Blum, Researcher

Mingzhi Chen, Senior Policy Analyst

Patrick Greenwalt, Policy Analyst

Sema Hasan, Policy Analyst

Veronica McCarthy, Public Affairs Associate

Hilary Miller, Researcher

Nora Morton, Operations Specialist

Dylan Schexnaydre, Researcher 

Luke Wilson, Researcher

IRFA RETROSPECTIVE