I M P L E M E N TAT I O N O F T H E I N T E R N AT I O N A L R E L I G I O U S F R E E D O M AC T Legal Framework actively implemented his mandate, including through public speeches, travel, and meetings with the nongovernmental organization (NGO) IRF Roundtable and other stakeholders. In February 2020, the Trump administration appointed Sarah Makin to be the first-ever senior director for IRF on the National Security Council (NSC) staff. IRFA called for a dedicated NSC staff position on this issue, and the Frank Wolf Act reiterated that call. USCIRF for years had urged successive administrations to establish and fill the position and welcomed the long-needed action. Senior Director Makin completed her service in January 2021, and the position is now vacant. In October, the Trump administration appointed then Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Robert A. Destro to serve concurrently as the special coordinator for Tibetan issues, which had been vacant since January 2017. USCIRF welcomed this appointment but noted that “doublehatting” positions could undermine the U.S. government’s important efforts to promote religious freedom abroad. Other positions relevant to IRF that were filled during the Trump administration include the special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, held by Elan S. Carr from 2019 to 2021 and later elevated to an ambassador-level position. IRFA, as amended by the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act of 2016, seeks to make religious freedom a higher priority in U.S. foreign policy through a range of mechanisms and tools. These include: governmental institutions (the ambassador-at-large and the State Department’s IRF Office, USCIRF as an independent legislative branch agency, and a position on the White House NSC staff); ongoing monitoring and annual reports on religious freedom violations; and the imposition of consequences for the worst violators. The consequences set forth in IRFA consist of CPC designations and related actions, placement on the State Department’s SWL, the ability to bar entry to the United States of foreign officials responsible for particularly severe religious freedom violations, and EPC designations for nonstate actors. IRFA includes religious freedom as an element of U.S. foreign assistance, cultural exchange, and international broadcasting programs and requires training on religious freedom and religious persecution for State Department foreign service officers and U.S. immigration officials. Further, it includes provisions on U.S. refugee and asylum policy. It also specifically cites U.S. participation in multilateral organizations as an avenue for advancing religious freedom abroad. IRFA is centered on the right to freedom of religion or belief as recognized in international law, as articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other internaInternational Partnerships tional instruments and regional agreements. The positive trajectory of the past six years toward an internaFor a more detailed description of IRFA, its legislative history, tional movement to advance religious freedom continued. The IRF and its implementation, please see USCIRF’s Factsheet: IRFA. Roundtable continued its work supporting 26 international religious Alongside IRFA, other laws provide tools to sanction individual freedom roundtables in countries including Sudan, Nigeria, Taiwan, religious freedom abusers. Some apply to specific countries, such Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan. These roundtables are modeled after as the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions and Divestment Act (CISADA, meetings NGOs hold regularly among themselves and with governP.L.111-195). More broadly, the 2016 Global Magnitsky Human Rights ment representatives in Washington and aim to increase the global Accountability Act allows the president, who has delegated these conversation on religious freedom. The Trump administration also authorities to the secretaries of treasury and state, to deny U.S. visas leveraged momentum to convene meetings on specific IRF topics, to and freeze the U.S.-based assets of any foreigner responsible for including hosting a conference in October on combating online “extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationantisemitism. ally protected human rights” against someone seeking to expose An increasing number of countries joined the United States in illegal government activity or to exercise or defend internationally passing laws that enable targeted sanctions against human rights protected rights. Executive Order (E.O.) 13818, issued in December violators. In July, the United Kingdom (UK) launched its own Magnitsky2017 to implement and build on the Global Magnitsky Act, authostyle law. Then Secretary of State rizes visa bans and asset freezes Michael R. Pompeo welcomed against foreign persons involved the UK’s adoption of this law and in “serious human rights abuse,” noted that United States would providing an even more expansive An increasing number of countries joined continue to seek out additional basis for targeted sanctions. the United States in passing laws allies and partners to leverage In addition, Section 7031(c) that enable targeted sanctions against jointly all available tools to hold of the State Department’s annual abusers of human rights accounthuman rights violators. appropriations law (P.L. 116-94 for able. In December, the European FY 2020) requires the secretary of Union (EU) adopted the European state to make foreign officials and Magnitsky Act. In addition to their immediate family members these recent developments, in 2017 Canada passed the Justice for ineligible for U.S. entry if there is credible evidence that such individVictims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, which includes visa ineligibiliuals have been involved in “a gross violation of human rights.” Unlike ties and asset blocking for human rights violations. Australia and Japan the visa ineligibility provision enacted in IRFA, visa bans under this are reportedly considering creating similar sanctions frameworks. provision can be announced publicly. Key Developments in 2020 and Early 2021 Key U.S. Government IRF Positions On January 20, 2021, Samuel D. Brownback completed his service as ambassador-at-large for IRF, a position he held since 2018. The fifth ambassador-at-large since IRFA’s enactment, Ambassador Brownback Individual Violators During 2020, there were no known visa denials to any foreign officials for particularly severe religious freedom violations under Section 212(a)(2)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the provision added by IRFA. However, the U.S. government ramped up its use of USCIRF | ANNUAL REPORT 2021 9