What Are the Leahy Laws? Vetting, Waivers, and Oversight

The Leahy Laws are two federal statutes that prohibit the United States from providing military aid, training, or equipment to any unit of a foreign security force when there is credible information the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.¹ Named for former Senator Patrick Leahy, the laws target individual units rather than entire countries, so a broader security partnership can continue while the specific group responsible for abuses loses access to U.S. support.

The Two Statutes

There are two Leahy Laws, and they operate independently.

The State Department version is codified at 22 U.S.C. § 2378d (Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961). It bars assistance furnished under the Foreign Assistance Act or the Arms Export Control Act to any foreign security force unit when the Secretary of State has credible information linking the unit to a gross violation of human rights.² Its reach covers equipment sales, training programs, intelligence-sharing arrangements, and direct financial grants.

The Department of Defense version sits at 10 U.S.C. § 362. It mirrors the same core prohibition but carries its own set of exceptions and a waiver mechanism. Both statutes are now permanent law, so Congress does not need to renew them through annual appropriations.³

Who and What the Laws Cover

“Foreign security force” is read broadly. It includes any organization a foreign government authorizes to use force: national military branches, naval units, local police departments, border agencies, and similar bodies.¹

The prohibition applies at the level of the smallest identifiable operational group. The statute does not lock in a fixed tier like “battalion” or “company.” What counts as a unit depends on how the foreign force is organized and where the credible information points.

What Counts as a Gross Violation of Human Rights

The underlying definition comes from 22 U.S.C. § 2304(d), which lists torture or cruel and degrading treatment, prolonged detention without charges, enforced disappearance, and other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, or personal security.⁴ The language is deliberately open-ended.

Day-to-day vetting focuses on four categories of abuse:⁵

Torture — intentionally inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering.
Extrajudicial killing — executions carried out without any judicial process or legal authorization.
Enforced disappearance — taking a person into custody while refusing to acknowledge the detention or reveal the person’s fate.
Rape under color of law — sexual violence committed by security personnel acting in an official capacity.

These four drive most cases, but they are not the outer boundary. A unit engaged in prolonged arbitrary detention or other flagrant abuses can still be disqualified under the broader statutory language. The standard is credible information, not a criminal conviction — a reasonable basis to believe the abuse occurred is enough.

How Vetting Works

Screening begins at the U.S. embassy in the country where the foreign unit operates. Embassy staff run consular, political, and human rights checks on units and individuals nominated to receive assistance.⁵

In Washington, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor conducts background vetting and makes the credible-information determination. It draws on reports from nongovernmental organizations, news outlets, intelligence agencies, and the Department of Defense.² The Secretary of State is also required to keep procedures in place for receiving information from outside the government and to try to identify the responsible unit whenever credible reports of abuse surface but the specific unit is unknown.

A unit that is formally rejected becomes ineligible for training or equipment until the prohibition is lifted. Vetting must happen before funds are committed or activities begin.

Waivers and Exceptions

The State and Defense versions handle exceptions very differently, and the difference matters.

State Department: Remediation Only

Under 22 U.S.C. § 2378d, there is exactly one path around the prohibition. The Secretary of State must determine, and report to Congress, that the foreign government is taking effective steps to bring the responsible members of the unit to justice.² “Effective steps” means real accountability: impartial investigations, credible judicial proceedings, and proportional sentencing.⁵ Reassigning an officer or issuing a reprimand does not clear the bar.

There is no national security waiver in the State Department statute. If the foreign government is not pursuing justice, the prohibition holds regardless of strategic importance.

Department of Defense: Three Mechanisms

The DoD statute at 10 U.S.C. § 362 offers more flexibility through three separate paths:⁶

Corrective steps. The Secretary of Defense, after consulting the Secretary of State, determines the foreign government has taken all necessary corrective steps.
Humanitarian or emergency need. The equipment or assistance is necessary for disaster relief or another humanitarian or national security emergency. This exception has no equivalent in the State Department law.⁷
Extraordinary circumstances waiver. The Secretary of Defense, after consulting the Secretary of State, determines a waiver is required by extraordinary circumstances. This is the broadest and most discretionary tool.

Any of the three requires the Secretary of Defense to notify the relevant congressional committees within 15 days, with the violation, the justification, and the specific units identified.⁶

The Duty To Inform

Some U.S. assistance goes to a foreign military in bulk, without identifying the specific recipient units in advance. The Leahy Law handles this through a “duty to inform” provision. The Secretary of State must regularly provide a list of prohibited units to both the recipient government and Congress. Since December 31, 2022, this kind of assistance can only proceed under a written agreement that the recipient government will comply with the prohibition and keep aid away from flagged units.²

If the recipient government does withhold assistance from a unit based on that list, the Secretary of State must inform Congress and, where practicable, help the foreign government bring the responsible individuals to justice. Before this provision existed, aid flowing to a military as a whole could easily end up with units that would have failed individual vetting.

Public Disclosure and Congressional Oversight

The State Department Leahy Law requires the Secretary of State to make publicly available, “to the maximum extent practicable,” the identity of units barred from receiving assistance. The only exception is a case-by-case national security determination, which must be accompanied by a detailed written justification submitted to Congress and may be classified.²

Transparency has been uneven in practice. Published lists of barred units have appeared with significant delays and likely represent a fraction of actual prohibitions, partly because units whose cases are suspended rather than formally rejected do not appear on the disclosure list.

Both statutes also require notification to the appropriate congressional committees whenever a waiver, exception, or remediation determination is made. That creates a paper trail lawmakers can use to scrutinize individual decisions, though the statutes leave broader enforcement of the policy to executive branch judgment.

1
Congress.gov. Global Human Rights: Security Forces Vetting (“Leahy Laws”)
2
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 22 USC 2378d – Limitation on Assistance to Security Forces
3
U.S. Embassy in Sudan. Leahy Laws
4
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 22 USC 2304 – Human Rights and Security Assistance
5
United States Department of State. About the Leahy Law
6
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 362 – Prohibition on Use of Funds for Assistance to Units of Foreign Security Forces That Have Committed a Gross Violation of Human Rights
7
Congressional Research Service. Global Human Rights: Security Forces Vetting (“Leahy Laws”)