TNR Watch: What’s in a Name?

The first step in addressing a problem is naming it. The second is defining it. Although awareness of transnational repression has increased among policymakers in recent years, there is still no single, official definition. The absence of a codified definition is preventing the development of a comprehensive policy agenda to combat the threat.

Filling a gap: Shortly after the release of Freedom House’s report Out of Sight, Not Out of Reach in 2021, the US National Security Council announced a “whole-of-government” approach to counter the threat posed by authoritarian governments to activists and dissidents living beyond their borders. Taking their cue from the White House, many different government agencies adopted the term “transnational repression” to describe the problem. However, the varied responses to transnational repression skipped a critical step—no common definition of transnational repression was established in legislation.

Absent an official definition, federal agencies have each developed their own working versions. The US Department of Homeland Security’s Faith-Based Security Advisory Council has identified this development as a fundamental gap in the government’s strategy for countering transnational repression. While the various agencies do share a similar general understanding of the phenomenon, the lack of a single definition hampers interagency collaboration, needlessly duplicates efforts across departments, and complicates training, reporting, and outreach.

The debate: Some have labeled all transnational incidents targeting anyone who criticizes authoritarian governments as transnational repression. At Freedom House, we believe the emphasis should be on victims who are tied to the perpetrator state by citizenship, national origin, or descent: what we often call in shorthand “diasporas and exiles.” When it employs transnational repression, a perpetrator state seeks to silence people whom it claims as its own. Members of diaspora and exile populations are uniquely vulnerable due to the familial, legal, and financial ties they have to the perpetrator states.

Authoritarian governments, moreover, do not limit themselves to intimidating those with a track record of political or human rights advocacy. As Freedom House and other organizations have established, perpetrators also set their sights on journalists, students, and members of minority ethnic and religious groups, meaning the definition of transnational repression must be broad enough to protect these people too.

Legislative solutions: To properly address transnational repression and enhance protections for targeted individuals, Congress needs to codify a standard definition into law. In April 2024, the draft International Freedom Protection Act, which includes a provision that would legally define the term “transnational repression” for the first time, was reported favorably out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The proposed Transnational Repression Policy Act and several other proposed bills also contain definitions and describe how various tactics violate democratic values in the United States. None of these bills have passed to date. Executive agencies are doing what they can, but Congress has a crucial role to play in organizing a unified and effective American response.