The United States has defended its decision to vote against a United Nations General Assembly resolution declaring the transatlantic slave trade the gravest crime against humanity, citing concerns over international law and the scope of the proposal.

The Ghana-led resolution, backed by the African Union and CARICOM, was adopted on March 25, 2026, with 123 countries voting in favour. The United States joined Israel and Argentina in opposing the measure, which seeks to establish a framework for reparatory justice, including dialogue, formal apologies, restitution, and compensation.

Explaining the US position, Ambassador Dan Negrea, the country’s representative to the UN Economic and Social Council, described aspects of the resolution as problematic. He said the United Nations should not be used to create new mandates or advance what he termed narrow interests.

Negrea stated that the United States does not recognise a legal right to reparations for actions that were not illegal under international law at the time they occurred. He also rejected the classification of the transatlantic slave trade as a violation of jus cogens under modern legal standards.

The US further criticised the resolution’s approach to historical timelines, arguing that the trafficking of enslaved Africans extended beyond the 15th to 19th centuries referenced in the text and should not be selectively defined.

Washington also raised concerns about the intended beneficiaries of reparations, describing the proposal as an attempt to reallocate modern resources to individuals and nations not directly affected by the historical events.

In addition, the US objected to what it viewed as an effort to rank atrocities, stating that no hierarchy should be created among crimes against humanity.

While reaffirming its condemnation of slavery, the US delegation expressed disappointment that its input during negotiations was not reflected in the final resolution.

The resolution’s adoption marks a significant step for its supporters, but the U.S. position highlights ongoing divisions over how historical injustices should be addressed within current international legal frameworks.