By Elisabeth R. Myers
Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit to the Vatican on Thursday should have highlighted one of Washington’s clearest shared priorities with the Holy See: the defense of religious freedom. Instead, Iran and broader geopolitical tensions appear to have dominated—understandably, but tellingly.
Because while Washington concentrates on headline conflicts, it continues to underreact to a quieter, more systematic form of repression—one that has been unfolding in plain sight in Algeria.
This is not a marginal issue. It is a test of whether U.S. religious freedom policy is being applied consistently, or selectively.
When the Pope traveled to Algeria last month, Algerian authorities reopened a single Catholic cathedral in Annaba so that he could celebrate a carefully managed Mass. While the gesture projected an image of tolerance, the broader reality in Algeria is one of quiet, systematic, and deeply insidious repression.
Across the center of Algeria’s Christian population, Protestant churches have been systematically shut down. Laws permitting non-Muslim worship exist largely on paper; in practice, no church has received authorization to operate or reopen in the past decade. Christians report surveillance, harassment, professional discrimination, and judicial or administrative travel bans—interdiction de sortie du territoire national (ISTN)—that effectively bar them from leaving the country, including prominent Christian convert Slimane Bouhafs. Others remain detained under broad legal provisions used to criminalize peaceful expression, including for possessing or distributing Bibles.
This repression is structural. Through expansive counterterrorism laws—particularly Article 87 bis—along with blasphemy provisions and bans on “unarmed assembly,” peaceful religious activity is recast as a security threat, turning the law itself into a weapon of repression.
The United States is not unaware of these facts. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has repeatedly documented these abuses and continues to recommend that Algeria remain on the State Department’s Special Watch List.
Yet the International Religious Freedom Act sets a clear standard for when a country should be designated a “Country of Particular Concern”—when its government engages in “systematic, ongoing, and egregious” violations. The Christian Kabyle Coalition argues that Algeria now meets that standard. Congress should examine whether current policy still reflects the facts.
That gap deserves scrutiny.
Congress has a role here—not to dictate outcomes, but to ensure that the law is being applied consistently and that geopolitical considerations are not quietly overriding statutory standards.
Because Washington’s caution carries a cost. By failing to elevate religious freedom as a core issue in U.S.–Algeria relations, the United States risks signaling that repression—if managed quietly enough—will not trigger meaningful consequences. That is a dangerous precedent.
Recent events underscore why rhetoric—and symbolic gestures—should not be mistaken for reality. This week, even as Algiers publicly reaffirmed its commitment to a peaceful settlement in Western Sahara, the Polisario Front—long armed, financed, and hosted by Algeria—launched fresh attacks against Morocco, drawing strong U.S. condemnation. Washington should be wary of accepting Algeria’s diplomatic language at face value. A government that presents itself as a force for peace abroad while suppressing peaceful religious expression and dissent at home deserves closer scrutiny, not diplomatic deference.
At the same time, Algeria is deepening its military and economic alignment with Russia while expanding strategic ties with China. U.S. policymakers regularly cite those relationships as a strategic concern. But repression at home is not separate from that trajectory.
Governments that erode basic freedoms weaken their own institutions. That instability creates openings for external influence and reduces long-term reliability as partners.
Ignoring those dynamics does not buy stability. It defers risk.
The tools for a more principled approach already exist: timely issuance of the State Department’s International Religious Freedom report, sustained diplomacy that treats religious freedom as a core bilateral issue, targeted accountability measures, and congressional oversight to ensure policy matches reality. Religious freedom has long been one of the few areas where U.S. policy has reflected both moral clarity and strategic judgment. The question is whether that still holds. If the systematic closure of churches, criminalization of peaceful belief, and detention of individuals for religious expression are not enough to trigger serious review, what is?
Elisabeth R. Myers is an American attorney, former Adjunct Associate Professor of Law, and international adviser based in Morocco.
