U.S. foreign policy has long been constructed upon a tense balance between “universal values” and “national interests.” Human rights have frequently been highlighted as an instrument for Washington to claim moral superiority on the global stage; the promotion of democracy, the protection of freedoms, and the principles of international law have formed the core of American discourse. Yet this rhetoric has often clashed with strategic priorities and geopolitical interests-energy security, military alliances, and economic gains have frequently outweighed human rights. From the Cold War to the post-9/11 era and into today’s competition with China and Russia, the United States has been criticized for reacting strongly to human rights violations in some regions while remaining silent when strategic partnerships were at stake. This article analyzes the historical evolution, theoretical explanations, and practical contradictions of the human rights discourse in U.S. foreign policy. In particular, debates on double standards, the instrumentalization of human rights as a tool of hegemony, and the future configuration of the national interest-universal values balance constitute the core focus of the study.