The core of the demand rests on legislation such as the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, under which sanctions, visa bans, and asset freezes would be introduced against Munir and others for human rights violations. Advocates highlight multiple cases, including the reported abduction and assault of relatives of a U. S.-based journalist after he published material critical of military corruption — instances described as part of a broader pattern of transnational repression.
Though the letter from lawmakers asks why sanctions have not yet been imposed on Munir, the administration has so far only issued strong public warnings. Analysts interpret the delay as indicative of Washington’s strategic balancing act — reluctant to jeopardize counterterrorism cooperation and regional security interests even as it seeks to uphold human rights standards. Experts warn that failure to act might embolden further crackdowns, while premature sanctions could destabilise fragile regional dynamics.
Over the past year, Munir has consolidated power through sweeping constitutional changes. A 27th amendment abolished the post of Chairman Joint Chiefs and merged all service branches under a newly created post, Chief of Defence Forces, now held by him. Under the amendment, the CDF wields control over the army, navy and air force — including strategic nuclear command — while also enjoying lifelong rank and immunity from prosecution. Among critics, the move is described as the most dramatic shift in Pakistan’s civil-military balance in decades, effectively codifying military dominance under the veneer of constitutional reform.
Supporters of Munir’s ascendancy point to perceived gains in national security and stability, especially following tense cross-border skirmishes with a neighbour earlier this year which culminated in a U. S.-brokered ceasefire. These episodes guided his public image shift: once widely criticised as Pakistan’s most reviled army chief since the 1971 war, he is now portrayed by state media and parts of the establishment as a strong defender of sovereignty.
Nevertheless, international criticism has mounted. U. S. lawmakers argue that the constitutional overhaul empowers a single individual with unrestrained military and executive authority, undermining judicial oversight and threatening civilian governance. The lawmakers’ letter presses the administration to clarify which human rights abuses might trigger sanctions and to detail protections for U. S.-based dissidents targeted by alleged military intimidation.
Within Pakistan, concerns around inter-service harmony are brewing. Former senior officers warn that granting an army-origin CDF full control over promotions and postings in navy and air force risks morale and long-term institutional cohesion. Some human rights advocates fear the consolidation of power could accelerate efforts to suppress dissent, especially from minority groups in restive regions like Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Diplomatic ripple effects appear inevitable. Observers suggest that further escalation — perhaps via sanctions — could strain currently strengthening U. S.–Pakistan ties, especially now that the two countries have finalised a trade and energy agreement aimed at deepening economic cooperation.
As debate intensifies in Washington over pressing sanctions, Islamabad faces growing pressure to explain its actions. For now, the ball is with the U. S. administration — whether it will transform warnings into concrete penalties remains a question with implications for Pakistan’s internal balance and its relations with key allies.