Four years after security forces opened fire on largely peaceful demonstrators in Nukus, the capital of Karakalpakstan, the truth about one of Central Asia’s deadliest episodes of political violence remains obscured. The Uzbek government’s investigative commission has never published its findings, and the identities of those killed have not been officially disclosed.
As a result, independent verification of the death toll remains impossible. Families continue to wait for answers, while the international community still lacks a complete account of what happened during the July 2022 crackdown in Karakalpakstan.
Yet Washington is preparing to deepen its economic relationship with Uzbekistan.
Uzbekistan is expected to accede to the World Trade Organization (WTO) this year. And once that happens, the U.S. Congress is expected to consider granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to Tashkent, permanently lifting the remaining trade restrictions associated with the Jackson-Vanik Amendment.
Before taking that step, lawmakers should ask a simple question: What happened in Karakalpakstan, and why has the Uzbek government still not fully accounted for it?
A PNTR designation is unlike annual waivers (as Uzbekistan has been granted under Jackson-Vanik) or temporary trade preferences. Once granted, it permanently normalizes trade relations under U.S. law. Congress therefore has a rare opportunity to ask whether one of the most serious unresolved human rights crises in Central Asia has been adequately addressed before permanently removing one of the few remaining points of leverage in the bilateral relationship
The July 2022 protests began after authorities proposed constitutional amendments that would have removed Karakalpakstan’s constitutional recognition as a sovereign republic within Uzbekistan and eliminated its constitutional right to hold a referendum on independence. Thousands of residents gathered in Nukus to oppose the changes. Security forces responded with force that United Nations experts described as excessive and unjustified. An unverified number of people were killed, hundreds were injured, and hundreds more were detained. Reports of torture and ill-treatment soon followed.
What happened next is less widely understood. Facing widespread domestic unrest and international criticism, President Shavkat Mirziyoyev withdrew the proposed amendments affecting Karakalpakstan.
The broader constitutional reform, however, continued. Months later, Uzbekistan resumed the constitutional reform process, and in April 2023 voters approved a new constitution that reset presidential term limits, allowing Mirziyoyev to begin counting his years in office anew and potentially remain president until 2040.
The amendments affecting Karakalpakstan were withdrawn only after security forces had already suppressed the protests. The broader constitutional reforms, however, remained intact, including the provisions that reset presidential term limits. That contrast has received far less attention than the protests themselves, yet it says much about the direction of political reform in Uzbekistan.
If the constitutional reforms were intended to modernize governance, why has political power become more centralized? Why are meaningful opposition parties still absent from Uzbekistan’s political system? Why do journalists, lawyers, bloggers, and peaceful activists continue to face criminal prosecution? And why, four years later, do so many fundamental questions about the events in Nukus remain unanswered?
Among those imprisoned after the events is Dauletmurat Tajimuratov, a lawyer, journalist, and human rights defender who peacefully opposed the constitutional amendments. In February 2023 he was sentenced to 16 years in prison following proceedings criticized by international observers. In 2026, his sentence was extended after additional criminal proceedings that raised further concerns about due process and judicial independence.
United Nations experts and the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention have concluded that Tajimuratov’s detention is arbitrary and have called for his immediate release. Reports of torture, deteriorating health, denial of adequate medical care, and increasingly harsh prison conditions continue to generate concern among international human rights organizations.
Tajimuratov’s case illustrates a broader pattern. Rather than greater openness following the 2022 tragedy, independent observers continue to document arbitrary detention, restrictions on civil society, and pressure on independent journalists and activists.
None of this is to argue against closer U.S. engagement with Uzbekistan. Central Asia is increasingly important to Washington’s economic and strategic interests. But deeper engagement should not come at the expense of accountability for serious human rights violations.
The question before the U.S. Congress is about more than trade. PNTR is not simply another step in expanding economic ties; it is a lasting expression of the United States’ relationship with Uzbekistan.
Congress should consider whether PNTR should be granted before Uzbekistan demonstrates meaningful progress on accountability for the July 2022 crackdown. Publishing the investigative commission’s findings; identifying those who were killed; credibly investigating allegations of torture and excessive use of force; releasing political prisoners, including Dauletmurat Tajimuratov; and allowing meaningful access for independent international monitors would all demonstrate that the government is prepared to address the legacy of the crackdown rather than leave it unresolved.
In the aftermath of the July 2022 crackdown, then-UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet called for a transparent and independent investigation, warning that “people should not be criminalised for exercising their rights.”
The United States has every reason to pursue a constructive partnership with Uzbekistan, but stronger economic ties should be accompanied by meaningful progress on transparency, accountability, and the rule of law. These objectives are not in conflict; they reinforce one another. Before granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations, the U.S. Congress should ensure that the unresolved legacy of Karakalpakstan is not treated as a closed chapter simply because it has become an inconvenient one.
