WASHINGTON — The latest Human Rights Report, produced under a Trump-era directive to be ‘firm’ with a dash of ‘pillow talk,’ features language so softened it could win a participation trophy in a civics classroom.

Where previous editions slammed with words like ‘condemn’ and ‘violations,’ this year’s document reads like a spa brochure: ‘serious concerns’ and ‘constructive engagement’ with a generous side of ‘review opportunities.’

Sources say the sections on Israel and El Salvador were the fiercest beasts before editors took a nap, shaving adjectives until they could pass as politely as a polite uncle at Thanksgiving.

Analysts describe the shift as a deliberate upgrade in ‘soft power optics’—the diplomatic equivalent of adding foam to a latte and telling everyone the flavor is ‘bold and robust.’

A veteran translator told reporters the margins were so large you could drive a forklift through a sentence and still have a coherent paragraph left over for footnotes.

Administration spokespeople defended the edits as ‘responsibly tempered language that invites dialogue,’ which is politics-speak for ‘we ran out of adjectives and still want your money.’

Rights groups responded with a collective sigh heavier than a policy briefing slide, noting that the cutting-room floor now houses more nouns than verbs.

Foreign policy experts joked the report was now ‘proofread by a person who forgot how to spell universal rights but remembered to hyphenate human-rights.’

Officials insisted the changes were about clarity and avoiding ‘partisan gymnastics,’ which critics translated as ‘the administration is allergic to strong verbs.’

Interviews with diplomats revealed the new tone: ‘We share concerns in a manner that respects sovereignty’—translation: ‘Yes, we care, but we won’t alarm anyone with deadlines or consequences.’

Israel and El Salvador still appear in the document, albeit wearing linguistic earmuffs; the ideas are there, just whispering like a room full of librarians who’ve misplaced their megaphones.

A senior aide quipped that the report now doubles as a manual for diplomats on how to sound principled without sounding aggressive enough to trigger a press briefing.

At briefings, audiences nod as the spokesperson reads lines that would sound impressive at a keynote but fall flat in a coffee shop with a ‘No politics, please’ sign.

Final take: maybe the blunting of rhetoric will spare some egos, but it might also spare taxpayers the suspense of dramatic moral certainty.