Authoritarian regimes commonly deflect criticism of their human rights records by employing a type of rhetorical argument colloquially referred to as “whataboutery,” which accuses critical countries of being hypocritical by highlighting their own abuses. In recent years, a new type of whataboutery has emerged. Using language commonly associated with progressive identity politics, this “identitarian whataboutery” frames criticism from Western countries as racist or colonialist, while also drawing attention to Western abuses against historically disadvantaged groups. This study empirically examines the effectiveness of identitarian whataboutery through a framing experiment in the United States. Using the 2022 World Cup in Qatar as a case, we develop two frames: one discussing Qatari human rights abuses against migrant workers, and the other discussing abuses against sexual minorities. For each frame, participants are randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a neutral control condition, a treatment condition where they are exposed to an identitarian whataboutery argument, or a treatment condition where they are exposed to a traditional, materialist whataboutery argument. We examine the effects of our treatments on attitudes towards humanitarian intervention, support for the universality of human rights, and evaluations of the US’ human rights record. Our findings have important implications for our understanding of identity politics, authoritarianism, and human rights advocacy.