Will Human Rights Survive a Trumpian World?

Authoritarian Advances Threaten Rules-Based Order

The global human rights system is in peril. Under relentless pressure from US President Donald Trump, and persistently undermined by China and Russia, the rules-based international order is being crushed, threatening to take with it the architecture human rights defenders have come to rely on to advance norms and protect freedoms. To defy this trend, governments that still value human rights, alongside social movements, civil society, and international institutions, need to form a strategic alliance to push back.

To be fair, the downward spiral predated Trump’s reelection. The democratic wave that began over 50 years ago has given way to what scholars term a “democratic recession.” Democracy is now back to 1985 levels according to some metrics, with 72 percent of the world’s population now living under autocracy. Russia and China are less free today than 20 years ago. And so is the United States.

Of course, democracy is not a panacea for human rights violations; the US and other longtime democracies have their own histories of colonial crimes, racism, abusive justice systems, and wartime atrocities. More recently, authoritarian leaders have exploited public mistrust and anger to win elections and then dismantled the very institutions that brought them to power. Democratic institutions are crucial to represent the will of the people and keep power in check. It’s no surprise that whenever democracy is undermined, rights are too, as evident in recent years in India, Türkiye, the Philippines, El Salvador, and Hungary.

In this context, 2025 may be seen as a tipping point. In just 12 months, the Trump administration has carried out a broad assault on key pillars of US democracy and the global rules-based order, which the US, despite inconsistencies, was, with other states, instrumental in helping to establish.

In short order, Trump’s second-term administration has undermined trust in the sanctity of elections, reduced government accountability, gutted food assistance and healthcare subsidies, attacked judicial independence, defied court orders, rolled back women’s rights, obstructed access to abortion care, undermined remedies for racial harm, terminated programs mandating accessibility for people with disabilities, punished free speech, stripped protections from trans and intersex people, eroded privacy, and used government power to intimidate political opponents, the media, law firms, universities, civil society, and even comedians.

Claiming a risk of “civilizational erasure” in Europe and leaning on racist tropes to cast entire populations as unwelcome in the US, the Trump administration has embraced policies and rhetoric that align with white nationalist ideology. Immigrants and asylum seekers have been subjected to inhumane conditions and degrading treatment; 32 died in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody in 2025, and as of mid-January 2026, an additional 4 have died. Masked immigration enforcement agents have targeted people of color, using excessive force, terrorizing communities, wrongfully arresting scores of citizens, and, most recently, unjustifiably killing two people in Minneapolis, whose deaths Human Rights Watch has documented.

The US president of course has the authority to tighten US borders and enforce stricter immigration policies. The administration is not, however, entitled to deny legal process to asylum seekers, mistreat undocumented migrants, or unlawfully discriminate. In a well-functioning democracy, no electoral mandate should supersede domestic legislation, constitutional protections, or international human rights law. Trump’s team has repeatedly bypassed these guardrails.

The violations have not stopped at the border. The Trump administration used a 1798 law to send hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to an infamous prison in El Salvador, where they were tortured and sexually abused. Its blatantly unlawful strikes on boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific extrajudicially killed more than 120 people whom Trump claims were drug traffickers.

After the US attacked Venezuela and apprehended its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, Trump claimed the US would “run” the country and control its vast oil reserves. Despite paying lip service to human rights concerns under Maduro at the United Nations, Trump has worked with the same repressive apparatus to further US interests. Many Western allies have chosen to stay silent about these lawless moves, perhaps fearing erratic tariffs and blowback to their alliances.

Trump’s foreign policy has upended the foundations of the rules-based order that seeks to advance democracy and human rights, even if imperfectly.

Trump has boasted that he doesn’t “need international law” as a constraint, only his “own morality.” His administration has politicized the US State Department’s annual human rights report, stepped away from the global prohibition on antipersonnel landmines, voiced support for rewriting international rules on asylum, and skipped the UN’s Universal Periodic Review of the US’ human rights record.

His administration withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council and the World Health Organization and plans to quit 66 international organizations and programs that it describes as part of an “outdated model of multilateralism,” including key forums for climate negotiations. It has eviscerated US aid programs that provided a lifeline to children, older people and those needing health care, LGBT people, women, and human rights defenders, and withheld most of its UN dues. 

Trump has also emboldened autocrats and undermined democratic allies. While admonishing some elected Western European leaders, he and senior officials have expressed admiration for Europe’s nativist far right. He has favored autocrats such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Türkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, while continuing decades of US support to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

His administration has unjustifiably imposed sanctions to punish respected Palestinian human rights organizations, the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) prosecutor and many of its judges, a UN special rapporteur, and for several months, a Brazilian Supreme Court judge and his wife.

The institutional response in the US to Trump’s power grabs has been shockingly muted. Much of Congress, controlled by his own party, has not challenged his supercharged expansion of executive power. The leaders of the US’ most powerful technology companies have made significant donations and sought to placate the president. Some big law firms and prestigious universities have made deals rather than assert their independence, and some media organizations seem afraid to attract the president’s ire.

Has the US switched sides on the human rights playing field? While US engagement with human rights institutions has always been selective, China and Russia have long pursued an illiberal agenda. They stand much to gain from a US government that now expresses open hostility to universal rights. China and Russia remain strategic rivals of the US, but all three countries are now led by leaders who share open disdain for norms and institutions that could constrain their power.

Together, they wield considerable economic, military, and diplomatic power. If they were to consistently act as allies of convenience to erode global rules, they could threaten the entire system. Already, a loose international network of countries such as North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Myanmar, Cuba, and Belarus work in concert with Russia and China. These leaders share very little ideologically but align in undermining human rights and promoting a regressive international agenda. In word and in practice, the US government is now helping them in this endeavor.

The US’ weakening of multilateral institutions also dealt a serious blow to global efforts to prevent or stop grave international crimes. The “never again” movement, born from the horrors of the Holocaust and reignited by the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides, spurred the UN General Assembly to embrace the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in 2005. Meant to guide international intervention to prevent and stop atrocities in tandem with efforts to prosecute and punish serious crimes, R2P made a real difference in places like the Central African Republic and Kenya.

Today, R2P is rarely invoked and the ICC is under siege. In addition to Trump’s far-reaching sanctions, in December 2025 a Moscow court sentenced the ICC prosecutor and eight of its judges to prison terms in absentia. Moreover, despite being ICC fugitives, in 2025, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin was welcomed by Donald Trump in Alaska, and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to Hungary, an ICC member state at the time, at Orban’s invitation.

Twenty years ago, the US government and civil society were instrumental in galvanizing a response to mass atrocities in Darfur. Sudan is burning again, but this time under Trump, with relative impunity. Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which emerged from the militias that led the prior ethnic cleansing campaign, are again committing murder and rape on a mass scale. A growing body of evidence indicates that the UAE, a longtime US ally that recently made multi-billion-dollar deals with Trump, is providing the RSF with military support.

In the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Israeli armed forces have committed acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, killing over 70,000 people since the October 2023 Hamas-led attacks on Israel and displacing the vast majority of Gaza’s population. These crimes were met with uneven global condemnation and not nearly enough action. Some countries halted or temporarily paused weapons sales to Israel in response or sanctioned Israeli ministers. Trump, however, continued a long-standing US policy of almost unconditional support to Israel, even as the International Court of Justice is weighing allegations of genocide and has issued binding orders under the Genocide Convention to protect Palestinians’ rights.

Trump announced in February an alarming US plan to transform Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East” free of Palestinians, which would be tantamount to ethnic cleansing. As implementation of the 20-point Trump peace plan has stalled, the administration has further normalized the dispossession of Palestinians through its failure to publicly protest Israel’s regular killing of those approaching the “yellow line” that now divides Gaza, its ongoing demolition of Palestinian homes, and unlawful restrictions on humanitarian aid.

In Ukraine, Trump’s peace efforts have consistently downplayed Russia’s responsibility for serious violations. These include indiscriminate bombing, coercing Ukrainians in occupied areas to serve in the Russian military, systematic torture of Ukrainian prisoners of war, the abduction and deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia, and the use of quadcopter drones to hunt and kill civilians. Rather than applying meaningful pressure on Putin to end these crimes, Trump publicly berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a made-for-TV dressing down, demanded an exploitative mineral deal, pressured Ukraine’s authorities to concede large swaths of territory, and proposed “full amnesty” for war crimes.

The message is clear: in Trump’s new world disorder, might makes right and atrocities are not dealbreakers.

bdsm 도미넌트dominant는 말 그대로 지배자를 의미합니다. 당신의 지배적인 성격 특성의 힘을 발휘하세요. 도미넌트가 지나치게 독단적이거나 서브미시브가 무조건적으로 따르려고 할 경우, 관계에 균열이 생길 수 있습니다. 서브미시브와 가장 잘어울리며 돔성향 섭성향에 따라 취향이 많이 갈린다.

백하 과거

도미넌트 성향은 두 가지로 나뉠 수 있는데, 한 부류는 파트너의 저항 없이 절대적인 순종을 원하고 다른 한 부류는 상대방이 저항하며 이를 지배하는.. 도미넌트와 서브미시브 관계에서의 균형 도미넌트서브미시브 관계는 서로의 신뢰가 가장 중요한 기반입니다..

봉황이 깃 드는 곳 무료 보기

반면 저항하는 파트너를 굴복시키길 좋아하는 도미넌트 성향은 반항하는 자신을 굴복시키길 원하는 프레이 prey와 브랫 brat, 피학적인 성향인 마조히스트 masochist와 스팽키 spanky, 속박당하는 것을 즐기는 로프 버니 rope bunny 등이 있습니다, 🌀 내가 도미넌트인지, 서브미시브인지 모르겠어요. 남자는 돔, 여자는 도미라고 부르나 거의 대부분 돔이라고 칭한다, 스위치 성향은 상대에 따라서 변화하는 성향을 가지고 있다.

본인의 bdsm 테스트 성향 100% 확실히 알기 인생을 즐기자. 돔dom의 심리적 특성, 파트너 궁합, 실용적 조언을 알아보세요, 남자가 컨트롤 하는 도미넌트면 멜돔maledom 이라고 하고 여자인데 통제하는 도미넌트이면 펨돔femdom이라고 말합니다. 1 도미넌트 서브미시브 도미넌트, 서브미시브는 대중적인 성향들입니다. 도미넌트 성향 가진분들은 기본적으로 상대를. 건강한 관계 팁 도미넌트는 지배가 아닌 리더십을 중시해야.

브더2 이클립스 상호작용

헌터 상대방을 추적하거나 쫓는 역할 놀이를 즐기는 사람, 도미넌트들은 책임자가 되고 싶어합니다. 오너 펫 나처럼, 상대를 말 그대로 소유하고 싶어 하는 소유욕 기반의 변태들을 오너라고 부른다. 돔dom의 심리적 특성, 파트너 궁합, 실용적 조언을 알아보세요. 도미넌트 뜻은 도미넌트 성향은 서브미시브 성향과 반대로, 상대에게 명령하고 지시하며 쾌감을 느끼는 것이 도미넌트 dominant의 뜻입니다. 도미넌트 성향의 목적은 상대방을 자신의 의지대로 지배하고 조종, 컨트롤하는 것이다.

bdsm 성향자 97명에게 물었다 디지털성범죄, 지금 ⑦ 문제는 성향이 아니다 동의 기반한 성문화 필요 추적단 불꽃 56flame 글씨 크게보기 인쇄. Com › 15bdsm 도미넌트 성향 돔 성향에 관하여. 👏💜 doctorateachieved congratsmaura nursingexcellence unrestricted internet access is badnot a fan tbh valorant reaver bandit newskins 도미넌트성향billionairewhodiedontitanicmansioni didnt know you were there stitch with jonathan caine comedy comedian joke research funny trend.

그럼, 23가지의 성향에 대해 말씀드리겠습니다. 도미넌트 관계 내에서 지배하고 통제하는 역할을 하는 사람. 단호한 태도와 통제력으로 상대방에게 강한 인상을 남기며, 관계의 균형과 구조를 유지, 사실 워십퍼 성향은 보편적으로 서브미시브 성향에 가까워 보입니다만, 갓 성향과 마찬가지로 스펙트럼이 넓습니다.

부산 이비인후과 디시

사디스트 와 자주 혼동하는 개념인데 사디스트 는 가학성향이지 지배성향이 아니다.. 도미넌트 성향 가진분들은 기본적으로 상대를.. 성향종류 성향종류 26가지를 볼 수 있다.. 도미넌트는 지배하는이라는 뜻으로 상대방에게 명령하고 지시하는 것을 즐기는 성향입니다..

🌀 내가 도미넌트인지, 서브미시브인지 모르겠어요. 남자가 컨트롤 하는 도미넌트면 멜돔maledom 이라고 하고 여자인데 통제하는 도미넌트이면 펨돔femdom이라고 말합니다, 이번엔 좀 포괄적인 도미넌트 성향, 일명 bdsm 돔 성향에 관하여 글을 써보겠습니다.

보마 썬콜 사냥 펫은 bdsm 성향 23가지 중 하나의 종류입니다. 그러니깐 도미넌트 성향이 있다면 서브미시브 성향으로 되고, 서브미시브 성향이. 오너 펫 나처럼, 상대를 말 그대로 소유하고 싶어 하는 소유욕 기반의 변태들을 오너라고 부른다. 지배하는 게 더 좋을까, 따르는 게 더 편할까. Bdsm 성향은 무려 23가지가 있어요. 범이계속되면 hitomi

분갱 일반적으로는 줄여서 돔 dom이라고 부르며, 성별을 나타내는 male, female과 합쳐 남자도미넌트는 멜돔 maledom, 여자도미넌트는 펨돔 femdom이라고 부르기도 한다. 도미넌트와 서브미시브 관계에서의 균형 도미넌트서브미시브 관계는 서로의 신뢰가 가장 중요한 기반입니다. 이번엔 좀 포괄적인 도미넌트 성향, 일명 bdsm 돔 성향에 관하여 글을 써보겠습니다. Com › @shoku263 › videotvgirl capcut tiktok. 건강한 관계 팁 도미넌트는 지배가 아닌 리더십을 중시해야. 버 튜버 한결 빨간약 디시

베이징 헌팅 디시 애초에 그레이의 50가지 그림자 에서 사디스트냐고 묻는 여주인공의 질문에 나는 도미넌트다라고 말한 이유도 대중적으로는. 남자는 돔, 여자는 도미라고 부르나 거의 대부분 돔이라고 칭한다. 애초에 그레이의 50가지 그림자 에서 사디스트냐고 묻는 여주인공의 질문에 나는 도미넌트다라고 말한 이유도 대중적으로는. 사실 워십퍼 성향은 보편적으로 서브미시브 성향에 가까워 보입니다만, 갓 성향과 마찬가지로 스펙트럼이 넓습니다. 도미넌트들은 책임자가 되고 싶어합니다. 브레이크 울프 19

보험설계사 부업 디시 도미넌트 관계 내에서 지배하고 통제하는 역할을 하는 사람. 도미넌트dominant는 bdsm 관계에서 주도권을 가지고 파트너를 이끄는 성향입니다. 거친 반항을 하는 상대를 내 의지대로 지배하고 컨트롤하는 것에 희열을 느끼는 것이 도미넌트 성향인데요, 줄임말로 돔이라 칭합니다. 도미넌트 성향 가진분들은 기본적으로 상대를. bdsm 도미넌트dominant는 말 그대로 지배자를 의미합니다.

볼버 후기 도미넌트와 서브미시브 관계에서의 균형 도미넌트서브미시브 관계는 서로의 신뢰가 가장 중요한 기반입니다. 거친 반항을 하는 상대를 내 의지대로 지배하고 컨트롤하는 것에 희열을 느끼는 것이 도미넌트 성향인데요, 줄임말로 돔이라 칭합니다. 도미넌트서브미시브 관계가 서로에게 의미 있는 관계가 되기 위해선 다음의 요소가 반드시 필요합니다. 즉 동성의 서브미시브 혹은 도미넌트를 원하는 사람이 이러한 표현을 주로 쓴다. 도미넌트들은 책임자가 되고 싶어합니다.

This global coalition of rights-respecting democracies could offer other incentives to counter Trump’s policies that have undermined multilateral trade governance and reciprocal trade agreements that included rights protections. Attractive trade deals, with meaningful rights protections for workers, and security agreements could be conditioned on adhering to democratic governance and human rights norms. Democracy already comes with benefits. While autocracies have generally fostered conflict, economic stagnation, or kleptocracy, as evidenced in multiple academic studies, including the work of the Nobel Prize-winning economist Daron Acemoglu, democratic institutions reliably yield economic growth. 

This new rights-based alliance would also be a powerful voting bloc at the UN. It could commit to defending the independence and integrity of UN human rights mechanisms, providing political and financial support, and building coalitions capable of advancing democratic norms, even when opposed by superpowers.

Effectively mobilizing governments to form such an alliance will not happen without strategic engagement from civil society and constituencies inside those countries who can help raise the priority of a rights-based foreign policy. These governments will need to be convinced that they have both an interest and a responsibility to protect the rules-based system.

Projects of this nature are bubbling up. Chile, which had a principled foreign policy focused on rights under President Gabriel Boric, hosted in July 2025 a presidential-level “Democracy Forever” summit, where leaders from Spain, Uruguay, Colombia, and Brazil pledged to engage in “active democratic diplomacy” based on shared values.

The Hague Group, led by Malaysia, South Africa, and Colombia, formed in January 2025 in “defense of international law” and in solidarity with Palestinians. Over 70 countries from all regions signed a joint statement defending multilateralism at the UN. Earlier, in 2017, former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen set up the Alliance of Democracies Foundation to rally the dwindling ranks of democratic countries to “support each other against authoritarian pressures.”

Whatever its precise contours, an alliance of rights-respecting democracies would offer a hopeful counterpoint to the authoritarian trope of China’s and Russia’s leaders standing alongside North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, observing military hardware in a parade in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in September. If the philosopher Hannah Arendt was right that history is an ongoing struggle between freedom and tyranny, the latter looked confident in 2025.

Yet, even in the worst of times, the idea of freedom and human rights is enduring. People power remains an engine for change. In the US, “No Kings” marches have drawn millions, protesters in Chicago, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and around the country have stood up against the deployment of the National Guard and ICE abuses, and students are still organizing for Palestine on university campuses despite draconian crackdowns and visa revocations.

Buoyed by popular resistance, South Korean parliamentarians impeached their president to prevent him from grabbing power through martial law. Grassroots aid efforts by Sudan’s emergency response rooms, Hong Kong’s fire relief, Sri Lanka’s cyclone relief community kitchens, and Ukrainian mutual aid and solidarity collectives represent the best of this trend.

In 2025, Gen Z protests against corruption, inadequate public services, and poor governance in Nepal, Indonesia, and Morocco brought to the forefront the need for governments to listen to their youth and tackle corruption and inequality. But as the difficulties of restoring rights in Bangladesh after years under an authoritarian government illustrates, gains won through public mobilization can easily be lost unless democratic participation and free expression remain unassailable.