역사 속의 인물 영국왕실의 `눈엣가시` 모하메드 알 파예드.

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.

영국 해러즈백화점의 전 소유주 모하메드 알파예드사진가 지난달 30일현지시간 94세를 일기로 별세했다고 언론들이 밝혔다. 영국의 억만장자 모하메드 알 파예드가 향년 94세로 별세했다. 내 아들은 살해 당했다2조 재산 남기고 떠난 억만장자 신정은의 글로벌富, 거리서 음료수 팔던 알 파예드, 英해로즈 백화점 오너까지 자수성가. 영국 무슬림 재벌 알 파예드의 한 많은 인생.

영국 해로즈 백화점의 전 소유주 모하메드 알파예드가 94세를 일기로 별세했다.

그는 종종 이렇게 보였어요 받아들여지기를 간절히 원하는 이방인.. 알 파예드는 1997년부터 2013년까지 프리미어리그 풀햄 풋볼클럽fc 구단주를 맡은 것으로도 명성을 얻었다.. 영국 해로즈 백화점의 주인이었으며 다이애나 왕세자비와 함께 자동차 사고로 세상을 떠난 도디의 부친인 모하메드 알 파예드가 지난달 30일현지.. 모하메드 알 파예드가 죽기 전에 넷플릭스 드라마 더 크라운..

英 해로즈 주인이었던 이집트 재벌 알 파예드, 다이애나 연인.

모하메드 알파예드 위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전, 다이애나 영국 왕세자빈과 함께 교통사고로 숨진 연인 도디. Kr › article › 202309021046001‘다이애나와 동반 피살’ 주장했던 당시 동승자 아버지 알파예드 별세. 英 왕실과 악연 억만장자 모하메드 알 파예드 별세 세계일보. 1일현지시간 bbc에 따르면 영국의 고급 백화점인 해로즈는 전 소유주인 모하메드 알파예드에게 성적 학대를 받은 피해자들이 정신과 전문의 진단을 받는.

The Crown을 보면서 모하메드 알 파예드가 어떻게 묘사되었는지 생각하게 됐어요.

모하메드 알 파예드가 죽기 전에 넷플릭스 드라마 더 크라운. 영국 해로즈 백화점의 전 소유주 모하메드 알 파예드가 94세를 일기로 별세했다. 한편, 알파예드는 거리의 음료 판매상이었다가 프랑스 파리 리츠호텔과 영국 해로즈백화점 소유주가 된 입지전적인 인물이다.

The crown에서 모하메드 알 파예드를 어떻게 보셨어요.. 역사 속의 인물 영국왕실의 `눈엣가시` 모하메드 알 파예드.. 사진reuters영국 고급 백화점 해로즈의 소유주였던 모하메드 알파예드가 생전 직원들을 상대로 성범죄를 저질렀다는 의혹을 받고도 기소를 피했다고 선데이타임스와 bbc 방송이 22일 현지시간 보도했다..

At the time of his death in 2023, forbes estimated his wealth. 영국 해러즈 백화점 회장과 잉글랜드 프리미어리그 epl 풀럼fc 구단주를 지낸 억만장자 모하메드 알 파예드가 94세를 일기로 별세한 사실이 뒤늦게 전해졌다. His residence and primary business interests were in the united kingdom from the mid1960s, and his business interests included ownership of the hôtel ritz paris, harrods department store and fulham football club. 그의 아들 도디 알파예드 는 다이애나 비와 연인 관계였으나, 1997년 파리 에서 교통사고로 함께 사망했다.

yumi_03 only 영국 해로즈 백화점 전 소유주, 알파예드 94세로 별세. the highprofile egyptian businessman lost his son dodi in the car crash that killed princess diana. 그는 시즌 6, 다이애나의 죽음과 함께 공개될 때 이미 사망했습니다. 다이애나 최후의 사진 공개음모론 입증 가능. 모하메드 알 파예드가 죽기 전에 넷플릭스 드라마 더 크라운. 「超人不会飞」09号露脸高颜值女主，极品浓

_www.xvideos,com_ 1일현지시간 bbc 등에 따르면 알파예드의 가족들은 이날 성명을 내고 지난달 30일 알파. 다이애나비 피살 주장했던 억만장자 사업가 알파예드 별세. 내 아들은 살해 당했다2조 재산 남기고 떠난 억만장자 신정은의 글로벌富, 거리서 음료수 팔던 알 파예드, 英해로즈 백화점 오너까지 자수성가. 누가 영국에는 인종 차별도 없고 종교 차별도 없다고 말하는가. 영국 해러즈백화점의 전 소유주 모하메드 알파예드사진가 지난달 30일현지시간 94세를 일기로 별세했다고 언론들이 밝혔다. リリーブロウ 博多 求人

ㅁㄹㅁ 귀칼 영국 해로즈 백화점의 주인이었으며 다이애나 왕세자비와 함께 자동차 사고로 세상을 떠난 도디의 부친인 모하메드 알 파예드가 지난달 30일현지. 31일 bbc 방송 등에 따르면 해로즈는 이날 발표한 배상 계획에서. 英 백화점 소유주의 성폭행, 결말은 전자신. 영국 무슬림 재벌 알 파예드의 한 많은 인생. ‎모하메드 알 파예드의 영화 및 프로그램. レンガ特典 日南 動画

ツイハブ3日 다이애나와 동반 피살 주장했던 당시 동승자 아버지 알. Kr › article › 202309021046001‘다이애나와 동반 피살’ 주장했던 당시 동승자 아버지 알파예드 별세. Bbc 방송은 19일현지시간 모하메드 알파예드가 영국의 고급 백화점 해로즈를. 영국 해러즈백화점의 전 소유주 모하메드 알파예드사진가 지난달 30일현지시간 94세를 일기로 별세했다고 언론들이 밝혔다. 누가 영국에는 인종 차별도 없고 종교 차별도 없다고 말하는가.

【健全店_腸もみサロン】癒し系セラピストの巧みなマッサージからの明らかな手コキによって誤爆。10 Mohamed abdel moneim alfayeda ælˈfaɪ. He also was known for his clashes with the british establishment, which escalated after his son dodi and diana, princess of wales, were killed. 英 왕실과 악연 억만장자 모하메드 알 파예드 별세 세계일보. ‎모하메드 알 파예드의 영화 및 프로그램. At the time of his death in 2023, forbes estimated his wealth.

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.