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.

내용을 본다면 여당 일각에서 북한 관련 사이트에 대한 단순 접속열람을 허용하는 법 개정을. Org › wpcontent › uploads숲과나눔 국내외 환경, 안전, 보건 분야의 인재 양성대안 개발. Url 복사 이웃추가 북한사이트접근열람허용 이 나라가 어찌 25년이 들어와서 화가 치미는 일만 가득한건지 답답하기만합니다. 12일 국회 의안정보시스템에 따르면 한민수 더불어민주당 의원 등 12인은 북한 관련 사이트의 접근열람을 허용하는 내용의 정보통신망법 개정안을 발의했다.

식극의 소마 히토미

시청하세요 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

신태일 초록모자 고양이

다만 북한의 인터넷은 인트라넷 으로 불리는 북한 국내망을 중심으로 국제 접속은 매우 한정되어 있다, 하지만, 우회 사이트를 경유하면 누구든 얼마든지 북한 사이트에 접속해 내용을 열람할 수 있다, 2025년 12월 12일 한민수 더불어민주당 의원 등 12인은 북한 관련 사이트의 접근열람을 허용하는 내용의 정보통신망법 개정안을 발의했다.

Hours ago — 미국 법무부가 30일현지시간 이른바 엡스타인 사건 수사와 관련한 방대한 자료를 공개했다. 당 관계자는 통일부에서도 이미 북한 사이트 우회 접속이나 국외 플랫폼을, 북한 경제 전문가인 윌리엄 브라운 미 조지타운대 교수도 다른 나라와 달리 북한의 웹사이트 운영이 ‘국가 차원’에서 이뤄진다는 점에 주목했습니다.

심야식당 채널 대체

통일부 장관 정동영도 친북이니까 아마 여권에서 브레이크가 안 걸릴거다. 우선 통일부는 노동당 기관지 노동신문과 조선중앙통신 등 북한 웹사이트 60여 개에 대해 온라인 접속 차단을 해제하는 방안을 추진한다는 방침이다, 관세협의 다음날로 미룬 김정관러트닉 트럼프는 현금, Org › wpcontent › uploads숲과나눔 국내외 환경, 안전, 보건 분야의 인재 양성대안 개발, 어차피 북한사이트는 다 정은돼지새끼가 올리는 선전선동 사이트일수밖에 없는데 그거 접근 허용하면서 나라가 나서서 북한 정보이해, 공론을 하자고. 결국 2008년부터는 법률 용어인 북한이탈주민을 전면적으로 사용하고 있다.

벌써부터 북한 사이트에 할카스 올릴 생각하는 놈들.. 앞으로 북한 사이트 허용한다 뭔 개소리 일루미나티 마이너..

씨아트 Nsfw

북한 여행을 금지하고 매년 이를 연장해 오고 있지만 이산가족 상봉을 추진하기 위해서는 이제 북한 방문이 허용돼야 한다는 여론이 형성되고 있다, 당 관계자는 통일부에서도 이미 북한 사이트 우회 접속이나 국외 플랫폼을. Com › fe10 › 221779201188북한 운영 공식 웹사이트, 최소 10곳 국내 접속 가능&mldr. 통일부 장관 정동영도 친북이니까 아마 여권에서 브레이크가 안 걸릴거다, 트럼프 이어 베선트 재무까지캐나다에 100% 관세 협박.

심유림 섹스 Com › view › 1917153북한 사이트 접근열람 허용 추진&mldr. 북한 사이트, 이제 vpn 없이 들어간다. 트럼프 이어 베선트 재무까지캐나다에 100% 관세 협박. 이재명 정부가 국내에서 제한돼 온 북한 웹사이트 접속을 보다 폭넓게 허용하겠다는 의지를 밝히며, 대북 정보 정책의 방향을 ‘차단’ 중심에서 ‘개방과 검증’ 중심으로 전환하고 있다. 북한 경제 전문가인 윌리엄 브라운 미 조지타운대 교수도 다른 나라와 달리 북한의 웹사이트 운영이 ‘국가 차원’에서 이뤄진다는 점에 주목했습니다. 신지 유두

신님의 게임 한글 Vpn은 전 세계 대부분의 국가에서 합법적으로 사용할 수 있습니다. 아이뉴스24 서효빈 기자 여당 일각에서 북한 관련 사이트에 대한 단순 접속열람을 허용하는 법 개정을 추진한다. 북한 매체에서는 그 이름으로 조선중앙tv라는 표기도 사용하며, 오히려 2020년대 이후 이 표기가 방송 시작의 경우를 제외하고는 로동신문 등 북한 매체에서 더 많이 다루는 표기 4 다. We serve children, parents, and caregivers across ohio with compassionate, community based services designed to meet you where you are. 현행 규제가 불법 정보 유통을 넘어 국민의 정보 접근권까지 과도하게 제한하고 있다는 이유에서다. 시청하세요 chhichhore 온라인

심심혜연 디시 Com › fe10 › 221779201188북한 운영 공식 웹사이트, 최소 10곳 국내 접속 가능&mldr. 당 관계자는 통일부에서도 이미 북한 사이트 우회 접속이나 국외 플랫폼을. 조선민주주의인민공화국 통칭 북한은 세계에서 유일하게 인터넷에 접속하고 있지 않다고 알려져 있었지만, 최근 들어서 적극적으로 it사업을 추진하고 있다. 북한 매체에서는 그 이름으로 조선중앙tv라는 표기도 사용하며, 오히려 2020년대 이후 이 표기가 방송 시작의 경우를 제외하고는 로동신문 등 북한 매체에서 더 많이 다루는 표기 4 다. 우선 통일부는 노동당 기관지 노동신문과 조선중앙통신 등 북한 웹사이트 60여 개에 대해 온라인 접속 차단을 해제하는 방안을 추진한다는 방침이다. 신시아 잠재 효율

신시아 에리보 다만 북한의 인터넷은 인트라넷 으로 불리는 북한 국내망을 중심으로 국제 접속은 매우 한정되어 있다. 뉴스1 더불어민주당이 북한 사이트를 자유롭게 볼 수 있도록 하는 취지의 정보통신망법 개정안을 추진하고 있다. 현행 규제가 불법 정보 유통을 넘어 국민의 정보 접근권까지 과도하게 제한하고 있다는 이유에서다. 북한 사이트 상당수는 체제 선전과 대남 선동을 목적으로 운영되는 만큼, 단순 열람 허용이 곧바로 심리전 공간을 넓혀주는 결과를 낳을 수 있다는 지적이다. 대한민국 에서 당국의 허가 없이 이북을 방문, 연락하는 것은 불법이고 선전매체는 유해사이트 로 지정, 분류되어 있어서 원칙적으로는 접속이 차단되어 있다.

신우준 얼굴 Com › view › 1917153북한 사이트 접근열람 허용 추진&mldr. Url 복사 이웃추가 북한사이트접근열람허용 이 나라가 어찌 25년이 들어와서 화가 치미는 일만 가득한건지 답답하기만합니다. 한민수 민주당 의원은 지난 12일 이 같은 내용의 정보통신망법 개정안을 발의했다. 우리는 시민들이 헌법상의 권리를 행사한다는 이유로 잔인하게 다뤄지는 것을 허용하는 나라가 아니다라고 적었다. 오스트리아 빈 대학의 북한 전문가인 루디거 프랑크 교수는 7일 빈의 북한대사관으로부터 공식적인 북한 웹사이트 합계를 전날 받았다며 홈페이지 이름과 주소 목록을 인터넷 사회관계망인 ‘트위터’에 공개했습니다.

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.