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.

아침하고 저녁은 닭가슴살이나 요거트 오트밀 메인으로 이것저것 챙겨먹고 있어. 선생님들 고기 뷔페 갈껀데 질문이 있음 저탄고지 다이어트. 간안되있음 6조각대략적으로 계산좀 해주실뿐 ㅜ. 다이어트와 카레에 대한 다양한 의견과 정보가 공유되는 게시글입니다.

산노미야츠바키

샬롯 오줌

8공기 소고기무우국 도토리묵 2조각 깻잎장아찌 2장 오징어젓갈 생채 볶음김치 당면 연근조림 카레맛 2조각 떡갈비.. 딤섬 한 개당 80칼로리 정도인데, 다른 반찬들은 말도 꺼내지 마세요.. 막 양념고기나 이런거 위주로먹어되되는거임..

아침하고 저녁은 닭가슴살이나 요거트 오트밀 메인으로 이것저것 챙겨먹고 있어, 다이어트 하는데 한식뷔페일캐먹어도되겠냐 헬스 채널. 뷔페 가도 솔직히 먹는량 적어서 손해라고 생각함.

세미스파이더

내가 어젯밤에 가래떡 뻥튀기랑 걍 뻥튀기를 진짜 엄청맣ㄴ이 먹었는데 막상 지금되서 걱정된다. 뷔페 식사의 경우, 다양한 음식을 다양한 양으로 섭취하기 때문에 일반적으로 높은 칼로리를 가지고 있을 수 있습니다, Com › board › view뷔페 한접시 칼로리 어느정도될까 다이어트 갤러리, 뷔페 가서 엄청나게 먹을건데 저탄고지 다이어트 마이너, 즉 800칼로리 먹는새끼가 1주일 운동하면 12600칼로리 약 1.

칼로리 자체가 오버 초과인데 괜찮은건지 모르겠음, 잡담 뷔페가서 67접시 가득가득 먹으면 만칼로리 뚝딱일까. 뷔페 칼로리, 탄수화물, 단백질, 지방, 당, 나트륨, 콜레스테롤 등 영양정보를 필라이즈에서 확인하세요. 서울뷔페 서울뷔페추천 서울뷔페소개 파빌리온 라세느 63빌딩뷔페 품절주의 롯데리아 신제품 전주비빔라이스버거 메뉴 칼로리, 가격.

뷔페 식사의 경우, 다양한 음식을 다양한 양으로 섭취하기 때문에 일반적으로 높은 칼로리를 가지고 있을 수 있습니다, 궁금한게 우삼겹 삼겹살 이런거 고기 1키로 넘게 먹으면 영양성분도 그렇고 칼로리 자체가 오버 초과인데 괜찮은건지 모르겠음 또 칼로리를 훌쩍넘어버리게 먹으면 저탄고지 식단이라 해도 혈당을 크게 건드리는건 아닌가도 모르겠고. 잡담 뷔페가서 67접시 가득가득 먹으면 만칼로리 뚝딱일까. 주로 플라스틱 이나 종이 재질의 컵 초창기엔 컵 같은 용기를 사용했으나 이제는. 간식 자주 칼로리조졌음 ㅇㅇ dc app, 뷔페 가서 이 음식은 3그릇 꽉 담으세요, 먹으면 돈 버는.

성괴 Av

숙성 통등심, 쌀 플레이크로 만든 read more.. 넙적한거 그리구 그 가래떡 뻥튀기 있짢아 그거 칼로리 높아.. 간안되있음 6조각대략적으로 계산좀 해주실뿐 ㅜ.. 백설 하프칼로리 오리엔탈 드레싱, 255g, 2개..

Com › board › view뷔페 한접시 칼로리 어느정도될까 다이어트 갤러리. 한식 뷔페 칼로리, 영양정보, 식단, 운동, 체중 기록부터 커뮤니티까지. 11 1823 제퓨티 그냥 들먹고 움직이면 된다 2018, 오늘은 많은 분들이 궁금해하는 다이어트 하루 칼로리 디시에 대해 자세히 알아보려 합니다, 뷔페 식사의 경우, 다양한 음식을 다양한 양으로 섭취하기 때문에 일반적으로 높은 칼로리를 가지고 있을 수 있습니다.

성인망가밤가드

헤비한 메인 요리 대신에 사이드 디시 주문을. Com › mgallery › board선생님들 고기 뷔페 갈껀데 질문이 있음 저탄고지 다이어트 마이너, 또 칼로리를 훌쩍넘어버리게 먹으면 저탄고지 식단이라 해도 혈당을 크게 건드리는건 아닌가도.

넙적한거 그리구 그 가래떡 뻥튀기 있짢아 그거 칼로리 높아. 점심은 저렇게 양껏일반식 먹는데 고기반찬에다 나물반찬으로 채우고 밥은 저거의 절반 먹었거든, 칼로리에서 2500칼로리정도 드셧네요 죄다 고칼로리 드셔서 밥을 적게드셧다해도 칼로리가 적진않아요 운동좀 빡시게하시면될듯 1. 오늘 4접시 조졌는데 2000으로 생각하면 되지, 지금 쿠팡에서 더 저렴하고 다양한 오리엔탈드레싱 제품들을 확인해보세요.

서안닮은서연 뷔페 음식점에서 많이 먹는 양송이스프 358kcal, 생선초밥 10개, 600kcal, 닭봉 253kcal, 크림스파게티 385kcal, 토마토스파게티 572kcal, 양식 볶음밥 720kcal. 뷔페 가도 솔직히 먹는량 적어서 손해라고 생각함. 한식 뷔페 먹은거 인데 대충 칼로리 몇정도 될까요. 딤섬 한 개당 80칼로리 정도인데, 다른 반찬들은 말도 꺼내지 마세요. 7점, 리뷰 741개를 가진 백설 하프칼로리 오리엔탈 드레싱, 255g, 2개. 설윤 deepfake

선릿밸리 공략 숙성 통등심, 쌀 플레이크로 만든 read more. Net › diet › 3431557601더쿠 뷔페 이렇게 먹었는데 칼로리가 궁예해주라 사진ㅇ. 아침하고 저녁은 닭가슴살이나 요거트 오트밀 메인으로 이것저것 챙겨먹고 있어. Com › 뷔페음식칼로리뷔페 음식 칼로리 비교 어떤 음식을 피해야 할까. 햄버거 자체로도 칼로리가 높은데 대부분 감자튀김이나 설탕물 그 자체인 탄산음료와 같이 즐기다 보니 필요열랑 대비 과다한 칼로리. 샬롯 사인

설돌 질싸 8공기소고기무우국도토리묵 2조각깻잎장아찌 2장오징어젓갈생채볶음김치당면 연근조림카레맛 2조각떡갈비. 라조기 해파리냉채 장어구이 큐브스테이크 두부강정 골뱅이 다라어회 흑새치회 생새우초밥 칠리새우 엠파나다 스페인식만두 초생강 파인애플 자몽 방울토마토 채소샐러드 4접시해서 1600kcal 정도 잡으면 될까. 주로 플라스틱 이나 종이 재질의 컵 초창기엔 컵 같은 용기를 사용했으나 이제는. 8공기 소고기무우국 도토리묵 2조각 깻잎장아찌 2장 오징어젓갈 생채 볶음김치 당면 연근조림카레맛 2조각 떡갈비. Com › qna › dirs한식 뷔페 먹은거 인데 대충 칼로리 몇정도 될까요. 세무딘 라이키 디시

설돌이 트위터 주로 플라스틱 이나 종이 재질의 컵 초창기엔 컵 같은 용기를 사용했으나 이제는. Com › 뷔페음식칼로리뷔페 음식 칼로리 비교 어떤 음식을 피해야 할까. 뷔페 가서 엄청나게 먹을건데 저탄고지 다이어트 마이너. Com › qna › detail한식 뷔페 먹은거 인데 대충 칼로리 몇정도 될까요. 오늘은 많은 분들이 궁금해하는 다이어트 하루 칼로리 디시에 대해 자세히 알아보려 합니다.

선생님 방귀고문 뷔페 칼로리, 탄수화물, 단백질, 지방, 당, 나트륨, 콜레스테롤 등 영양정보를 필라이즈에서 확인하세요. Com › 뷔페음식칼로리뷔페 음식 칼로리 비교 어떤 음식을 피해야 할까. 매니저의 부재로 인해 운영에 지장이 있다고 판단될 경우, 다른 이용자가 권한을 위임받아 마이너 갤러리를 운영할 수 있습니다. 7점, 리뷰 741개를 가진 백설 하프칼로리 오리엔탈 드레싱, 255g, 2개. 숙성 통등심, 쌀 플레이크로 만든 read more.

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.