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.

M자 모발이식 생각하고 있는데 글 한번만 봐주라ㅠ 탈모 갤러리 설정 new 연관 글쓰기 차단 설정 머리말∙꼬리말 설정 ai 이미지 간편 등록new m자 모발이식 생각하고 있는데 글 한번만 봐주라ㅠ 탈갤러 211. 특히 백열등 아래에서 그지랄하면 안그래도 옆머리는 얇아서 다 비춰보이기 때문에 훨씬 심각하게 보인다. 하지만 과거 사진과 비교하였을 때 m자가 심해졌다면 m자 탈모를 의심해 볼 수 있습니다. 이렇게 선천적으로 m자가 깊을수가있냐.

그록 계정 삭제

Fuck탈모 선천적 m자인가요 m자 탈모인가요 대다모.. 절대 자연스럽게 안되고 윗머리 길러서 커버쳐야됨.. 원래 m자 이마이긴 했는데 나이가 들수록 점점 더 심해져서 모발이식 결심하고 받았어요그동안 탈모약도 처방 받아서 먹고 엑소좀도 여러 번 받았는데 효과가 없는 건.. Com › board › view선천적 m자 ㅁㅌㅊ..

M자라인이 깊음 성인되고서 눈치채고 진짜 탈모인가싶어서 달마다 한번씩 12번 이마라인을 찍어봤거든.. Com › qna › dirs선천적 m자 인가요.. Com › board › alopecia선천적 m자이마로 속 썩히는 새끼들 꼭봐라 그림 그려왔다 ㅅㅂ 탈모..

기룡이 온리팬스

Com › board › longhair선천적 m자 이마인경우 앞머리 안까는게 좋으려나여 장발 마이너 갤. 선천적 m자 이마와 m자 탈모 구분법은 ㅇㅇ121, 라인이 일정하고 m자 라인의 색이 동일하게 가잖어. 확인부탁드립니다 답변 어릴 때부터 이마 헤어라인이 뒤쪽에 있고 m자 모양이었다면, 이는 선천적 m자형 헤어라인일 가능성이 있습니다.

김도아 치어리더 과거

적어도 한 중딩때부터 앞머리 구석이 비는 느낌이 있었는데 이거 m자 탈모냐. 02 22 디시앱 설치 전체리스트 로그인 회사소개 광고안내 이용약관 개인정보. 본인 지금 군대갈려고 머리 다 밀었는데 m자가 ㅈㄴ심하다 원래 머리 내리고다녀서 이렇게 심한지 몰랐는데, 5 외톨이허접오타쿠어쩌구 여행기 엘긴 스페이사이드 시리즈 ㅇㅅㅇ 외톨이 허접 오타쿠 찐다의 스코틀 여행기 프롤로그 1 외톨이허접오타쿠어쩌구 여행기 인버네스 2 외톨이허접오타쿠어쩌구 여행기 클넬 브로라 3 외톨이허접오타쿠. 하지만 과거 사진과 비교하였을 때 m자가 심해졌다면 m자 탈모를 의심해 볼 수 있습니다.

기룡이 nft 어렸을 때부터 m자였다면 선천적인 m자일 확률이 높습니다. 질문 ️ 선천적 m자 이마인경우 앞머리 안까는게 좋으려나여 장애인 211. 확인부탁드립니다 답변 어릴 때부터 이마 헤어라인이 뒤쪽에 있고 m자 모양이었다면, 이는 선천적 m자형 헤어라인일 가능성이 있습니다. 본인 선천적엠자인데 약도안먹는데 엠자에 갑자기 머리카락. Com › board › view선천적 m자인줄 알았는데 나 이거 탈모임. 김기방 콩콩 팡팡 디시

그록아카 평소에 관심없다가 이마를 보게됐는데 양쪽이 들어가서 그 전에도 그랬던건지 아닌지도 모르겠네요. Com › board › view선천적 m자 어케 못하냐 탈모 갤러리. Com › board › view선천적 m자 어케 못하냐 탈모 갤러리. 이렇게 선천적으로 m자가 깊을수가있냐. 본인 선천적엠자인데 약도안먹는데 엠자에 갑자기 머리카락. 귀칼 오줌

길거리 품번 선천적 m자 어케 못하냐 ㅇㅇ118. Com › story › 1761453fuck탈모 선천적 m자인가요 m자 탈모인가요 대한민국 1등 탈모 커. 25이고 어릴때부터 헤어라인 m자라엄마한테 물려받음 탈모가 아니라 원래 헤어라인이 선천적으로 이러구나 하고 살았는데 어제 머리까보니까 헤어라인에 잔털이 너무 많음 검색해보니 연모화. Com › board › view선천적 m자 ㅁㅌㅊ. 적어도 한 중딩때부터 앞머리 구석이 비는 느낌이 있었는데 이거 m자 탈모냐. 김동윤 dick

김도기 나이 질문 ️ 선천적 m자 이마인경우 앞머리 안까는게 좋으려나여 장애인211. 니같이 저주받은 선천적 m자 뚝배기를 가진 새끼가 그지랄을 하면 옆머리랑 앞머리랑 같이 딸려들어가면서 훨씬더 비어보인다. 진짜 탈모인가싶어서 달마다 한번씩 12번 이마라인을 찍어봤거든. 선천적 m자 이마와 m자 탈모 구분법은 ㅇㅇ121. Com › board › alopecia선천적 m자이마로 속 썩히는 새끼들 꼭봐라 그림 그려왔다 ㅅㅂ 탈모.

귀칼 이명 뜻 선천적 m자 어케 못하냐 ㅇㅇ118. 진짜 탈모인가싶어서 달마다 한번씩 12번 이마라인을 찍어봤거든. M자라인이 깊음 성인되고서 눈치채고 진짜 탈모인가싶어서 달마다 한번씩 12번 이마라인을 찍어봤거든. 모든 체위가 다 그렇지만, 기승위는 개개인에 따라 편차가 있을 수 있다. 어렷을때부터 선천적인 엠자 이마 였는데 2달전까지만 해도 머리카락아예없는 엠자부분이 최근에 확인하니까 엠자부분에 머리카.

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.