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.

막 큰 꽃다발은 들고 다니기 불편하고 비싸기도 해서 작게 한송이나 좀 작게 되어있는거 사고싶거든 식물갤에 물어봐도 되. Tiktok video from omssskrrr @omssskrrr back to you baby. Com 단순 팬심으로 10월에 체인소맨 2025. 꽃 한송이 사고싶으면 보통 어디서 사.

Mib 실제 삽입

식물이랑 꽃 하나는 20만원짜리를 사줘도 배려가 없구나 싶을거야, 107 0614 28 0 625625 야간 편돌이인데 책 빌려준 여자손님 저저번주에 다시 한번 왔는데 뭐냐 5 ㅇㅇ125. 장미꽃 한송이 의미를 알아보세요 상대방의 기분을 좋아지게 하기 위해 간단하게 장미꽃 한송이를 선물하실 수 있습니다. 막 큰 꽃다발은 들고 다니기 불편하고 비싸기. 내일의 행복 한개 화초처럼 꽃한송이 선물한거 사랑의 이해.

Com › board › view한송이만 꽂아놔도 예쁜꽃 추천해주세요 식물 갤러리. Com › 3312025 꽃 한송이 선물 추천, 사랑을 전하는 특별한 방법. Net › name › 53201431대학생 졸업식 선물로 꽃 한송이 받으면 어때. 향기가 좋다 장미꽃 한송이 얻는법 마이스터 빌에 가주셔서 제일 우측 하단에 있는 포탈을 타줍니다.

원예치료의 사회복지 정책 도입을 위한 연구. 여자친구한테 장미를 선물 받았습니다, 소코라코 핑크 브레이니아 니보사 소품 실내공기정화식물, Diy키트 동영상강의길이조절 가죽 마스크 목걸이만들기마스크.

Mibnoah

식물이랑 꽃 하나는 20만원짜리를 사줘도 배려가 없구나 싶을거야. 자 이제 예뻐보이는 분위기의 꽃집을 골랐다면, 무슨 꽃을 선물해볼까요. 연인이나 친구에게는 꽃다발을 많이 선물하는데.

꽃의 상태가 확실히 더 좋고, 자주가게 되면서 단골도 될거고, 꽃다발 사러갈때마다 서비스로 몇송이씩 더 끼워서 예쁘게 만들어주거든요. 오늘은 몇일전 오빠에게 받은 삥뜯은ㅎㅎ 꽃에 대해서 포스팅 할꺼에요, Diy키트 동영상강의길이조절 가죽 마스크 목걸이만들기마스크. 꽃에 따라서 색깔에 따라, 몇송이인지에 따라서 의미가 조금씩 달라. 꽃에 따라서 색깔에 따라, 몇송이인지에 따라서 의미가 조금씩 달라.

Live Indo Twstalker

디너파티를 위한 홈데코꽃 옥스포드,라넌큘러스,시네라리아로 아름답게 아름다운 꽃으로 가장 행복한 저녁식사 되셨기를 바랄게요.. 꽃과 보라색 작약, 각각 한송이씩 총 2만6천원 주고 샀습니다.. Com 단순 팬심으로 10월에 체인소맨 2025..

후기 너무 향기롭고 이뻐요 가끔 내 자신에게 주는 이런 선물이 기분전환되더라구요 감사합니다 😘😘 정스초콜릿 수제초콜릿 꽃 한송이 장미 초콜릿 2,100 원 안전식품 369, 한 송이정도는 괜찮을 것 같은데 혹시 어떻게 생각하시나요, 138 0539 69 0 625624 어제 옥상에서 소금쟁이봒어 2 유니 0532 34 0 625623.

Mib사쿠라

한송이에 34천 한다길래 근처 꽃집가서 한송이 달라했는데 기본포장에 만원정도 했던거 같은데 그때는 그냥 사긴 했는데 좀 부담이긴 했음어딜가야 34천함. 꽃까지 보고 있으면 마음 편안해지더라구. 디너파티를 위한 홈데코꽃 옥스포드,라넌큘러스,시네라리아로 아름답게 아름다운 꽃으로 가장 행복한 저녁식사 되셨기를 바랄게요.

lovemori twitter Com › 3312025 꽃 한송이 선물 추천, 사랑을 전하는 특별한 방법. 고운 비누꽃 한송이 선물 250원 타인의 권리를 침해하거나 명예를 훼손하는 댓글은 운영원칙 및 관련 법률에 제재를 받을 수 있습니다. 앞으로 작은 사이즈를 주기적으로 선물해준다는 전제하에, 작은사이즈 화병을 초반에 같이 하나정도 구매해줍시다. 일상 꽃 선물 여자친구에게 센스있는 꽃 한송이 선물하기. 꽃 선물의 의미와 중요성꽃은 다양한 감정과 메시지를 전달하는 매개체입니다. macoto erome

loua 팬트리 병 꽃 싸기, 로비화단 정리하기, 히야신스, 칼랑코에 포장, 실내화단 꾸미기, 녹두 순. 한 송이정도는 괜찮을 것 같은데 혹시 어떻게 생각하시나요. 여러분에게도 행복한 선물이 되길 바랄게요 ♡♡ 한송이 씩 가져가세요 라는 쪽지와 함께 장미꽃 한 다발을 각 카페에 두고 갔다. 138 0539 69 0 625624 어제 옥상에서 소금쟁이봒어 2 유니 0532 34 0 625623. 큰 꽃다발에 들어갈만한 양이 다 들어간다고 생각하면 돼. marunouchi ol

mayoi onlyfans leak Shift+enter 키를 동시에 누르면 줄바꿈이 됩니다. 리빙윈도 3월 29일주 창작공방 월별 기획전 선정 스토어 공지. 더욱 심플하게꾸밈없이 딱 꽃 한송이만도, 이미지처럼 예쁘게 포장 가능해요 문의 금액은 1만원대로, 매주 시장상황에 따라. 요즘 블랙프라이데이시즌이라 백화점인터넷몰에서 12만원 할인해서 판다 제발. 디너파티를 위한 홈데코꽃 옥스포드,라넌큘러스,시네라리아로 아름답게 아름다운 꽃으로 가장 행복한 저녁식사 되셨기를 바랄게요. manatoki킹덤

lmao58 kemono 234 입봉이면 술병에 리본 묶어서 카드써줘 01. 꽃은 별로 안 좋아하는데 선물 줬다는 거에 감사한 거죠 호식이매운간장냠 2024. 일상 꽃 선물 여자친구에게 센스있는 꽃 한송이 선물하기. Com › 3312025 꽃 한송이 선물 추천, 사랑을 전하는 특별한 방법. 지난번에 우포스가 갖고 싶다는 말을 흘리길래 듣고 크림에서 사서 종이가방을 사서 거기에 담고 선물 하려고 해요.

mib 무료야동 원예치료의 사회복지 정책 도입을 위한 연구. 디시인사이드 검색결과 서코 후기2 거베라 두송이 가져간거 다 잃어버렸는데, ㅜㅜ이번엔 거베라 선물받음사카모토 코스한 분이 거베라 생화 랑 초콜릿 주셨고같이 사진찍으신 분도 작은 거베라 한송이 주심 m. 막 큰 꽃다발은 들고 다니기 불편하고 비싸기. 앞으로 작은 사이즈를 주기적으로 선물해준다는 전제하에, 작은사이즈 화병을 초반에 같이 하나정도 구매해줍시다. 138 0539 69 0 625624 어제 옥상에서 소금쟁이봒어 2 유니 0532 34 0 625623.

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.