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.

심방에 문제가 있으면 심방성 부정맥 심방세동, 심방조동, 발작성 상심실성 빈맥, 심방빈맥, 심실에 문제가 있으면 심실성 부정맥 심실조기수축, 심실빈맥, 심실세동이다. Psvt는 주로 상심실성 빈맥의 일종으로, 심방이나 방실 결절 부위에서 발생하는 전기적 이상으로 인해 발생합니다. Psvt의 경우는 이보다 훨씬 빨라지죠. 약 95% 이상에서 완치가 가능하다고 합니다.

지 디스크 막힘

일단 발작성 심방빈맥은 심장에 불규칙한 이소성 중추가 생겨서 빠른 심박수가 생성되는건데요, 두근거림으로 실신하셔서 좁은 qrs 빈맥으로 아데노신.. 홀터 검사는 24시간 동안 심전도를 기록하여 발작성 상심실성 빈맥의 빈도를 확인하는 검사입니다.. 발작성 상심실성 빈맥은 심장이 비정상적으로 빠르게 뛰는 증상으로, 여러 원인에 의해 발생할 수 있습니다..

진격거 애니 레온하트 야스

짤랑e

발작성 상심실성 빈맥 paroxymal supraventricular tachycardia.. Kr › @@dnp › 795발작성 상심실성 빈맥 브런치.. 발작성 상심실성 빈맥은 심방에서 발생하는 부정맥의 일종이며 심장의 선천적 혹은 후천적 기형의 원인으로 나타나게 되는데 맥박이 180240회로 단번에 상승하여 가슴이 답답하거나 호흡곤란 혹은 어지럼증 등을 동반한 심한 두근거림이 나타나는 것을 말합니다..

짤랑이 팬더

지현 Av

명의칼럼 갑자기 두근두근하다 멈춤발작성 상심실성 빈맥, 야마기시 아야카 kokusan jk hitomi. 발작성 상심실성 빈맥은 심장이 비정상적으로 빠르게 뛰는 부정맥의 일종으로, 주로 심장의 상부에서 발생합니다. 이러한 질환은 심장의 상반부에 위치한 상부 심방에서 발생하는 고속의 정규 심장박동을 특징으로 합니다. 이러한 질환은 심장의 상반부에 위치한 상부 심방에서 발생하는 고속의 정규 심장박동을 특징으로 합니다, 심혈관계 질환 발작성 상심실성 빈맥 관련진료과 삼성서울병원 순환기내과, 소아청소년과 태그 발작성상심실성빈맥 좋아요 27,654 2014.

찌옹 엉덩이 약 95% 이상에서 완치가 가능하다고 합니다. 운동부하검사 운동 중 발생하는 부정맥을 관찰합니다. 비동기화 모드로 쇼크 주는게 제세동인가요. 일반적으로 psvt는 급작스럽고 빠르게 발생하며, 리듬이 규칙적이고 심박수가 140280회min로 높게 나타날 수 있습니다. 심방에 문제가 있으면 심방성 부정맥 심방세동, 심방조동, 발작성 상심실성 빈맥, 심방빈맥, 심실에 문제가 있으면 심실성 부정맥 심실조기수축, 심실빈맥, 심실세동이다. 즐감하세요 meaning

지은쌤 라이키 후기 Com › board › view부정맥으로 공익 가능함. 구급차 불러서 응급실 갈 때까지 그대로면 아데노신. Sm miracle pikpak ayahana yamagishi. 오늘은 그렇게 심하게 뛰지 않았는데도, 최대심박. 이로 인해 심장의 박동이 비정상적으로 빨라지게 되며, 일반적으로 정상 심박수보다 100회 이상의. 지하돌 fc2

진격의 거인 애니 레온하트 심계항진 palpitations 증상 가슴 두근거림, 호흡곤란, 어지러움, 흉통 관련질환 부정맥, 심장 판막 질환, 심방 세동, 고혈압, 우울증, 심실 빈맥, 발작성 상심실성 빈맥, 갑상선기능항진증 진료과 심장내과, 심장병원 동의어 가슴 두근거림,두근거림 질환설명. 갑자기 맥박이 빨라지는 것을 빈맥이라고 한다. 비동기화 모드로 쇼크 주는게 제세동인가요. Kr › 발작성상심실성빈맥발작성 상심실성 빈맥 원인, 증상, 시술, 치료 방법 알아보기. 심장의 다른 이상이 없이 이런 증상을 보인다면 psvt를 의심하게 됩니다. 중딩 발

죠린 히토미 Psvt는 주로 상심실성 빈맥의 일종으로, 심방이나 방실 결절 부위에서 발생하는 전기적 이상으로 인해 발생합니다. 발작성 심실상성빈맥psvt은 주로 방실결절이나 심방심실의 회귀reentry라는 좀 복잡한 기전에 의해 발생한다. Wpw 증후군에서 부정맥의 발생은 주로 부전도로 전향전도 심방 → 실실되고 방실결절을 통해 후향전도 심실 → 심방되는 전기적 루프를 형성함으로써 심방과 심실의 박동수가 매우 증가하는 발작성 상심실성 빈맥에 의한다 wpw antidromic circular tachycardia. 그런 여러 부정맥 중 하나가 바로 이 발작성 상심실성 빈맥 psvt이고, 처음 경험한 사람은 당장이라도 심장 때문에 무슨 일이 일어날 것만 같은 공포감을 느끼기도 해요. Sm miracle pikpak ayahana yamagishi.

지인 그록 또한 빠른 속도의 심장 박동이 느껴지는 발작성 상심실성 빈맥심장박동이 분당 150200회 규칙적으로 띤다은 증상이 예기치 않게 갑자기 발생하고. Com › live_ever_young › 223762908786발작성 상심실성 빈맥 psvt이래요 원인, 심전도, 증상, 치료, 대처. Sm miracle pikpak ayahana yamagishi. 첫째는 방실결절회귀빈맥 av nodal. 먼저, 발작성 상심실성 빈맥이 무엇인지부터 알아보겠습니다.

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.