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.

泰國的 變性人 早期就性取向進行書寫的著者一般會把之跟性別掛勾。比方說，他們會假定若身體為女性者認為其他身為女性者具吸引力，那麼前者就一定具男性氣質，反之亦然 35。很多19世紀中至20世紀早葉的理論家都這樣認為——這包括 卡尔亨利希乌尔利克斯 、 理查德克拉夫特埃賓 、 马. 有性生殖在十亿年前就已出现在单细胞的 真核生物 7。性别演化的原因，以及为何性别会一直延续到现在，仍然是在争论中的议题。其中有许多可能的原因，包括：性可以创造子代中的变化，性有助于有利性状的散播，可以消除不利的性状，以及促进种系dna的修复。 有性生殖是 真核生物 （细胞中. Org › wiki › 性別認同性別認同 维基百科，自由的百科全书. Org › 知识库 › transgender2025 中国大陆及港澳台跨性别社群生存现状简报 多元性别中文数字图.

Tumbex X

Net › gitblog_00100 › article探索twitter社交圈的性别分布：`genderdistribution`工具csdn博客.. 約我出來真的有點困難哈哈哈 你們說是不是 我不是在上班就是打遊戲 我可是公認阿宅女的稱號原諒我最近消失太久三性 跨性別女孩 新竹 竹北..

Tachi Iyashi Hitomi

性别多样性 twitter hashtag.. @shigure07288 不是，你先别管乌克兰有没有纳粹，即使有，你说的都成立，那依然只是乌克兰内政，和俄罗斯没任何..

Tag After School Hitomi

法斯托絲達琳 （anne faustosterling）教授建議將 23 個性別進行分類，並從只有男性和女性的社會中分離出來。她在論文 「五性：為什麼男女不夠」（the five sexes why male and female are not enough） 中討論了 雙性人 的存在。雙性人是指男性和女性的生理性別特徵的結合被認為偏離了規範，經常得在很小的時. 跨性別女孩 twitter hashtag. 一些 女权主义学者 对性别二元论提出质疑。 朱丽丝洛伯 （judith lorber）解释了将人们划分成两个群体会发现分类成性别二元的差异性比分成性别多元的差异更大。她认为这证实了性别二元论是随意被决定的，并导致两性的虚假期望；而先前假设性别二元的人可能也是不存在的 13。反而越来越多的.

不知性別小可愛@yongxin0000 twitter profile, 質量效應桌遊硬加原本沒有的性別代詞， 加了還不爽有人買了之後不接受， 所以上網號召灌分結果翻船了。 有提到人名可能吃社群所以我放巴哈 read more, 性别男爱好女@bai150521 twitter profile.

stremio Org › zhhans › 社會性別社会性别 维基百科，自由的百科全书. 質量效應桌遊硬加原本沒有的性別代詞， 加了還不爽有人買了之後不接受， 所以上網號召灌分結果翻船了。 有提到人名可能吃社群所以我放巴哈 read more. 一些 女权主义学者 对性别二元论提出质疑。 朱丽丝洛伯 （judith lorber）解释了将人们划分成两个群体会发现分类成性别二元的差异性比分成性别多元的差异更大。她认为这证实了性别二元论是随意被决定的，并导致两性的虚假期望；而先前假设性别二元的人可能也是不存在的 13。反而越来越多的. Org › 知识库 › transgender2025 中国大陆及港澳台跨性别社群生存现状简报 多元性别中文数字图. 性别健康行为； 卫生系统反应的性别特征。 下表中的例子说明了与可持续发展目标3的所有9个具体目标有关的对健康不公平产生影响的健康问题性别决定因素和性别健康行为。 卫生系统反应的性别特征列于下表。. thisvid scat korea

tothhub 質量效應桌遊硬加原本沒有的性別代詞， 加了還不爽有人買了之後不接受， 所以上網號召灌分結果翻船了。 有提到人名可能吃社群所以我放巴哈 read more. 多元性別 多元性別 （英語： sexual and gender diversity），或稱爲 性別多元化，是一个术语，用于代表人類的 社會性别 特征， 性取向 和 性别認同 的所有多元性，而不需要详细说明或列舉形成这种多元性的每个個體，行为或特征。 1234. 16846 牡羊座 ‍♀️ 24y 雙北 ⭐️私訊附臉照⭐ 沒回沒興趣三性 跨性別transgender誤認親 戀愛感 特愛親親抱抱. swsr数据集是首个针对中文的性别歧视数据集，由伦敦玛丽女王大学创建。该数据集包含10496条新浪微博内容，包括微博及其评论，旨在识别和分析中文网络环境中的性别歧视言论。数据集通过关键词搜索收集，涵盖多种性别歧视类型，如外貌、文化背景、微侵犯和性侵犯。此外，数据集还提供用户. 泰國的 變性人 早期就性取向進行書寫的著者一般會把之跟性別掛勾。比方說，他們會假定若身體為女性者認為其他身為女性者具吸引力，那麼前者就一定具男性氣質，反之亦然 35。很多19世紀中至20世紀早葉的理論家都這樣認為——這包括 卡尔亨利希乌尔利克斯 、 理查德克拉夫特埃賓 、 马. start224

suyeon_soe Org › zhhans › 性別之分性别之分 维基百科，自由的百科全书. @fouryn_astar 到底如何屏蔽这些跨性别 性别者. 性别男爱好女@bai150521 twitter profile. 人权高专办还努力保护性少数群体避免因其性取向、性别认同与性别特征遭受暴力与歧视。 见 办事处活动完整清单 最新报告与出版物 高级专员提交人权理事会的关于体育运动中种族歧视和性别歧视交叉情况的报告 ahrc4426 《2019冠状病毒病与性少数群体的人权. Lgbt，近年來也常擴稱 lgbtq 或 lgbtq+，通常被认为指所有 性取向 少数或 性别 少数群体。 其中lgbtq是 女同性戀者 （lesbian）、 男同性戀者 （gay）、 雙性戀者 （bisexual）、 跨性別者 （transgender）与 酷儿 （queer）的英文 首字母縮略字， + 則代表其他性少数. ssis-775

supjav 4694056 當照片成為照騙，有沒有騙過別人不確定，但至少是騙過自己了；看著圖像裡那個有點像又不太像我的人，作為一個自欺者，好像只有這樣才能多認同自己一些。read more. 在英国入侵之前，巴基斯坦人认为性别模糊和跨性别身份是一種常態，反lgbt+的法律是由英国人实施的，与他们在英国的法律相一致。根据历史记录，印度教、穆斯林、锡克教徒和其他宗教少数民族对同性恋者没有强烈的仇恨。在许多方面，制定支持lgbt社区的法律可以被视为 去殖民化 行为。 2009年. 當中，我被展區的厭女言論氣到，寫下反駁拜金、公主病、蕩婦等女性污名的言論，並且敘述我對跨性別、男同性戀、愛滋病患者的一些觀點和立場。 全文大約7000多字。read more. 欢迎来到多元性别百科！这是一个致力于系统性整理与多元性别相关知识的开放平台。多元性别（gender diversity）是指超越传统男女二元的更广泛性别认同与表达方式，包括跨性别、非二元性别、性别酷儿等多样群体。. Org › 知识库 › transgender2025 中国大陆及港澳台跨性别社群生存现状简报 多元性别中文数字图.

thisvid.ocm 在20世纪70年代，人们对于这些关于性别的用词方式还不能够达成一致。 1974年出版的《masculinefeminine or human》中，其作者使用了内在的性别（英文： innate gender）和习得的性别角色（英文： learned sex role）这两个词，然而到了1978年的版本中， sex 和. 根据reiner等人的一项研究，他们观察了14名患有 泄殖腔外翻 的基因男性，这些人被作为女性抚养长大。其中6人改变了性别认同为男性，5人仍然认同为女性，3人具有模糊的性别认同（但其中2人明确表示自己是男性）。所有研究对象的兴趣和态度在中度到高度范围内与生物男性一致。 35 另一项研究. The latest tweets from 小恶魔 @yx5hrmhingytm0l. 當中，我被展區的厭女言論氣到，寫下反駁拜金、公主病、蕩婦等女性污名的言論，並且敘述我對跨性別、男同性戀、愛滋病患者的一些觀點和立場。 全文大約7000多字。read more. 最初的两个性别符号来自于 天文符号。1751年， 卡尔林奈 最早使用它们来表示植物的性别。 1.

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.