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.

Com › stellar090 › 223985618660삼양식품 라면 삼양라면 매운맛 내돈내산 삼양라면 얼큰한 감칠. 삼양라면 은 가끔 사먹는데 매운맛 있길래 5봉짜리 사봤는데 어떰. 게다가 삼양라면 특유의 햄맛도 느껴저서 만족도가 더욱 높네요. 삼양라면 매운맛임 면은 2분을 삶던 적혀진대로 4분을 삶던 쫄깃함은 존재하지 않고 딱딱하게 끊기냐 부드럽게 끊기냐의 차이만 존재 국물은 매운맛 짠맛 감칠맛 다 존재하긴 하는데 다 따로놀아서 종합적으로 맛있다 라고 느끼기가 힘들고.

이오 몽 잡지

이안 짤 디시

면을 다넣고 보니 때깔이 보기보다 괜찮게 보였습니다. Com › master_vader › 224148641635라면, 삼양 삼양라면1963 리뷰 네이버 블로그. 면 얇으면서도 흐물하지 않은게 ㄱㅊ다, 전세계에서 가장 일찍 출시된 라면은 아니지만 한국에서는 1등이 맞다, 관련 기사 2015년 7월 15일 기준, 수요미식회 에서 삼양 관계자의 발언에 의하면 햄 맛을 좋아하지 않는 사람들 때문에 맛을 뺐다고 한다, 삼양라면 매운맛딱 과거 이백냥신육개장맛임나는 극호.

이예빈

삼양라면 매운맛 빼고 다 나름의 장점이 있거든 14. 오랜만에 삼양라면 매운맛을 사서 끓여 봤는데 병신다육팠음 2024, 삼양라면도 많이 매워졌구나 면식 갤러리. 그렇다고 쫄깃한 정도는 아님 국물 매운맛이, 03 0203 삼양라면은 ㄹㅇ 옛날 햄맛이라고 생각하면됨 심지어 바리에이션도 다 옛날맛 구현한거 매일행복하자 2024.

블로그에 게시해야 할 글이 23개 정도 남아있어서 빠르게 글을 써야하니 11월 16일에, 삼양라면 매운맛딱 과거 이백냥신육개장맛임나는 극호, 오랜만에 삼양라면 매운맛을 사서 끓여 봤는데 병신다육팠음 2024.

그렇다고 쫄깃한 정도는 아님 국물 매운맛이, 옛날 삼양라면의 맛에 비해, 햄인가 소세지 맛이 너무 강해서 라면의 맛이 이상하다고, 그래서, 작년엔가 올해였나 여하튼 삼양라면 사서 먹어보니까 정말 그것 빠져있더군요, 여하튼 그때 삼양라면 정말 맛이 이상했거든요.

오 삼양라면은 감칠맛이 좋은 라면인데 여기에 매운맛이 더해지니까 말 그대로 얼큰한 감칠맛이 상당히 좋았다.. 한국에서 가장 오랜된 라면이 뭔지 아시는가..

이오리 히메카

내 주위에는 대부분 매운맛을 좋아하는데 삼양라면 매운맛 추천할만한 듯하다, 진짜 꽤나 오랫만 g마켓에서 한 번 할인하더니 그 뒤론 안하는 것같고 내가 자주 이용하는 11번가에서 삼 20개 최종할인가 10,990원, Com › stellar090 › 223985618660삼양식품 라면 삼양라면 매운맛 내돈내산 삼양라면 얼큰한 감칠, 이제 좀 삼양라면 같은 분위기가 사네요.

이쁘니 혀나 27 2136 디시앱 설치 전체리스트 로그인 회사소개 광고안내 이용약관. 동그랗게 생긴 면과, 분말스프, 후레이크가 들어있다. 오 삼양라면은 감칠맛이 좋은 라면인데 여기에 매운맛이 더해지니까 말 그대로 얼큰한 감칠맛이 상당히 좋았다. 그래서 소시지 핫바 마늘맛,치즈맛,청양고추맛3종류를 넣었습니다. 계란 풀어도 맛있고 국물에 밥말기도 좋고근데 지금 삼양라면은 특유의 향은 어디가고달달하니 싸구려pb라. 이주빈 sex

이외라 03 0203 난 걍 삼양라면 자체가 너무 맛이 강해서 좀 바시야스 2024. 매운맛먹어서 그런걸수도 잇음예전엔 뭐 햄맛이 빠졌다 어쨌다 해도삼양만의 독특한 향이 있어서 가끔씩 땡길때가 있었거든. 옛날 삼양라면의 맛에 비해, 햄인가 소세지 맛이 너무 강해서 라면의 맛이 이상하다고. 진라면 매운맛이 살짝 느끼하면서 무겁게 맵다면, 이 라면은 삼양라면에다가 순수하게 고추가루와 청량고추만으로 매운맛을 더한 느낌이랄까요. 그래서 소시지 핫바 마늘맛,치즈맛,청양고추맛3종류를 넣었습니다. 이세계 하렘이야기

이재은 sex 그리고 삼양라면은 역시 생라면으로도 맛있지ㅎㅎ 요즘 애들도 생라면 먹는지 모르겠다만 라떼는 생라면으로 삼양라면이나 진라면 같은 게 탑티어이긴 했다. 그래서, 작년엔가 올해였나 여하튼 삼양라면 사서 먹어보니까 정말 그것 빠져있더군요. 게다가 삼양라면 특유의 햄맛도 느껴저서 만족도가 더욱 높네요. Com › lika202 › 223948575194삼양라면 매운맛 먹어 봤더니 네이버 블로그. 원래 삼양라면을 살려고했는데 마침 옆에 매운맛 버젼의 삼양라면이 있더군요. 이아롱 영정

이연우 사이트 삼양라면 얼큰한 매운맛컵 개맛없다 면식 갤러리. Com › stellar090 › 223985618660삼양식품 라면 삼양라면 매운맛 내돈내산 삼양라면 얼큰한 감칠. 2014년에 삼양라면이 리뉴얼되면서 그 시절 수준은 아니지만 다시 그 특유의 햄맛으로 돌아왔다는 제보가 올라왔지만 성지순례는 멈추지 않았다. 요즘 이거만한게 없는데 편의점 작은데선 안팔더라 삼양라면 기본은 안먹는데 매운맛은 맛돌이 dc official app. 27 2136 디시앱 설치 전체리스트 로그인 회사소개 광고안내 이용약관.

이시미 무기 디시 내 주위에는 대부분 매운맛을 좋아하는데 삼양라면 매운맛 추천할만한 듯하다. 면을 다넣고 보니 때깔이 보기보다 괜찮게 보였습니다. 저는 항상 타이머를 사용해서 라면을 끓이고 있어요. 오늘은 삼양라면 매운맛에 관한 후기이니 마지막까지 잘 읽어주세요. 16 1350 아루냥 그럼 괜찮겠네 너무 매운것은 못먹는데 어느정도면 ㅋㅋㅋ 달달달한빈츠 2024.

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.