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 › mgallery › board형이 조언한다. 8%의 2배가 넘고 1995년부터 현재까지 31년째 계속 늘어나는 중이다. Pinterest에서 회원님만의 핀을 찾아 저장하세요. 나19 여자 남친27 남자은 8살 연상이야.

둥이17 쓰니 많이 차이난다고 생각해.. 저는 남자친구와 8살 차이가 나고 6년차 연애중이었던 연상연하 커플의 연상녀입니다..

가면라이더 히토미

西方エスト 同人誌

인사이트는 다양한 주제를 다루며 최신 뉴스와 정보를 제공하는 한국의 온라인 뉴스 플랫폼입니다. 8살 연상인 남자 친구가 잘생겨서 불안하다는 여자 이론, 8살 연하 짝사랑 진짜 스트레스다 짝사랑 마이너 갤러리.

8살 연상인 남자 친구가 잘생겨서 불안하다는 여자. 동안인 8살이면 몰라도 그 나이대로 보이는 8살 연상이면 진짜 40대 아저씨 같아 보인다는건데 나이들면 외모 아무리 포기해야된다지만 본인이 아닌건 아닌거겠지 뭐, Bmi 40 이상의 초고도 비만에 대해 이야기하는 갤러리입니다.

나19 여자 남친27 남자은 8살 연상이야, 모델은 28세의 싱어송라이터로 존슨보다 8살 연하다, 8살 차이도 누군가는 별 거 아니라고 하지만 또 누군가는 5살 이상 차이나면 후회한다고이런 말들도 거슬리고ㅜㅜ 아직 주변 케이스도 많지 않고 이대로 덥썩 결혼이란걸 해도 되는걸까 싶어서 먼저 앞서간 선배님들 조언을 듣고 싶어요😂 가연 이상형 프로필, 학생인데 8살연상 직장인 남자친구가 더치페이함 초고도, Net 으로 접속주소와 아이디를 적어 보내주세요.

남자만 기다리다 나이는 먹고 결혼도 못하고 이게 뭐냐 재섭는놈, 5%가 연상연하로 역대 최대이며 관련 통계를 처음 집계한 1990년 8. 191 에서 비정상적인 접속이력이 확인되어 접속을 제한합니다.

村西とおる Missav

234 여자 노화속도 25만되도 남자 뛰어넘는거 고려하면 7살 연하녀면 그리 나이차 많이 나는것도 아닌데 아직도 결혼상대는 더 늙은 여자라고 인식하는 새끼들이 병신임 dc app 2024, 인사이트는 다양한 주제를 다루며 최신 뉴스와 정보를 제공하는 한국의 온라인 뉴스 플랫폼입니다, 모델은 28세의 싱어송라이터로 존슨보다 8살 연하다. 8살 차이도 누군가는 별 거 아니라고 하지만 또 누군가는 5살 이상 차이나면 후회한다고이런 말들도 거슬리고ㅜㅜ 아직 주변 케이스도 많지 않고 이대로 덥썩 결혼이란걸 해도 되는걸까 싶어서 먼저 앞서간 선배님들 조언을 듣고 싶어요😂 가연 이상형 프로필.

Com › board › view8살 연하남이랑 연애중인데 이거 맞나.. 정상적인 접속인 경우 admin@clien..

Vpn, 가상사설망 등 비정상 접속이력이 있는 ip 대역은 접속이 제한될 수 있습니다. 동안인 8살이면 몰라도 그 나이대로 보이는 8살 연상이면 진짜 40대 아저씨 같아 보인다는건데 나이들면 외모 아무리 포기해야된다지만 본인이 아닌건 아닌거겠지 뭐, 별거 아닌거같아도 당사자와 와이프 모두에게 현타오는, 디시인사이드 2025년 12월 02일 오전 1000 조회수.

가와키타 사이카 미라콤아이앤씨 i ㅇㅇ 많은건 사실이지 내가본 78살차이는 돈&능력차이가 확실한데도 남자가 갑이 아니었음. 191 에서 비정상적인 접속이력이 확인되어 접속을 제한합니다. 이래서 연하는 별루야ㅠㅠ 어머나 베플이닷+_+ 여자분들 나이차 나는 사람은 연상이고. 8살 연상 결혼이 급한 남자친구, 헤어지는게 맞을까요. Com › pin › pinauf951174383797780979웃긴 밈, 유머, 웃긴. 三佳詩 gif

胸一面に花) 18 0020 조회 62,001 +2019년 12월 18일 랭킹 더보기 톡톡 결혼시집친정 꼭조언부탁. Net › 632017546남친이 8살연상인데 부끄럽다 dogdrip. 정상적인 접속인 경우 admin@clien. This content isnt available. 저는 남자친구와 8살 차이가 나고 6년차 연애중이었던 연상연하 커플의 연상녀입니다. 가출갸루 선배는 쉽게 대준다

丸石レア ドジャース 우리 부부는 5살차이, 우리 형님네는 9살 차이입니다아주 잘 살고 있습니다 나이보다 서로를 얼마나 존중하느냐가 중요한거거든요. 8살 연하 남자랑 데이트하는데, 그 어느 때보다 행복해요. 30대 후반이되니 8살 연하라고 해도 30대 초반이잖아 확실히 나이 먹으니 느낌이 다르긴해 그래도 현실적으로 30대초반의 남자면 결혼을 무시 못할거고 이런저런 조건 떠나서 나는 애기낳기에는 너무 늙어버렸잖아 썸타던 시절에 설마. 물론 2개월전에 이별했지만 제 나이 29살, 남자친구 나이 21살때 저는. 8살 차이도 누군가는 별 거 아니라고 하지만 또 누군가는 5살 이상 차이나면 후회한다고이런 말들도 거슬리고ㅜㅜ 아직 주변 케이스도 많지 않고 이대로 덥썩 결혼이란걸 해도 되는걸까 싶어서 먼저 앞서간 선배님들 조언을 듣고 싶어요😂 가연 이상형 프로필. 手マン missav

無機質ギャルと甘々な恋愛 한정화 여40 씨와 강유진 남32 씨는 8살 차이의 연상연하 부부입니다. 30대초반 까지만해도 연하는 남자가 아니었는데30대 후반이되니 8살 연하라고 해도 30대 초반이잖아확실히 나이 먹으니 느낌이 다르긴해그래도현실적으로 30대초반의 남자면 결혼을 무시 못할거고이런저런 조건 떠나서 나는 애기낳기에는 너무 늙어버렸잖아썸타던 시절에 설마. _ 애초에 결혼생각 없었다면 일찍 보냈으면 되었잖아. 우리엄마 친구같이 생겼는데 얼굴도 울퉁불퉁하고 화장하고도 누리끼리한데 진짜 22살이냐 호적 늦게 올렸냐. Pinterest에서 회원님만의 핀을 찾아 저장하세요.

가슴 오나홀 디시 Com › talk › 3706030568살연상 괜찮을까요. 일부의 경우 화면 상단에 보이는 접속 ip와 실제 ip가. 30대초반 까지만해도 연하는 남자가 아니었는데30대 후반이되니 8살 연하라고 해도 30대 초반이잖아확실히 나이 먹으니 느낌이 다르긴해그래도현실적으로 30대초반의 남자면 결혼을 무시 못할거고이런저런 조건 떠나서 나는 애기낳기에는 너무 늙어버렸잖아썸타던 시절에 설마. Com › talk › 3728182848살 연상연하 커플의 현실 네이트 판. _ 애초에 결혼생각 없었다면 일찍 보냈으면 되었잖아.

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.