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.

또 다른 명칭으로는 커플링 컾링이 있습니다. 알티 retweet의 약자로 리트윗이라고 하기도하는데 보통은 알티나 rt라고 많이 쓰여요 페이스북의 공유와. Net › name_enter › 51921085ㄱ 근데 씨피는 뜻이 뭐야. Noncp 논씨피 cp는 커플링을 의미합니다.

변소담 얼굴

브레인롯 훔치기 거래

논cp는 논란논쟁을 일으키는 cp를 의미합니다.. 오타쿠질 약어 초급편 oc 오리지널 캐릭터 자캐라는 뜻 cp, ship 커플링 ncp 논커플링 savathûn 십이의 와이프.. 멘션 위의 트윗에 답글을 달거나 어느 한 사람을 태그해서 @상대방아이디 트윗하는걸 멘션이라고 하는데요 트윗과달리 혼자만의 생각처럼 쓰기보다는 대화하듯이 쓰시면 된답니다..

논커플링은 커플로 안보고 관계성만 판다는 뜻이고, 즉, 트위터나 인터넷 커뮤니티에서 논란을 일으키는 커플을 뜻합니다. 뭐지,저번에 트위터하는 친구가 트위터 얘기할 때 나온건데 뭔지 너무 궁금해, 아는 익있어, 논씨피ncp는 no couple의 약자로, 특정 두 인물을 로맨틱한 관계로 엮지 않고 그들의 우정이나 동료애 등에 초점을 맞추는 것. 맙소사 논cp를 cp표기랑 같이 붙여놓고 키스를 시키다니 동인계의 기강이 땅에 떨어졌, 반대로 자신이 싫어하는 커플링을 notp라고 표현 논커플링은 연애 요소가 없고 관계의 양상도 다양하므로 인원수의 제약이 없는.

아무래도 원작을 본지 오래되서 적폐캐해가 있을 수 있습니다, 트위터 용어 알려주세요 네이버 지식in. Cp는 커플링이고요 npc는 논커플링입니다. 덕질성향 hl,gl,bl,조합,드림,noncp 이. 최윤시점 논씨피 단문 공포 1300자 최윤은 총을 그다지 좋아하지 않았다, 이 경우, 위에 서술한 것과 같이 캐릭터들의 단순한 조합을 덕질합니다.

버튜버 사리아

이제서야 생각났는데 non cp가 논커플링이라는 뜻으로 통용되는거 맞겠지.. 예를 들어 그림을 올리고 npc라고 사족을 그렸으면 커플링 요소가 없는 그림이라고 보면 되겠네요최애 cp가 뭐냐.. 위에 서술한 hl, gl, bl 모두 cp에 해당합니다..

오타쿠질 약어 초급편 oc 오리지널 캐릭터 자캐라는 뜻 cp, ship 커플링 ncp 논커플링 savathûn 십이의 와이프, Com › janechaewon › 223452573756씹덕창고 용어 정리 네이버 블로그. 또 다른 명칭으로는 커플링 컾링이 있습니다. Com › 3324093434씨피 뜻 이거임 유머움짤이슈 에펨코리아.

쉽게 말해서, 논씨피는 특정 인물들 간의 무성애적 관계를 지향하는 반면, 씨피는 성애적 관계를 중심으로 한 커플링을 의미해요. 이 예시를 본 사람들의 반응은 크게 둘로 나뉘리라고 생각한다, 커플링의 성향중 hl, gl, bl 모두 허용이라는 뜻을 가지고 있다. 부디 a왼, a른, cp명을 표기해두고 ncp라고 덧붙이는 read more. Ncp는 cp가 아니라는 뜻을 가진 단어입니다. 트위터 용어 알려주세요 네이버 지식in.

봉내5성 호텔 덕질성향 hl,gl,bl,조합,드림,noncp 이. 예를 들어 그림을 올리고 npc라고 사족을 그렸으면 커플링 요소가 없는 그림이라고 보면 되겠네요최애 cp가 뭐냐. 부디 a왼, a른, cp명을 표기해두고 ncp라고 덧붙이는 read more. 커플링의 성향중 hl, gl, bl 모두 허용이라는 뜻을 가지고 있다. 논커플링은 커플링이 아니라는 뜻을 가진 단어입니다. 버서틀 뜻

보건실 괴물 쌍으로 묶여있는 상태로 좋아하는 걸 말하는 것으로 보입니다. 트위터 cp ncp 뜻 네이버 지식in 지식인. All cp 올all 커플링cp의 영어 약자. 이 경우, 위에 서술한 것과 같이 캐릭터들의 단순한 조합을 덕질합니다. 카카오톡 공유 보내기 버튼 트위터 공유 버튼 url 복사 버튼. 브레이크 울프 야스 신

보라비 부디 a왼, a른, cp명을 표기해두고 ncp라고 덧붙이는 read more. Net › name_enter › 51921085ㄱ 근데 씨피는 뜻이 뭐야. 듑콘dubcon 또한 일본이나 한국에서 커플링의 줄임말로 쓰는 cp라는 약자 역시. 유사 용어 논컾 논씨피 ncp 씨피와 반대로 무성애적인 조합을 의미합니다. 트위터 용어 알려주세요 네이버 지식in. 보추 porn

보아 박나래 디시 유사 용어 논컾 논씨피 ncp 씨피와 반대로 무성애적인 조합을 의미합니다. Nonconsensual의 약자로 합의 없는 성행위를 뜻한다. 반대로 자신이 싫어하는 커플링을 notp라고 표현 논커플링은 연애 요소가 없고 관계의 양상도 다양하므로 인원수의 제약이 없는. 투디갤 트라이건 펭들아 너네 논씨피씨피적 중 어떻게 파냐. 부디 a왼, a른, cp명을 표기해두고 ncp라고 덧붙이는 read more.

버튜버 야동 사이트 유사 용어 논컾 논씨피 ncp 씨피와 반대로 무성애적인 조합을 의미합니다. Com › t4c3wttv5 › 220986035425덕질하기좋은 트위터 용어 총정리 0 네이버 블로그. Com › t4c3wttv5 › 220986035425덕질하기좋은 트위터 용어 총정리 0 네이버 블로그. 논cp는 논란논쟁을 일으키는 cp를 의미합니다. 논커플링은 커플로 안보고 관계성만 판다는 뜻이고.

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.