스피어스는 최근 인스타그램에 전라 사진.

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 › ent › article브리트니 스피어스 누드 게재, ‘비정상의 정상화’ 과정. 엄마 누드 사진 괴로워 브리트니 스피어스, 10대 아들과 갈등무슨 일. 8월 24일, 브리트니 스피어스는 자신의 인스타그램에 뒷모습을 찍은 누드 사진을 올려 논란을 일으켰습니다. 신곡 womanizer는 공개되기도 전에 음원이 유출돼 고비를 겪기도 했지만 유투브에 뮤직비디오가 공개되자마자 이틀만에 700만 건의 클릭수를 기록했다.

팝스타 브리트니 스피어스 40가 잇따른 전라 노출로 팬들을 당황케 했다.

공개된 사진 속에는 브리트니 스피어스의 누드 사진이 담겼다.

8월 24일, 브리트니 스피어스는 자신의 인스타그램에 뒷모습을 찍은 누드 사진을 올려 논란을 일으켰습니다.

미국 매체 뉴욕 타임즈는 21일현지 시간 브리트니 스피어스가 출간 예정인 자서전 the woman in me에서 자신의 소셜네트워크서비.. Com › view › 20231027n14758노출 중독 브리트니 스피어스 無모자이크 누드 논란 td할리웃..

세계적인 팝가수 브리트니 스피어스29에게 성추행을 당했다고 주장했던 전 경호원이 이번에는 그녀에게 받았다는 누드사진을 공개하겠다고 나섰다.

브리트니 스피어스, sns에 누드 사진∙기행 올렸던 이유.. 헤럴드pop배재련 기자브리트니 스피어스 41가 충격적인 누드 사진을 공개해 화제다.. 스피어스는 8개의 그래미상 후보에 올랐으며 2005년 베스트 댄스 레코딩 부문에서 수상했다..

이창규 기자 엑스포츠뉴스 이창규 기자 팝스타 브리트니 스피어스가 또다시 누드 사진을 올려 많은 비판을 받고 있다.

브리트니 스피어스는 13년 동안 법정 후견인인 아버지의 보호 아래 성인의 권리 행사를 누리지 못하다가 소송 끝에 지난해 11월 자유의 몸이 되었다. 브리트니 스피어스는 21일 sns에 다수의 남성들과 섹슈얼한 파티를 즐기는, Com › entertainments › entertain_photo브리트니 스피어스, 유산 후에도 못 끊는 ‘올누드’ 셀카, 누드 동영상을 게재한지 불과 하루 만이다. 당시 스피어스는 보안 요원들과 함께 술을 마시는 건 물론 담배를. Com › article › 2021100211917브리트니 스피어스, 자유의 몸 되자마자 누드 사진 공개.

그가 자신의 sns를 통해 전라 셀카를 공개해 화제를 모았다, 팝스타 브리트니 스피어스 40가 잇따른 전라 노출로 팬들을 당황케 했다. 브리트니 스피어스, 또 누드 공개휴대폰 압수해야 비판↑. 팝스타 브리트니 스피어스 40가 잇따른 전라 노출로 팬들을 당황케 했다. 브리트니 前 경호원 그녀가 휴대폰으로 누드사진 보내. 브리트니 스피어스, 올누드 공개하더니 약혼남이 좋아하는.

23일 현지시각 tmz에 따르면 스피어스는 지난 22일 멕시코 카보 산 루카스에서 미국 로스앤젤레스로 돌아오는 전용기 안에서 큰 소동을 일으켰다. 40살 브리트니 스피어스가 누드사진을 sns에 자주 올리는 이유 마이데일리 곽명동 기자세계적 팝스타 브리트니 스피어스 40가 모두의 반대에도 불구하고 끊임없이 누드사진을 올리는 이유는 무엇일까, Tv리포트이혜미 기자 팝스타 브리트니 스피어스가 기내 흡연으로 구설에 올랐다.

bj 백만송 디시 유산 후 정신적 충격컸나브리트니 스피어스, 또 알몸 공개. 공개된 사진에는 브리트니 스피어스의 누드가 담겨 있었다. 글과 함께 올린 사진에는 올 누드 상태의 브리트니 모습이 담겼다. Com › kokr › news女배우, sns에 누드 공개멘탈 어쩌나. Com › ent › article브리트니 스피어스 누드 게재, ‘비정상의 정상화’ 과정. bootyseobeen nude

bj 클레어 사건 디시 미국 매체 뉴욕 타임즈는 21일 현지 시간 브리트니 스피어스가 출간 예정인 자서전 ‘the woman in me’에서 자신의 소셜네트워크서비스에 누드 사진을 올리는 이유에 대해 고백했다고 보도했다. 브리트니 스피어스는 13년 동안 법정 후견인인 아버지의 보호 아래 성인의 권리 행사를 누리지 못하다가 소송 끝에 지난해 11월 자유의 몸이 되었다. 브리트니 스피어스는 13년 동안 법정 후견인인 아버지의 보호 아래 성인의 권리 행사를 누리지 못하다가 소송 끝에 지난해 11월 자유의 몸이 되었다. Get naked i got a planbritney spears브리트니 스피어스. 브리트니 스피어스는 29일한국시각 자신의 sns에 두 장의 사진을 게재했다. bj 또댕미

bill & ted face the music 전체 영화 온라인 지난 25일 브리트니 스피어스는 인스타그램에 2주 만에 게시물을 올렸다. 미국 매체 뉴욕 타임즈는 21일현지 시간 브리트니 스피어스가 출간 예정인 자서전 the woman in me에서 자신의 소셜네트워크서비. 브리트니 스피어스, 팝의 여왕에서 누드의 제왕으로충격적인 전라 셀카ing종합 osen이승훈 기자 팝의 여왕으로 불렸던 가수 브리트니 스피어스가 누드 행보를 이어가고 있다. 지난달 29일현지시각 ap통신 등은 미국 로스앤젤레스la. 가수 브리트니 스피어스41가 또 누드 기행을 벌였다. beastly hitomi

bl 스팽킹 Kr › page › view브리트니 스피어스, 또 벗었다과감한 창가 누드 공개. 가수 브리트니 스피어스41가 또 누드 기행을 벌였다. 전세계 휩쓸었던 톱스타가 올린 나체 사진, 난리. 공개된 사진 속에는 브리트니 스피어스의 누드 사진이 담겼다. 브리트니 스피어스는 지난 7일 자신의 sns에 이건 나의 첫.

bj 미래 디시 글과 함께 올린 사진에는 올 누드 상태의 브리트니 모습이 담겼다. 사진 속 배경인 욕조에는 원래 곡선이 있는 거다라는 글을 올렸다. 23일현지시각 tmz에 따르면 스피어스는 지난 22일 멕시코 카보. 브리트니 스피어스, 유산 후에도 못 끊는 올누드 셀카 팝스타 브리트니 스피어스가 누드 셀카를 또 공개했다. 브리트니 스피어스, 자동차 위에서 다리 번쩍속옷 노출 깜짝.

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.