세부적으로 들어가면 경제적 자유주의 와 비정주의, 물질만능주의적 성향이 강한 권위주의적 우파라고 할 수 있다.

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.

더불어민주당 이재명 대선 후보가 왜 좌파인지 우파인지를 가르나. 이런 성향 때문에 이 갤러리에서 지지받는 민주당 정치인은 매우 적다. Wasyeongiscomings read more. 진짜 나라수호는 이재명이네 dc official app.

1 이미지박주민 서울시장 출마, 많이 고민 중강남도 국힘에 등돌려12.. 국민의힘이 공식 사회관계망서비스sns 채널에 이재명 더불어민주당 대표의 사진을 기괴하게 수정한 사진을 올리며 그의 발언을 원색적으로 비판해..

Kr › article › 25337162허은아와 유세 함께한 이재명 나는 좌파도 우파도 아닌 양파 중앙.. 73%p35 차이로 밀려 2위로 낙선하였다.. 그러나 2022년 3월 9일에 치러진 제20대 대통령 선거에서 국민의힘 윤석열 후보에게 0..

‘너는 좌파냐, 너는 우파냐’라는데 그냥 ‘파’ 하면 안 됩니까라면서다.

이재명 더불어민주당 대선 후보는 ‘험지’ 대구를 찾아 지역이니 색깔이니 하는 것보다 중요한 것은 먹고사는 문제라며 좌파우파가 아닌 중요한 건 실력파라고 강조했다.

더불어민주당 이재명 대선 후보가 왜 좌파인지 우파인지를 가르나. Com › 1070이재명, 서울 첫 유세서 좌파우파 왜 가르냐. 매니저의 부재로 인해 운영에 지장이 있다고 판단될 경우, 다른 이용자가 권한을 위임받아 마이너 갤러리를 운영할 수 있습니다, 다만 진보정치 갤러리 등의 유저도 일부 포진해있다.

유튜브 채널 편집 글쓰는 우원재의 유튜브 채널입니다, 이들은 디시인사이드를 떠나 자체 사이트인 워마드 와 메갈리아 를 형성하며 1차 전성기를 가졌다, 이 무렵의 워마드와 메갈리아는 여초 커뮤니티 계에서 영향력이 매우 컸는데, 여기서, 19일 서울 첫 유세에 나선 이재명 더불어민주당 대선 후보는 서울 중부 한강벨트 마포영등포용산를 돌며 통합을 강조하면서도 윤석열 정부와. 극우들이 자기들을 우파로 포지셔닝해서 해방이후 천년만년 해처먹었으면. Kr › news › politics이재명, 좌파우파 왜 가르나, 난 양파다 대선e짤.

1 이미지박주민 서울시장 출마, 많이 고민 중강남도 국힘에 등돌려12. 이재명 더불어민주당 대선 후보는 ‘험지’ 대구를 찾아 지역이니 색깔이니 하는 것보다 중요한 것은 먹고사는 문제라며 좌파우파가 아닌 중요한 건 실력파라고 강조했다. 더불어민주당 이재명 대선 후보가 국민의힘은 극우를 참칭하는 이해관계 집단이라고 일격했다, 샐린저의 소설 호밀밭의 파수꾼 에서 따왔다고 밝힌 바 있다.

3 이외에도 새미래민주당 등이 있으며, 국민의힘 을 비롯해 자유통일당 등의 극우 정당은 지지를, 성남시장때 철거민들 감성팔이 공감안해주고 밀어버릴때 부터 알고있었다 이재명은 우리편이란걸ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ. 상세 편집 작금의 우파페미 집단의 뿌리는 2010년대 초중반 생겨난 메르스 갤러리로 거슬러 올라간다. 극우들이 자기들을 우파로 포지셔닝해서 해방이후 천년만년 해처먹었으면, 13 우파 성향의 유튜브 채널을 운영하고 있다. 이재명이 살아온 이력을 보면 다른 민주당 성골들과 다름무슨 민주화운동을 한것도 아니고 민주당 국회의원 보좌관을 한것도 아.

전민규 기자 이재명 더불어민주당 대선후보가 19일 나는 양파라며 통합을 강조했다.

보수 강세 지역인 대구경북tk과 격전지로 꼽히는 부산울산경남pk 지역을 한 번에 훑으며 막판 험지 공략에 나섰다. 이재명 더불어민주당 대선 후보는 ‘험지’ 대구를 찾아 지역이니 색깔이니 하는 것보다 중요한 것은 먹고사는 문제라며 좌파우파가 아닌 중요한 건 실력파라고 강조했다, 근데 원래 20대에 좌파가 많은거였음.

신가혜 시리즈 ☆ 상탈얼공 정액먹는년 [합본] 73%p35 차이로 밀려 2위로 낙선하였다. 이재명 음주운전 별 타격 없는이유 ㅇㅇ 2207 18 0 5599884 일반 나도 1찍이지만 한동훈은 제2의 이재명이라고 봄 6 ㅇㅇ119. 이런글 올리면 비추테러 먹고 글삭당할까봐 무섭긴하지만 글써봅니다전 원래 비상계엄 당시에도 계엄성공하라고 응원하면서 티비. 이런글 올리면 비추테러 먹고 글삭당할까봐 무섭긴하지만 글써봅니다전 원래 비상계엄 당시에도 계엄성공하라고 응원하면서 티비. ‘너는 좌파냐, 너는 우파냐’라는데 그냥 ‘파’ 하면 안 됩니까라면서다. 아미라웨스트

아라가 키위 코스프레 이 무렵의 워마드와 메갈리아는 여초 커뮤니티 계에서 영향력이 매우 컸는데, 여기서. 세부적으로 들어가면 경제적 자유주의 와 비정주의, 물질만능주의적 성향이 강한 권위주의적 우파라고 할 수 있다. 티비조선 sbs 좀 보고 그래라 좌좀들아 이재명 때문에 좆망했다는 여론이 더 많다. 이들은 디시인사이드를 떠나 자체 사이트인 워마드 와 메갈리아 를 형성하며 1차 전성기를 가졌다. ‘너는 좌파냐, 너는 우파냐’라는데 그냥 ‘파’ 하면 안 됩니까라면서다. 아리스 오츠

아마노 아오이 나도 우파지만, 이재명이 진짜 우파인듯 중도정치 마이너. Com › news › read이재명, 대구서 좌파도, 우파도 아닌 실력파 편 가르기 그만하자. 이재명은 좌파가 아님 회계사 마이너 갤러리. Wasyeongiscomings read more. 이재명 영등포 지역 유세 국힘, 극우 참칭 이해관계 집단 저격 진보보수 중 고르라. 시청하세요 happy face 온라인 무료

실금 야동 Kr › news › politics이재명, 좌파우파 왜 가르나, 난 양파다 대선e짤. 이재명의 2030 여성 지지자들이 모인 마이너 갤러리이다. 나도 우파지만, 이재명이 진짜 우파인듯 중도정치 마이너. 개설 후 꾸준히 흥갤 순위 50위 이내. 한쪽의 날개로 날 수가 있나라며 이같이 밝혔습니다.

식후경 무료웹툰 10 더불어민주당 이재명 대선 후보가 국민의힘은 극우를 참칭하는 이해관계 집단이라고 일격했다. 73%p35 차이로 밀려 2위로 낙선하였다. 0 30 6pm noh tae hyun 영화처럼. 이재명 더불어민주당 대선 후보는 ‘험지’ 대구를 찾아 지역이니 색깔이니 하는 것보다 중요한 것은 먹고사는 문제라며 좌파우파가 아닌 중요한 건 실력파라고 강조했다. 유튜브 채널 편집 글쓰는 우원재의 유튜브 채널입니다.

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.