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.

경제지 한국경제 보수 친대기업, 보수, 성장에 취중. 방송사별 성향 정리해봤음 더불어민주당 마이너 갤러리. 연합뉴스 연합뉴스는 대한민국의 국가기간뉴스통신사로, 정부의 지원을 받는 특수 법인입니다. 중도정치 갤러리 설정 연관 갤러리 042 갤주소 복사 이용안내 일반 개인적으로 생각하는 언론사별 정치성향 도긩찬호맘 2025.

Com › mgallery › board연합뉴스도 좌성향이냐.. 주로 국가적인 이슈와 주요 사건을 심층적으로 다루며, 시청률이 안정적으로 높은.. Net › service › board주요 언론,방송사 별 정치성향 정리 해봤습니다 클리앙..

赤目レイラン Bbc

Kbs,중도 mbc,좌편향 sbs,중도 ebs,중도 jtbc, Com › mgallery › board연합뉴스도 좌성향이냐. 요즘 정권에 충성하는 건 kbs보다 더함. Com › mgallery › board개인적으로 생각하는 언론사별 정치성향 중도정치 마이너 갤러리. 지상파 방송사 정치 성향먼저 지상파 방송사 3사의 정치 성향입니다.

小新按摩 Tt1069

Net › service › board주요 언론,방송사 별 정치성향 정리 해봤습니다 클리앙, 방송사별 성향 정리해봤음 더불어민주당 마이너 갤러리. 지상파 방송사 정치 성향먼저 지상파 방송사 3사의 정치 성향입니다. 중도정치 갤러리 설정 연관 갤러리 042 갤주소 복사 이용안내 일반 개인적으로 생각하는 언론사별 정치성향 도긩찬호맘 2025, 언론사별 정치성향 한국에는 다양한 정치적 성향과 보도 방침을 가진 많은 언론사가 있습니다, 방송사별 성향 정리해봤음 더불어민주당 마이너 갤러리.

비판점 특정 정권에 따라 친정부적이라는 평가를 받기도 함.. 하지만 3자 구도에, 갑작스럽게 치러지는 이번 대선을 앞두고..

金蹴りtwitter

그러나 2022년 대선 이후에는 확고한 친명, 친문 갤러리로 정착되었다. 보도전문채널 성향 연합뉴스tv 정치적 성향 중립정부 성향 특징 연합뉴스 계열로 국가기간 뉴스통신사 역할을 하지만, 정부 예산 지원을 받기 때문에 정권 영향을 받을 수 있음. 진보 좌파 오마이뉴스, 한겨레, 프레시안, 경향신문, 딴지일보, 시사in, 미디어오늘,노컷뉴스 cbs, 머니투데이, 이데일리, Sbs, ytn, 연합tv 중도처럼 보일려고 양비를 가장하면서 요상한 행동들이 많습니다. 방송사들의 정치 성향에 대해서 궁금합니다.

간현배 디시 🎙︎토론 근데 혹시 연합뉴스는 정치성향이 어떰. 성향적으로도 외교 부분에서 친미 성향 이외에는 진보 좌파 성향이 뚜렷한 사람들의 공간이 되었다. Com › mgallery › board근데 혹시 연합뉴스는 정치성향이 어떰. 트럼프 대통령이 예상보다 더 비둘기파통화완화 선호 성향인 인물을 연준 의장 후보로 지명할 수 있다는 우려가 남아 있던 가운데 상대적으로 덜 비둘기파로 알려진 워시. 언제나 극과 극을 왕복하는, 정부 성향에 완전 종속되는 어용언론. 가장 멀고도 가까운 그 녀석 16

马眼 chinese femdom sotwe 기타 뉴시스 민간이 운영하는 규모있는 통신사로써 정치성향 중도. 대한민국에서 현재 발간되고 있는 종이신문과 인터넷신문을 성향별로 정리해 보도한다. Com › mgallery › board방송사별 성향 정리해봤음 더불어민주당 마이너 갤러리. 그러나 사실 성향 분류보다도 중요한 것은 진실을 담고 있는가와 국민의 편에 서려고 부단히 노력하는가가 더 중요할 것이다. 앵커 인천의 구도심은 특정 정당을 향한 지지세가 강한 이른바 텃밭으로 불립니다. 가일 스팽

韩国 pding 비판점 특정 정권에 따라 친정부적이라는 평가를 받기도 함. Ytn 이랑 연합뉴스tv는 정치성향이 어느쪽인가요. 언론사별 정치성향 한국에는 다양한 정치적 성향과 보도 방침을 가진 많은 언론사가 있습니다. Tk통합 특별법안 발의내달 통과하면 6월 지선 통합단체장 선출 335개 조문에 다양한 특례 포함7월 대구경북특별시 출범하나 대구서울연합뉴스 한무선 김연정 노선웅 기자 63 지방선거를 앞두고 대구경북 행정통합의 법적 근거를 마련하기 위한 특별법안이. 둘다 하루종일 뉴스를 볼수 있으니, 보려고 하는데, 어느정도 중도인가요. 西方エスト 無料

小欣奈 sotwe 보도전문채널 성향 연합뉴스tv 정치적 성향 중립정부 성향 특징 연합뉴스 계열로 국가기간 뉴스통신사 역할을 하지만, 정부 예산 지원을 받기 때문에 정권 영향을 받을 수 있음. 🎙︎토론 근데 혹시 연합뉴스는 정치성향이 어떰. 언론사별 정치성향 한국에는 다양한 정치적 성향과 보도 방침을 가진 많은 언론사가 있습니다. 서울경제tv 경제 전문 방송으로 정치적 색깔보다 실용성과 정보성에 집중합니다. 중도정치 갤러리 설정 연관 갤러리 042 갤주소 복사 이용안내 일반 개인적으로 생각하는 언론사별 정치성향 도긩찬호맘 2025.

高校生twitter保存ランキング Kbs1공영방송으로, 신뢰도와 공정성을 중시하는 뉴스 보도를 특징으로 합니다. 메이플 펜던트 슬롯 늘리기 분야의 최신 동향. 엘라 비주얼로 맥심 콘테스트 돌풍 29 트럼프에 등 돌린. 방송사별 성향 정리해봤음 더불어민주당 마이너 갤러리. Ytn 이랑 연합뉴스tv는 정치성향이 어느쪽인가요.

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.