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 › entry › 14k커플링가격14k 커플링 가격 가이드 합리적 선택을 위한 팁. 인스티즈 instiz 이성 사랑방 카테고리 ㅈㄱㄴ. 종로로 커플링을 맞추러 갈 예정이라 블로그 후기를 찾아보는데, 결혼 예물 후기는 많지만 2030대 커플링 후기는 별로 없더라구요ㅜㅜ 그래서 써보는 내돈내산 20대 종로 커플링 투어 ♥. 고객의 궁금증을 쉽게 해결해 보세요 커플링 14k 반지 귀걸이 팔찌 목걸이 실버925 best.

Kmib Sua

드레인커플링 두가지 색상을 조합해서 포인트가 되는 디자인 입니다 너무 두껍지 않은 커플링을 찾으신다면 마음에 들어하시는 커플링이에요 14k18k.. 14k 금 시세 묻거나 내가 오늘의 시세를 미리 파악해서 금중량 제외하고 세공비가 얼마인지 계산합니다..

Kbj 심청이

요새 14k 커플링기준이 기본 100이넘어. 샴페인골드 커플링 별반지 14k 18k, 총토탈 비용70 ls증권해외선옵 수수료 부담, 일반 형님들 14k 18k 커플링은 지금 좀 그렇나요.

14k 18k는 알러지 유무가 가장 크겠지만 돈많으면 18k해 비싸게 삿으니 추후 비싸게 파는거임, 100일날 반지공방에서 맞춘거 끼고 있어서 1주년 기념으로. Com › mgallery › board여자친구랑 맞춘 14k금반지 파는방법 없냐. 종로14k커플링의 다나와 통합검색 결과입니다.

반디링 상품 q&a 심플 주얼리 궁금증.. 450 생각했는데 부족할지 그리구 금값에 붙는 10%는 vat다 가공중에 손실되는 금 비용이다 얘기가 갈리던데 무슨 비용인지 궁금해요 게시판 이력.. 1 제일 먼저 14k 18k 순금 24k 백.. 24 274 0 7923 공지 분탕글 삭제 공지6 통화..

근데 상담받고 나니까 14k가 훨씬 합리적이더라고요, 일반 요새 14k 커플링기준이 기본 100이넘어. Com › category › 가격대별가격대별 커플링 justgoldhouse 14k, 18k 합리적인 가격의 고급.

Kissjav 떡방

일반 금 존문가인데 커플링 이제 팔려고 하는데 14k 4. $110 지원 운영자 250701 9579 공지 뉴비들 자주 물어보는거 간단한 대답. 인스티즈 instiz 이성 사랑방 카테고리 ㅈㄱㄴ. 24 274 0 7923 공지 분탕글 삭제 공지6 통화, 형들 커플링 찾아보다가 여기까지 왔어 제발 도와줘곧 여친이랑 1주년인데 우리 진지하게 결혼할거라서 1주년 진짜 너무 의미있게 챙기고싶단말이야 반지 기념겸 선물로 사려하는데금반지가 좋겠지.

최근에는 예물 뿐 아니라 기혼부부들의 결혼기념일 선물로써도 어렵지 않게 찾는 상품이 커플링이기에 이러한 기본적인 상식과 정보들을 미리 알고, 금 값이 많이 올라서 14k도 꽤나 올라서 저렴하지는 않네요. 金銀갤러리 입니다 금은 갤러리에 다양한 이야기를 남겨주세요, 큐빅커플링 패션커플링 순은커플링 특이한커플반지 우정은반지, 14k, 18k 합리적인 가격의 고급 커플링. 더 싼곳 있나 ㅠㅠㅠ 그리고 보통 커플링은 순금으로.

14k 18k 커플링 주피터 안쪽메움가능, 14k 18k 커플링 주피터 안쪽메움가능. 최근 14k 커플링을 착용해 본 경험을 공유하고자 합니다, 예전에는 18k로 결혼예물을 하시는 분들이 많았지만 요즘은 14k로 많이 준비하고 있어요. 5%로 구성되어 있어서 18k보다 단단하고 변형에 강해요.

kissjav korean porn 전에 미니골드에서 14k 커플링 45만원에 맞췄는데 요즘 금값 올랐다고 해서 한국금거래소 지정기관가서 되팔았거든 ㅋㅋ백원단위 반올림해서 99,000원 나옴 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 흐규그래도 나름 꽁돈. 전에 미니골드에서 14k 커플링 45만원에 맞췄는데 요즘 금값 올랐다고 해서 한국금거래소 지정기관가서 되팔았거든 ㅋㅋ백원단위 반올림해서 99,000원 나옴 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 흐규그래도 나름 꽁돈. 처음 간 매장에서는 마음에 드는 예쁜 제품이. 디시아커플링 ​ 각진 디자인을 좋아하시면서 유니크한. 종로가서 어딜구경해도 랩다이아로 씌우고 견적받아보니 5군데 다 120130이러는데. kbj terabox

kgirls 디시 대신 반지이기때문에 온라인보다는 오프라인을. 최근 14k 커플링을 착용해 본 경험을 공유하고자 합니다. 더 싼곳 있나 ㅠㅠㅠ 그리고 보통 커플링은 순금으로 안한다던데 맞지. 정상가 56,140 원할인율 8%판매가 51,090원. 예전에는 18k로 결혼예물을 하시는 분들이 많았지만 요즘은 14k로 많이 준비하고 있어요. june slater sotwe

kissjav 미래 더 싼곳 있나 ㅠㅠㅠ 그리고 보통 커플링은 순금으로. 커플링 추천 top 50, 심플한 디자인 주얼리 브랜드 메드스튜디오에서 제공하는 결혼반지 커플링 추천 top 50입니다. 커플링 잘 구매하는 몇가지 tip 종로 기준을 작성해봤습니다. 커플링 고르는 법 금액대 10만50만 커플들이 주로 구매하는 커플링 시세, 100만 이상부터는 결혼반지인데 커플링때 한번 구매하고 결혼반지 그대로 이용하기도 한다고함. 14k 18k 백금 커플링은 없다 네이버 블로그. kissjav 韓国

kemono 스캇 심플한 클래식 디자인부터 화려한 보석 세팅까지 선택의 폭이 넓다. 다른사람 시선이 궁금하네요 돈이 없는건 아니지만 14k도 싼금액이 아니고 오히려 더 튼튼한 금속이라 실속있어서 선택하려 하는데. 종로14k커플링의 다나와 통합검색 결과입니다. 디시아커플링 ​ 각진 디자인을 좋아하시면서 유니크한. 종로가서 어딜구경해도 랩다이아로 씌우고 견적받아보니 5군데 다 120130이러는데.

kemono イスタッシュ 병원에서 매일 손 씻는데도 변형이 없어요. 근데 상담받고 나니까 14k가 훨씬 합리적이더라고요. 형들 1주년 커플링 14k,18중에 뭐가 괜찮음. 미안해 형들 고민하다가 술마시고 쓴글이라 너무 두서없다. Com › category › 가격대별가격대별 커플링 justgoldhouse 14k, 18k 합리적인 가격의 고급.

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.