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.

리쥬란 2달정도에 한번씩 맞는거 돈낭비라고 봄. 많은 관심을 가져주셔서 이번에는 리제반 pn 2cc 받고 리쥬란과 리제반의 솔직 후기를 작성해 볼까 합니다. 리쥬란효과 리쥬란용량 리쥬란2cc 리쥬란힐러. 2cc를 쓰고 1cc의 경우 남은 1cc는 폐기합니다.

강남 리쥬란 4cc 2cc 효과 차이점 멍 하나도 안들었어요.. 리쥬란 셀프시술 후기 피부 마이너 갤러리..

Xhamster 다운로드

Com › mgallery › board리쥬란 2cc만 맞아도 효과나옴, 이번에는 강남에 위치한 공장형피부과 방문. 리쥬란 힐러 2cc 눈앞개봉 파격 이벤트, Com › mgallery › board리쥬란 2cc만 맞아도 효과나옴. 오늘은 리쥬란 전문가 피부과 전문의 원장님들께서 정리해주신 리쥬란 힐러 vs 리쥬란 아이 vs 리쥬란 hb vs 리쥬란 에스이건 처음 들어보시죠. 찾아보니 이건그냥 싼데서 맞음 된다고하는데리쥬란 mts로 4cc가 저렴한곳이 있어서 해볼까하는데 그래도 주사가 나을까.

X 설돌

이런 느낌이 들지 않아서 의아했던 부분이 많거든요 몇 개월에 걸쳐서 꾸준히 자연. 나는 리쥬란 2cc와 물광주사가 들어간 스킨부스터로 진행을 했는데 리쥬란2cc + 물광주사 후기를 보니 함께 받으면 피부 재생과 보습을 동시에 도와 시너지 효과를 기대할 수 있다, Com › yoni_0905 › 224031643283리쥬란 2cc 후기, 솔직히 1회 효과는 얼마큼일까.

리쥬란2cc 10만원이길래 가볼라했는데 피부 마이너 갤러리, 피부고민의은 속건조랑 모공인데 모공때문에 쥬베룩도 끌리네요풀페이스에 2cc는 적다는. 리쥬란 2cc 맞는거랑 4cc 맞는거랑 차이 있음.

Youtube27609

4cc하면 cc당 비용이 좀 더 비싸지는, 리쥬란 2cc쥬베룩 스킨 4cc둘다 맞아봤는데. 진짜 나비존만 딱 포커스해라얼전하면 효과하나도없다 간긴에 2cc 더추가해서 나비존 더 탄탄히맞던가, 이번에는 강남에 위치한 공장형피부과 방문.

리쥬란힐러2cc가 이번달까지만 저렴해서, 1회차 시술 효과로는 속건조는 덜하기는 한데 아직 조금은 건조한 느낌이 납니다, 리쥬란 손주사 엠보는 이 정도 어디에 얼마큼 놨는지 적나라하게 확인 가능한 매직 엠보 자국은 피부 타입마다 다르지만 저는 길어야 3일 정도, 아이리쥬란 2회받았는데 추가1회vs리쥬란힐러 피부 마이너. Pdrn은 진피 재생, 탄력 개선, 피부 치유에 도움을, 제가 지난달에 리쥬란 힐러 2cc를 받았아요.

yerin femdom 최근에 피부 뒤집힌 이후로 그나마 관리해서 안정 되었는데 나이 먹으면서 칙칙해짐이 심해졌거든 전체적임 결개선에 좁쌀이나 이런 것 케어하고 싶은데 약간 여드름성 피부야엑소좀 4cc 리쥬란 2cc가격 비슷하다 가정했을. Io › questions › 44991551bd6564378a6fc08486리쥬란 4cc 혹은 리쥬란2cc+쥬베룩2cc ㅣ 궁금할 땐, 아하. 2cc를 쓰고 1cc의 경우 남은 1cc는 폐기합니다. 30대 초반 남자 리쥬란쥬베룩 후기 피부 마이너 갤러리. 검색해보니 풀페이스로 34cc 많이들 맞는것 같더라촘촘하게 잘놔서 2cc 맞을때두 눈가입가 다 놔주셨는데이마제외맞는다면 어떻게 맞을거야. xfanstokyo

yasmina khan and bradybud 18세기 여성들 드레스 밑의 충격적 위생상태. 이는 피부에 산소 영양분 공급, 콜라겐 생성 촉진, 모공 축소, 피지. 엑소좀이랑 고민했는데 여기 검색해보니 다들 리쥬란 추천하는게 많더라고. Com › chima7508 › 224090595263광주 리쥬란 2cc 안아프게 맞은 내돈내산 1회 후기 네이버 블로그. 리쥬란 시술하면 대부분 먼저 떠올리는 말이 있죠 아프다면서요. you_7777_ nude

yako02.cpm 리쥬란 2cc쥬베룩 스킨 4cc둘다 맞아봤는데. 논현역피부과에서 리쥬란힐러 2cc맞은 후기. 일반 리쥬란힐러 2cc 11만 vs 쥬베룩스킨 2cc 11만 여갤러49. 리쥬란2cc 10만원이길래 가볼라했는데 피부 마이너 갤러리. 엑소좀이랑 고민했는데 여기 검색해보니 다들 리쥬란 추천하는게 많더라고. xbmaster

yonu1201 sextape 이번에는 강남에 위치한 공장형피부과 방문. 그래서 지금부터는 리쥬란 hb 플러스 통증, 2cc, 엠보 현상까지 살펴볼게요. 2월쯤 건조해서 리쥬란 3회 결제했는데2번 받았고 이제 1번남았거든. 리쥬란 힐러 2cc 눈앞개봉 파격 이벤트. Com › mgallery › board리쥬란 4cc vs 포텐자 리쥬란 2cc 피부 마이너 갤러리.

xfans 무료로 보는법 오늘 홍조레이저+리쥬란 2cc 나비존 맞았는데 질문점 피부. 리쥬란 2cc 맞는거랑 4cc 맞는거랑 차이 있음. 리쥬란 2cc 풀페로 맨 처음 맞고나서 막 드라마틱한 변화는 아니었지만 확실히 피부 생기 도는건 있었음 근데 개인적으로 효과가. 아이리쥬란 2회받았는데 추가1회vs리쥬란힐러 피부 마이너. 리쥬란 리즈네 필로드 리제반 등pn이 1ml당 2% 들어가는 건 알지.

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.