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.

흔히 못마땅한 뉘앙스를 가진 단어이며, 특히 액체가 미지근한 것을 나타냅니다. If you describe something such as a feeling or reaction as tepid, you mean that it lacks enthusiasm. Tepid 온도나 신체적 감각을 설명하는 데 자주 사용되는 경미하거나 중간 수준의 강도를 의미하는 반면, indifferent 감정이나 태도를 설명하는 데 자주 사용되는 강도가. 그것은 또한 새로운 정책에 대한 반응이 미지근했다와 같이 열정이나 관심의 부족을 설명.

Korea Couple Porn

소아 발열에 미온수 목욕테피드 마사지을 해야 할까.. Tepid 의미, 동의어, 번역 알아보기 collins 영어 사전 자료.. Tepid 형용사는 미온의, 미지근한이라는 뜻입니다.. Pronunciation engness..

He gave a tepid response, barely acknowledging the suggestion. 미온수 목욕은 미온수 마사지라고 부르기도 하고, 영어로는 테피드 마사지 tepid massage라고 하기도 합니다. 발음 the audiences reaction to the movie was tepid, with many people leaving before, 영어 사전에서 한국어 adjective 형용사 는 따뜻한, 미지근한, 비유적으로 단조로운, 무관심한. 아이가 열이 나면 열성경련 febrile convulsion이 오지는 않을까 걱정 많으시죠.

Lada Ai

The crowd ’s tepid applause reflected their disinterest in the performance, Tepid translation in english korean reverso dictionary, see also tepid, tide, trepidation, tempted, examples, definition, conjugation, Tepid 오리진 위키 origin wiki. 방법 물의 온도 손으로 만졌을 때 따끈 미지근한 정도가 알맞다, His nomination, while strongly backed by the president, has received tepid support in the senate. Tepid massage 대류현상을 이용해 열을 발산시키는 방법.

The meaning of tepid is moderately warm lukewarm.. 미온수 목욕은 미온수 마사지라고 부르기도 하고, 영어로는 테피드 마사지 tepid massage라고 하기도 합니다.. Dusty tepid soft sari night english only forum it is but tepid dog so far as its news interest is concerned english only forum tepid reception english only forum tepidlukewarm liquid only.. 영어 사전에서 한국어 adjective 형용사 는 따뜻한, 미지근한, 비유적으로 단조로운, 무관심한..

→ 마실 때쯤엔 차가 미지근해져 있었다, Tepid 형용사는 미온의, 미지근한이라는 뜻입니다, 영어로는 tepid massage 혹은 tepid sponging이라고 하며, tepid라는 말은 미지근한을 의미한다, Tepid translate 미지근한.

Kuzu-143

어원을 찾아보면 라틴어 tepere 적당히 따뜻하게 하다 뜻, 인도유럽조어祖語 어근 tep 따끈하게 하다 뜻에서 왔다고 되어있다. Tepid 한국어 tepid 정의 tepid은 미지근한 또는 따뜻하지만 뜨겁지 않은 상태를 나타내는 형용사입니다, Gave only lukewarm support to the candidate 유의어 halfhearted, halfhearted, lukewarm, moderately warm, Longman dictionary of contemporary english의 정의 tep‧id ˈtepɪd adjective 1 a feeling, reaction etc that is tepid shows a lack of excitement or interest 동의어 lukewarm a tepid response from the audience 2 tepid liquid is slightly warm, especially in a way that seems unpleasant 동의어 lukewarm tepid coffee 말뭉치의 용례 tepid sales are so grim they are offering, The waiter served us tepid soup, which was neither hot nor cold.

Korean Gay Onlyfans

Tepid 오리진 위키 origin wiki, Tepid 한국어 뜻 tepid adjective, 미지근한, 미온의, 몇 시간 동안 카운터에 방치된 후 커피는 미지근해졌다, He hates lukewarm coffee.

kuzu simpcity Tepid ˈtɛpɪd 목욕물이 미지근했다와 같이 약간만 따뜻한 것을 묘사합니다. Tepid 한국어 뜻 tepid adjective, 미지근한, 미온의. Tepid 미국 사전​ of liquid not very warm, or of feelings or actions not very strong there is only tepid support in congress for the proposal. 아이가 열이 나면 열성경련 febrile convulsion이 오지는 않을까 걱정 많으시죠. The meaning of tepid is moderately warm lukewarm. kuzu_v0 191

korean erotic vk The waiter served us tepid soup, which was neither hot nor cold. His nomination, while strongly backed by the president, has received tepid support in the senate. 100,000개 이상의 영어 단어와 구문의 한국어 번역. Comparative effectiveness of tepid sponging and antipyretic drug versus only antipyretic drug in the management of fever among children a randomized conrolled trial. Tepidtep‧id ˈtepɪd 형 1 tepid coffeeteasoup etc. korean spankban

korea1818.com Tepid翻譯：微熱的, （液體）溫熱的，微熱的, 不熱情的, （反應）不熱情的，不熱烈的。了解更多。. Learn more in the cambridge englishkorean dictionary. Com › enko › tepidtepid wordreference 영한 사전. The definition of tepid in the dictionary is slightly warm. → 그녀의 제안은 이사회에서 열의 없는 반응만 받았다. langd 작가

laimi_cute 사람의 태도가 미적지근한 것도 lukewarm이라 한다. 5도가 넘어가면 주시하여할 필요가 있습니다. 단어 tepid 의 번역, 문법, 영어 사전 한국. 어원을 찾아보면 라틴어 tepere 적당히 따뜻하게 하다 뜻, 인도유럽조어祖語 어근 tep 따끈하게 하다 뜻에서 왔다고 되어있다. , मतलब, مَعْنَى, 뜻, ความหมาย, berarti, 意味.

korean bj 75dcup 위키낱말사전 소개 유의사항 위키낱말사전. 몇 시간 동안 카운터에 방치된 후 커피는 미지근해졌다. 그러나 warm 더 높은 온도와 강한 감정을 의미하는 반면, tepid 는 열정이나 열정이 부족하고 뜨겁지도 차갑지도 않은 온도를 의미합니다. 100,000개 이상의 영어 단어와 구문의 한국어 번역. 흔히 못마땅한 뉘앙스를 가진 단어이며, 특히 액체가 미지근한 것을 나타냅니다.

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.