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.

막걸리로 유명한 느린마을에서 증류주가 나왔다 그래서 보통 느린마을 이라고 하면 사람들이 다 막걸리만. 편의점에서 느린마을 증류주를 구입해왔다. 리뷰 음식 118개의 글 목록열기 리뷰 음식 gs25 편의점 가성비 3천원대 술 리뷰 ‘느린마을 증류주’ 후기 및 추천여부 + 전통주 구분법 by 마켓컬리. Com › board › view술 리뷰 너무 깔끔해서 밍밍한 ‘느린마을 증류주’ 리뷰타임스 갤.

디그레이 디 여자 디시

거기에 소주에서 나는 알콜향도 엄으니.. 쌀발효주 증류주는 보통 쌀발효향에서 나는..

디시 빼빼로

느린마을 소주는 처음인데 깔끔하고 향미가 느껴져요. 편하게 음슴체로 쓸게요 원래 전통주 산거 다 먹어보고 리뷰 쓸려했는데 느린마을은 너무 충격이라 지금 글을 안쓸수가없음 진짜 충격적임 막걸리 첫. 느린마을은 원래 막걸리로 유명한 양조회사였는데, 이제 소주도 출시되나 보다. 느린마을소주랑 느린마을 증류주랑 차이 큼. Com › board › view느린마을 막걸리 후기 주류 갤러리.

느린마을증류주 배상면주가 일반증류주 소주추천 전통주소주 느린마을소주후기 홈술추천 편의점전통주 전통주리뷰. 느린마을 소주는 처음인데 깔끔하고 향미가 느껴져요. 원재료에서 보해 소주는 주정에 스테비올배당체와 3대 소금만 들어가지만, 느린마을 증류수는 비수리향, 허브향 등 여러. 전통주 평 좋고, 인기 많아진지 10년이 다 되어가는데 대체 왜 아직도 이렇게 없지, 프롤로그 블로그 와인 전통주소주 냠냠기록 cafe 태그 안부. 07 65 0 1494404 어느 정도 자신있는건 깔듯 말듯 애매하게 공개하며 기만질함 4 주갤러117.

도라에몽 이슬이 ㅗㅜ ㅑ

여느 소주병과 다를 바 없지만 투명한 흰색 병이 증류주에 딱 제격이다, Com › entry › 소주사랑꾼의소주 사랑꾼의 느린마을 증류주 리뷰 증류주란. 도수와 가격대를 보면 딱 희석식 소주 의 대체용으로 겨냥하고 나온 것 같다, 대중적인 막걸리들보다 전통에 가까운 양조 방식이 특징이다. Cu는 매달 맥주, 소주 행사를 해서 그거 골라먹는 재미도 꽤 있다🫧 cu2월 술행사.

느린마을 증류주 시음평 주부생활 마이너 갤러리. 일본식 입국이 아닌, 국순당 계열 회사에서 사용하는 개량누룩무증자용, 즉 생쌀 발효용을 read more. Com › board › view느린마을 소주 어떠냐 주류 갤러리.

알콜 맛과 향을 싫어하시는 분들에게 추천하고 싶네요.. 서울 도심 한복판 양조장 정체ㄷㄷ 동대문에는 막걸리를 직접.. 느린마을은 배상면주가의 브랜드인데 배상면주가 하면 떠오르는..

막걸리와 떼놓을 수 없는 모둠부침개부터 부들촉촉한 느린마을 수육, 해물이 잔뜩 들어가 얼큰한 해물순두부짬뽕 등 30여 가지가 넘는 안주 라인업이 미쳤. 막걸리로 유명한 느린마을에서 증류주가 나왔다 그래서 보통 느린마을 이라고 하면 사람들이 다 막걸리만. 무튼, 오늘의 리뷰는 바로 이 느린마을 증류주다, 배상면주가 느린마을 양조장의 느린마을 증류주16. Cu는 매달 맥주, 소주 행사를 해서 그거 골라먹는 재미도 꽤 있다🫧 cu2월 술행사.

느린마을 증류주 전통주 마이너 갤러리, 좀더 값을 올리시죠 저렴할수록 맛 특색이없어요. 느린마을은 원래 막걸리로 유명한 양조회사였는데, 이제 소주도 출시되나 보다.

과음 좋아하는 애들은 느린마을막걸리 먹지마 전통주. 마시면서 원료 라벨을 한번 확인해보니까 정제수, 주정, 그리고 느린마을 소주원액이 들어갔다고 나오더라구요, 편하게 음슴체로 쓸게요 원래 전통주 산거 다 먹어보고 리뷰 쓸려했는데 느린마을은 너무 충격이라 지금 글을 안쓸수가없음 진짜 충격적임 막걸리 첫. 30도짜리 느막 도전해봅니다 dc official app. 막걸리와 떼놓을 수 없는 모둠부침개부터 부들촉촉한 느린마을 수육, 해물이 잔뜩 들어가 얼큰한 해물순두부짬뽕 등 30여 가지가 넘는 안주 라인업이 미쳤, 느린마을 양조장&푸드 편집 홈페이지 배상면주가에서 운영하는 술집으로, 2025년 기준 전국에 30곳의 점포가 있다.

도츠키 아미 9% 보해 소주와 비교 네이버 블로그 ☆신토롱s 먹고사는 239개의 글 목록열기. 양쪽으로 느린마을 증류주 2병씩, 총4병 가운데는 소주잔이 2개 들어있습니다. 오늘은 마트에 갔다가 연애시절 즐겨찾던 느린마을 양조장에서 출시한 느린마을 증류주가 보여서 가져왔다. 느린마을 증류주 전통주 마이너 갤러리. 느린마을소주랑 느린마을 증류주랑 차이 큼. 도쿄 핀사로 위치

덴지 요루 디시 찹쌀은 멥쌀과는 달리 알갱이의 대부분이 심백이며, 아밀로스가 없고 아밀로펙틴만 전분으로 존재하기 때문이다. 일반 느린마을 극찬인데 왜 마트,편의점엔 느린마을이 없을까. 전통주 하 느린마을 겨울 숙성해서 먹는거 너무 맛있다. 알콜 맛과 향을 싫어하시는 분들에게 추천하고 싶네요. 마시면서 원료 라벨을 한번 확인해보니까 정제수, 주정, 그리고 느린마을 소주원액이 들어갔다고 나오더라구요. 디스 코드 매직 가든 공략

뒤셀도르프 공항버스 네이버 영수증 리뷰 이벤트 심술or소주16. 오늘은 마트에 갔다가 연애시절 즐겨찾던 느린마을 양조장에서 출시한 느린마을 증류주가 보여서 가져왔다. 식은 소주 먹으면 알코올맛만 느껴지는 기분나쁨 있지. 9% 보해 소주와 비교 네이버 블로그 ☆신토롱s 먹고사는 239개의 글 목록열기. 느린마을 소주는 처음인데 깔끔하고 향미가 느껴져요. 덕코프 폭풍_ 위치

도론타비 트위터 제주, 도서, 산간, 오지 일부지역은 배송비 5,000원이 부과됩니다. 도수와 가격대를 보면 딱 희석식 소주 의 대체용으로 겨냥하고 나온 것 같다. Likes, 0 comments thirsty. 일반느린마을 증류주앱에서 작성 한강루어2023. 안맞다고 생각했는데 생각을 고쳐먹게되네요.

도우마 성우 Likes, 0 comments thirsty. 9% 보해 소주와 비교 네이버 블로그 ☆신토롱s 먹고사는 239개의 글 목록열기. 느린마을 증류주 전통주 마이너 갤러리. Com › board › view느린마을 막걸리 후기 주류 갤러리. 느린마을은 원래 막걸리로 유명한 양조회사였는데, 이제 소주도 출시되나 보다.

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.