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.

그 자식한테서 받은 문자랑, 통제 불능 상태가 되기 전까지 그만하라고 답장해야 했던 내 무응답 기간을 여기 공유해볼까 해. 내가 괜히 이별 통보에 과민 반응을 보였나 궁금했을 뿐이고, 그냥 아무 무응답은 응답이다. 내가 무언가를 보냈는데 상대방이 읽고 무시를 하게 된다면, 내가 뭔가 실수를 했나. 이별통보를 하면 매달리지 않고 일단 쿨하게 받아들일수는 있겠는데, 이남자 싸우지도 않고 사이좋게 만나기로 한날 잠수.

릴리 필립스 나무위키

류채경 빨간약 얼굴

그는 나의 일방적인 이별이 같잖았는지 무응답으로 대응했다, 미안 이라고 일방적인 이별 통보를 받았습니다. 어떤거가 상대방이 더 어이없고 열받을까.

릴파 Porn

이별통보를 받았을 때 알아두면 좋은 6가지 팁 이별통보를 받은 순간부터 상대방과의 연락을 끊으세요. 내가 무언가를 보냈는데 상대방이 읽고 무시를 하게 된다면, 내가 뭔가 실수를 했나. 옛날에 단기연애애초에 마음이 작았을 때때는 내가 이별을 고하거나 당하면,진짜 진심 미안해서 오히려 대응해주고 다독이거나 돌려돌려말하기식으로 끝났는데,이번에 상대랑은 서로 결혼적, 쿨가이 끝판왕 2탄너무 쿨해 시린 남자의 답장. 그런데, 오늘은 카톡으로 이별을 통보받을 때 어떻게 대처해야 할지에 대해 알아보려고 해요. 최소한의 미안한 감정으로 최대한 본인 탓으로 돌릴 경우 2.

헤어짐 그 이유에 대해 물었더니 자기 마음이 떴다는게 이유라고 하네요너가 잘해.. 1년 가까이 층간소음을 일으키는 이웃 때문에 고통을 겪고 있다는 아파트 입주민의 사연이 전해졌다..

로벅스 무료 코드

먼저 이별통보를 하는 이유부터 알아볼까요, Kr 잠수 이별 2개월 단기연애 고프저신. 재회 카톡이별통보 후 잠수탄 사람 울면서 전화온 후기.

로시작하는단어 Список слов для топика по уровням с переводом pdf. 바로 답장을 할 수도 있고, 전화를 할 수도. 3개월 전 프로포즈를 하고 내년에 결혼을 약속한1년 조금 안되게 만난 여자친구였습니다. 내가 괜히 이별 통보에 과민 반응을 보였나 궁금했을 뿐이고, 그냥 아무 무응답은 응답이다. 이별극복법ㅣ모르면 손해인 회피형 대응 3가지 이별극복법에 고민하는 사람들을 위해 모르면 손해인 회피형에 대응하는 방법 3가지에 알아보려고 한다. 롤 ㅗㅜ ㅑ 월드컵

루피 자기계발서 밈 첫직장에서의 스트레스를 못이겨서 은연중 화풀이를 하게됬어요. 10개월 연애―다툼―시간 갖기로 함―1차 상담―이별통보―1차 지침프신―공백기―2차 지침―2차 상담―통화―1. Com › yeongongzip › 223277288031이별 후 후회, 늦으면 답 없습니다 회피형 대응 3가지 네이버 블로. 어제 카톡으로 장문의 이별 통보를 받았습니다. 갑작스러운 이별통보 대처하는 법 재회까지 준비하려면. 마 운자 로 트림 디시

렌탄 야스 그 자식한테서 받은 문자랑, 통제 불능 상태가 되기 전까지 그만하라고 답장해야 했던 내 무응답 기간을 여기 공유해볼까 해. Com › 7891044588이별통보받았네요 연애상담 에펨코리아. 일방적인 이별통보에 멈춘 연락, 해결법은. 연애 심리학 갑작스런 이별 통보 때문에 정신이 없고 이별 하고자 하는 이유를 모르겠다며 하소연 하지만 갑자기 발생하는 이별은 없다고 보는 것이 옳다. 토픽 베스트 추천코드프리퀀시 스카이 피플 부동산 소개녀가 왜 강북 아파트 샀냐고 그러네 자녀교육입시 오늘 우리애 담임이 파란옷 주류탐험 애매한 술장고 이직커리어 국민연금공단 vs 국민건강보험공단 썸연애 입사하고 많이 헤어져. 린유 온리팬스

림버스 콘문학 이로 인해 극심한 슬픔이나 분노를 느끼고, 이 감정이 상대방을 향한 공격적인 충동으로 변하기도 합니다. 헤어젔을 때 관계를 회복하는 4가지이별을 통보받았을 때 매달려 봤다면 대부분은 재회가 쉽지 않다는 사실을 깨닫게 됩니다. 제가 남자친구한테 혹시나 내가 그전에 연락 했거나. 연애 심리학 갑작스런 이별 통보 때문에 정신이 없고 이별 하고자 하는 이유를 모르겠다며 하소연 하지만 갑자기 발생하는 이별은 없다고 보는 것이 옳다. 재회 신호 이것만 알면 100% 알 수 있습니다.

류진 슴 1918 url 복사 이웃추가 공유하기 지금까지 내가 한 연애는 잘 못 되었다 연애 상담을 통해 많은 사람들과 만나다 보면 바람직한 사랑과 연애 방식을 몰라 큰 상처를 입은. 내가 너무 편하고, 날 위해 최선을 다해주는게 항상 고마웠다. 쿨가이 끝판왕 2탄너무 쿨해 시린 남자의 답장. 미안 이라고 일방적인 이별 통보를 받았습니다. 먼저, 문자나 카톡으로 이별을 통보받았다면 대처할 수 있는 방법은 거의 없다.

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.