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.

무조건 빛이 많다고 좋은 것은 아니다 식물을 크게 양지식물 과 음지식물 로 분류하면, 말 그대로 양지식물은 빛이 많이 필요하고 음지식물은 상대적으로 덜 필요하다. Com › board › view스트리머 양지 음지 기준이 뭐임 대체. 걍 리듬게임이 애니보는 씹덕 여드름난 키보드나 버튼 두들기는 새끼인건 똑같은데 양지 음지가 어딨노. 예시를 하나 들자면, 하루 전만해도 체인소맨이 음지니까.

음지 양지 나누는게 도저히 이해가 안간다 고민중독 미니.. 음지를 경험해 본 이는 어떠한 환경을 음지라고 말하는지 느낌적으로 충분히 이해하지만, 음지를 잘 모르는 이는 항상 묻는다..

지수 딥페이크 야동

준브

착의탈분 영어로

23 양지방송과 음지방송은 일반적으로 본다면 사회적으로 인정받는 방송이냐 그렇지 않느냐로 구분하여 사회적으로 비난받거나 금지된 행동들을 하는 방송이 음지방송이며 양지방송은 사회적으로 인정받아 많은 사람들에게 권장하는 방송들을 가리킵니다, 23 양지방송과 음지방송은 일반적으로 본다면 사회적으로 인정받는 방송이냐 그렇지 않느냐로 구분하여 사회적으로 비난받거나 금지된 행동들을 하는 방송이 음지방송이며 양지방송은 사회적으로 인정받아 많은 사람들에게 권장하는 방송들을 가리킵니다, 음지입니다 갤러리마다 약간씩은 다르겠지만 음지인 건 변함이 없어요. 09 222502 조회 62026 추천 465 댓글 1,944 3, 음지에서 양지로 올라올수록, 소수집단에서 대중으로 쓰이는 계층이 넘어갈수록 밈의 수명이 줄어든다. 단순 물리적인 뜻이라면 오히려 그늘 이라는 표현이 더 폭넓게 쓰이는 편이고, 보통 음지라 한다면 아래 비유적 표현이 대개의 사용례에 해당된다.

지삼 유출

Joehart ㅋㅋㅋ 빛이 비추는곳만 양지긴 하지 1 나에게로오는길 2024. 음지입니다 갤러리마다 약간씩은 다르겠지만 음지인 건 변함이 없어요. 음지드립 나온게 이재슥 괴물쥐 굽 셋이 자낳대 시청할때였나우리가 저런데 나갈라면 고름새끼들 짜내야 양지나간다고 음지드립친건데저능아 새끼들이 평상시에는 음지부심 쳐부리다가 진짜 음지취급하면우리 랄로 파카 유튜브 잘나. 확실한 음지들은 그냥 누가봐도 음지기운이 ㅈㄴ 남. 각 한자의 조합 그대로 그늘이 진 땅이라는 뜻. 말라말라뭉 저 사람이 말하는 음지 양지는 사건사고를 말하는거임 엑셀이나 이런거있자낭 1 발견 2025.

각 한자의 조합 그대로 그늘이 진 땅이라는 뜻. 인터넷 신조어들이 양지로 가면서 뭔가 순화되고 원래 음지의 뜻이 세탁되는 경우가 좀 있는듯, 념글 보니까 음지, 양지 논란 나왔음, 양지 스트리머는 보통 유명하고 방송주제가 건전하며 많은 사람들이 보는 스트리머를 이야기합니다 반면에 음지 스트리머는 유명할지라도 방송주제가 불건전한 스트리머를 이야기합니다 2023, 음지문화 갤러리 설정 연관 갤러리 01 갤주소 복사 이용안내 음지문화 서브컬쳐, 팬픽, 비엘 문화, 오타쿠 등과 같은 하위문화에 대해 자유롭게 얘기하고 덕질해주세요 매니저 없음 부매니저 없음 개설일 20180531, Joehart ㅋㅋㅋ 빛이 비추는곳만 양지긴 하지 1 나에게로오는길 2024.

좋아합니다 상당히 Hitomi

양지 음지의 기준은 사람마다 천차만별인듯 치지직. 음지를 경험해 본 이는 어떠한 환경을 음지라고 말하는지 느낌적으로 충분히 이해하지만, 음지를 잘 모르는 이는 항상 묻는다, 상종 디시는 여기에 끼는거조차 수치스러울정도의 양지란다 ㅋㅋㅋ. 스트리머 양지 음지 기준이 뭐임 대체, 단순 물리적인 뜻이라면 오히려 그늘 이라는 표현이 더 폭넓게 쓰이는 편이고, 보통 음지라 한다면 아래 비유적 표현이 대개의 사용례에 해당된다, 반면에 양지 音質는 음악이나 음성의 톤, 음색, 음량 등을 의미합니다, 음지音質는 음악이나 음성의 품질이나 소리의 선명도를 의미합니다.

방송 보다보면 음지 방송, 양지 방송 이런게 나오던데 혹시 무슨 뜻인지 알 수 있을까요, 념글 보니까 음지, 양지 논란 나왔음, 09 222502 조회 62026 추천 465 댓글 1,944 3.

진리컴퍼니 젖 벌칙 09 222502 조회 62026 추천 465 댓글 1,944 3. 양지음지 뜻 변질된거 존나 병신같네 ㅋㅋ ㅇㅇ118. 양지식물대부분의 꽃피는것들 전부 광합성이 중요한 식물들장미, 거의 모든 허브류 조금이라도 광합성 안해주면 사망ㄱ임 선인장광합성 조금이라도 제대로 안해주면 엊자라서 수형 ㅈ돼기 십상임. 20 2340 음지 카카오팟출신 물쥐 파카 랄로등 양지 앞엑조더스 출신이거나 트위치에서 시작한 동수칸 등 공방많이뛰고 대회자주나오는 층 2 발두림 2022. 스트리머 양지 음지 기준이 뭐임 대체. 주혜 애널

지인합성 확실한 음지들은 그냥 누가봐도 음지기운이 ㅈㄴ 남. 단순 물리적인 뜻이라면 오히려 그늘 이라는 표현이 더 폭넓게 쓰이는 편이고, 보통 음지라 한다면 아래 비유적 표현이 대개의 사용례에 해당된다. 20 2340 음지 카카오팟출신 물쥐 파카 랄로등 양지 앞엑조더스 출신이거나 트위치에서 시작한 동수칸 등 공방많이뛰고 대회자주나오는 층 2 발두림 2022. 28 1311 애초에 인방이란 음지안에서 나눈거라뭐. 한 병신이 갑자기 대학 대기업 중에 양지는 츠캄이잖아 어쩌고 저쩌고 개소리 글 씀 인방에 음지 양지가 어딨음. 짤티비 꼭노

차희원 가슴 물론 기준이 개인별로 다르긴한데 디씨는 뭔짓을해도 양지근처도 못가는곳인데 최소한 양지라하려면 현실에서도 그럴 수 있냐를 따져야하는데. 09 222502 조회 62026 추천 465 댓글 1,944 3. 16 37 0 보지제작자 그만 보고싶다 캬돌이 2023. Com › board › view스트리머 양지 음지 기준이 뭐임 대체. 무조건 빛이 많다고 좋은 것은 아니다 식물을 크게 양지식물 과 음지식물 로 분류하면, 말 그대로 양지식물은 빛이 많이 필요하고 음지식물은 상대적으로 덜 필요하다. 준비된 자가 기회를 잡는다 로아

중국 트위터 추천 디시 현타 같은것도 ㅈㅇ랑 연관된 단어인지 모르는 사람들. 16 37 0 보지제작자 그만 보고싶다 캬돌이 2023. 해가 잘 드는지, 안 드는지에 따라 집의 인상이 달라집니다. Joehart ㅋㅋㅋ 빛이 비추는곳만 양지긴 하지 1 나에게로오는길 2024. 19 1450 나도 뜬금없이 츠캄으로 양지 거리는걸로 시작된거 봤음 monster 2025.

지우개 디시 현타 같은것도 ㅈㅇ랑 연관된 단어인지 모르는 사람들. 음지를 경험해 본 이는 어떠한 환경을 음지라고 말하는지 느낌적으로 충분히 이해하지만, 음지를 잘 모르는 이는 항상 묻는다. Com › qna › detail음지 양지 뜻 네이버 지식in. 절대 아니라고 하지만스스로를 좀 이런 음지로 생각하는 사람들 많은거 같음. 20 2340 그냥 파카가 예전에 자기들 음지라고 한게 엄청 커져서 고착화된거.

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.