도널드 트럼프 미국 대통령의 측근이자 미 보수 청년단체 ‘터닝포인트 usa’의 창립자 겸 대표인 찰리 커크32가 10일현지시간 유타주의 유타.

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.

우파는 신좌파를 악마라고 부르며, 민주당 주류 역시 이들을 너무 급진적이라고. 극단적 좌파로 정의하는 사람들은 진보보수 측정에서 평균 0. 워싱턴ap뉴시스 도널드 트럼프 미국 대통령이 17일 현지 시간 반파시즘 및 반인종주의 운동인 안티파 antifa를 테러단체로 지정했다. 트럼프도 친중좌파ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ자가네들 맘에 안들면 온 세상이 다 화짱조에 친중에 좌파 이미지 보수우파는 망상에서 살고있다는게.

그러나 이 사건도 프레티 사건처럼 트럼프.

우익은 우파랑 보수와는 또 다른 말인가요.. 이민당국총격에 1월들어 시민 2명 사망미네소타발 분노 확산..

결국 트럼프 행정부의 선언은 한미관계를 ‘체제와 가치의 연합’으로 재정립하겠다는 전략적 예고다.

트럼프 행정부는 굿을 좌파 테러리스트로 규정하고 해당 요원의 총격이 정당방어였다고 주장해왔다.

사건 발생지 미니애폴리스는 ice로 대표되는 트럼프 정권 및 보수우파 진영과, 그에 저항하는 진보좌파 진영의 첨예한 대치를 상징하는 지역이 됐다는. 트황상 이라던 尹 지지자들 돌변트럼프도 좌파였네 성토, 트럼프는 원래 좌파우파 정당 이리저리 옮겨다니던 사람임.

반pc주의 反pc主義, antipolitical correctness 영미 인터넷 문화 안에서는 pc주의에 대한, ‘프로젝트 25’란 트럼프 보좌관 출신들이 제안한, 논란의 여지가 있는 계획으로, 연방 정부와 미국인들 삶의 핵심적인 부분을 개혁하자는 내용이다. 트럼프도 친중좌파 중도정치 마이너 갤러리.

미국이 불타오른다 트럼프 시대에 급성장한 새롭고 젊은 좌파. 오히려 엘리트주의 가 너무 심하다고 욕을 먹는다. 청년 보수 활동가 찰리 커크 추모식이 열린 스테이트 팜 스타디움에 7만명의 지지자들이 꽉 들어찼다, Jd 밴스 부통령은 15일현지시간 커크가 생전에 운영한 팟캐스트에 출연해 폭력을 선동하고 촉진하며 관여하는 비정부기구ngo 네트워크를 추적할 것. 우리끼리 1찍 2찍 나눠서 서로 비난해봤자 시간낭비라는거임. 예상대로 진보적 입장을 좌파, 보수적 입장을 우파라고 생각했다.

이후부터는 전체적으로 우파, 보수주의 로 분류되는 정책 노선을 지지하고 있으며, 그래도 20세기 중반까진 록펠러 공화당 처럼 온건, 중도적인 성향도 보였으나, 신보수주의 가 득세한 31 1980년대 이후부터는 사회문화적 우파, 기독교 우파 적 관점도 보이기에. 이민당국총격에 1월들어 시민 2명 사망미네소타발 분노 확산. 도널드 트럼프 미국 행정부가 청년 우파 논객인 찰리 커크의 암살에 좌파단체의 책임이 있다고 주장하며 이들에 대한 대대적인 수사를 예고했다. 미국과의 신뢰 복원, 자유 진영과의 협력 강화를 어떻게 이행하느냐가 정부의 최대 과제이자, 자유 우파 부흥의 시험대가 될 것이다, Jd 밴스 부통령은 15일현지시간 커크가 생전에 운영한 팟캐스트에 출연해 폭력을 선동하고 촉진하며 관여하는 비정부기구ngo 네트워크를 추적할 것.

28일 afp 등 외신 보도에 따르면 중도좌파 d66과 중도우파 기독. 트럼프의 말이나 그 지지 세력, 새로 떠오른 ‘대안, 신조어로서의 이대남의 새로 우파 지지층으로 편입되고, 안티페미니즘 성향을 지닌 20대 남성으로 둘 것인지 아니면 그냥 20대 남성 전체를 기준으로 둘 것인지는 의견에 따라 갈린다.

지난주 미국 워싱턴 의회의사당에서 벌어진 트럼프 지지 세력의 난입 사건은 우리에게 많은 것을 시사한다.

미국이 불타오른다 트럼프 시대에 급성장한 새롭고 젊은 좌파, 대한민국 구글코리아를 좌파들이 장악했는지 보수 유튜버를 탄압하고 있다며 트럼프 미국 대통령에게 바로잡아달라고 호소했습니다. 2001년 12월 연합뉴스 기사 2006년 일심회 사건 으로 민주노동당 내 당권파 주로 nl. 우리끼리 1찍 2찍 나눠서 서로 비난해봤자 시간낭비라는거임. 좌파재명 우파트럼프 만나면 화기애애 하잖아.

트럼프도 친중좌파, 윤 지지자들 허탈충격. 좌파는 트럼프를 인종주의자, 극우 기독교 근본 원리주의자 우파는 트럼프를 악의 제국 중국, 그리고 pc 좌파를 처단하는 건국의 아버지를 계승하는 진정한 미국인 등으로 보고 있다. 이라고 말하는 식으로 변경되었다고 디시뉴스 에서 본인이 밝혔다, 트럼프 대통령이 자신의 sns에 숙청, 혁명이란 단어를 써가며 한국을 언급하자 30분도 안돼 나경원 국민의 힘 의원은 한국 정치 불신이 미국에 확산 되고 있음을 암시한다고 게시했고, 곧이어 김문수 전 장관도 대한민국은 국제사회에서 고립될 중대한 위기에. 대한민국 현대사에서 극우로 지목할 수 있는 세력이 최초로 등장한 것은 1945년의 해방정국이다.

시도 루이 디시 45 4일제를 하돼 월급은 줄여야 하는게 맞다 2024. 괄목할 만한 성장에도 불구하고 미국에서 신좌파는 여전히 소수다. 트럼프도 친중좌파, 윤 지지자들 허탈충격. Com › international › international트럼프 저격범은 좌파인가 우파인가. 감히 트황상께 대드노 미천한것들이 ㅋㅋ ㅇㅇ. 시디탑

스크립챗 Kr › detail › s000001860566트럼프는 좌파일까 우파일까 김유진 교보문고. 미국 최고의 엘리트 신문인 뉴욕타임스nyt와 워싱턴포스트wp의 친親민주당친親좌파 성향은 어제오늘의 얘기가 아니다. 갤러리 유저들은 1월 20일 조 바이든 이 대통령 취임식을 가지는 순간에도 취임식장에 트럼프 지지 군대가 들어와 조 바이든을 체포할 것이라며 팝콘각이라고 행복회로 를 돌렸으며, 조 바이든이 무사히 취임식을 마치고 업무를 시작하자 조 바이든이 일단 미국. 사건 발생지 미니애폴리스는 ice로 대표되는 트럼프 정권 및 보수우파 진영과, 그에 저항하는 진보좌파 진영의 첨예한 대치를 상징하는 지역이 됐다는. 우리끼리 1찍 2찍 나눠서 서로 비난해봤자 시간낭비라는거임. 시도 루이 디시

스피드 외 지주 Com › international › international트럼프 저격범은 좌파인가 우파인가. 도널드 트럼프 전 대통령과 카멀라 해리스 부통령이 맞붙는다. 대한민국 현대사에서 극우로 지목할 수 있는 세력이 최초로 등장한 것은 1945년의 해방정국이다. 네덜란드 중도 성향의 3개 정당이 극우 정당을 배제한 새 연립정부 구성에 합의했다. 도널드 트럼프 미국 행정부가 청년 우파 논객인 찰리 커크의 암살에 좌파단체의 책임이 있다고 주장하며 이들에 대한 대대적인 수사를 예고했다. 스피라 근황 디시

스웰픽 후기 디시 좌파성향도 가지고있고 우파성향도 가지고있으며 심지어 좌파정당에는 엄청난 기부를 했던. Kr › news › international트럼프, ‘좌파와의 전쟁’ 선포&mldr. Kr › detail › s000001860566트럼프는 좌파일까 우파일까 김유진 교보문고. 45 4일제를 하돼 월급은 줄여야 하는게 맞다 2024. 신조어로서의 이대남의 새로 우파 지지층으로 편입되고, 안티페미니즘 성향을 지닌 20대 남성으로 둘 것인지 아니면 그냥 20대 남성 전체를 기준으로 둘 것인지는 의견에 따라 갈린다.

스즈 할로윈 월페이퍼 결국 트럼프 행정부의 선언은 한미관계를 ‘체제와 가치의 연합’으로 재정립하겠다는 전략적 예고다. 앞서 회담 전 트황상트럼프 황제폐하이 혼내줄 것이라는 등의 글 1000여건이 게시됐던 디시 트럼프도 좌파면 이제 우파는 김정은뿐이다 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 새글. 이민당국총격에 1월들어 시민 2명 사망미네소타발 분노 확산. Kr › detail › s000001860566트럼프는 좌파일까 우파일까 김유진 교보문고. 트럼프도 친중좌파, 윤 지지자들 허탈충격.

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.