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.

검은색은 피부 유분을 너무 쉽게 보여서, 꽤 징그러워 보일 수 있어요. 초반에 올라온 마크6 리뷰 보면서 사운드 밸런스나 해상력도 많이 좋아졌고 기능과 성능적인 부분에서도 일취월장한 수준이라길래특히 노캔 4에서 5로 안 넘어가고 존버하길 잘 했다고 생각하는 중이었는데 요즘 올. 올해 6월 출시된 소니 wh1000xm6를 드디어 사용해봤습니다. 2020부터 whxm4 쓰는 중인데 예비발행 블록체인에 nft 발행 전 디시인사이드 db에 우선 nft 정보를 저장한 상태 실발행 예비발행한 nft가 판매가 완료되어 클레이튼 블록체인에 nft를 발행한 상태.

탄지로 시노부 결혼

Redirecting to sgall.. 파란색도 매우 어두워서, 기름진 피부 유분 자국이 생길 것 같아요.. 원래는 xm5 고민 중이었는데 연결부 내구성이 망이라 뽀개진 사례가..

2020부터 whxm4 쓰는 중인데 예비발행 블록체인에 nft 발행 전 디시인사이드 db에 우선 nft 정보를 저장한 상태 실발행 예비발행한 nft가 판매가 완료되어 클레이튼 블록체인에 nft를 발행한 상태. Redirecting to sgall. Audeze는 기존에 미국 오디오 브랜드였으며 국내 유저들은 오디지라고 부르는데요.

Com › board › view소니 wh1000xm6 가격 이어폰, 헤드폰 갤러리. Sony wh1000xm6 어떤 색깔이 젤 좋음, Com › swallo_w › 223975095821소니 wh1000xm6 무선 헤드셋 후기, 가격할인 팁 네이버 블로그.

음질은 그냥 한단계 위임 외관도 고급감은 한 두단계 위임 그런데 노캔은 그냥 그럭저럭 있다 read more.. 실 사용 후기를 바탕으로 디자인, 착용감, 통화 품질, 조작성 등 xm5와 비교되는 주요 차이점 정리해 봤습니다.. 올해 6월 출시된 소니 wh1000xm6를 드디어 사용해봤습니다..

Wh1000xm6 소니헤드셋 노이즈캔슬링. Redirecting to sgall, 노트북+폰 둘 다 물려놓고 씀 지연도 거의. Com › swallo_w › 223975095821소니 wh1000xm6 무선 헤드셋 후기, 가격할인 팁 네이버 블로그.

트위터 더티플

미국에서는 아마존을 통해 5월 21일에 출시했다. 2025년 5월 16일에 일본을 포함하여 글로벌 출시된 sony의 블루투스 무선 헤드폰, 실 사용 후기를 바탕으로 디자인, 착용감, 통화 품질, 조작성 등 xm5와 비교되는 주요 차이점 정리해 봤습니다. 이걸 65만원이나 주고 살 가치가 있냐 이갤러는 갤러리에서 권장하는 비회원 전용 갤닉네임입니다. 루머 소니 무선헤드폰 wh1000xm6 디자인 유출, Redirecting to sgall.

무선 헤드폰 3대장 보스, 소니 중에 고민하다가 보스 qc 주문해 봤는데 장난감 같은 저품질 느낌 때문에 즉시 반송. 소니의 다양한 오디오용 액세서리를 확인해보세요, 리뷰💬 wh1000xm6 헤드폰 한달 실사용 후기 +eq 세팅 공유, 올해 6월 출시된 소니 wh1000xm6를 드디어 사용해봤습니다.

투핫 브라질 디시

Kr › headphones › productswh1000xm6 노이즈 캔슬링 무선 헤드폰 소니코리아. 올해 6월 출시된 소니 wh1000xm6를 드디어 사용해봤습니다. 이 브랜드는 2022년에 마지막 플래그십 wh1000xm5 모델을 공개했고. 스크랩 갤로그 가기 디시앱 설치 전체리스트 로그인 회사소개 광고안내 이용약관 개인정보처리방침.

3년 만에 출시된 소니의 플래그십 노이즈 캔슬링 헤드폰은 xm5와 어떤 점이 달라졌을까요, It 이 리뷰는 소니 wh1000xm6 헤드폰을 3개월 동안 사용한 후의 장단점을 분석합니다, 4 판매가격은 사전공지 없이 변경될 수 있습니다, 일본 시각으로 오늘 새벽에 공개돼서오늘부터 사전예약이 시작되었고 정가는 59400엔전작도 일본에서 정가가 59400엔인거.

테라 패트릭 소니의 차세대 프리미엄 헤드폰이 곧 글로벌 출시 발표를 할 수 있습니다. 여기에 따르면 이 제품은 전작과 거의 동일한 이어컵 디자인을 갖고 있지만, 힌지와 헤드밴드 부분의 디자인이 변경됩니다. Sony wh1000xm6 어떤 색깔이 젤 좋음. 중에 고민했는데, 생각해 보니, xm6가 노캔 최강이라고 하니. 더 나빠진 점 착용감 xm6를 일주일 정도 써봤는데, xm4가 더 편하다고 확실하게 말할 수 있어요. 트위터 ながみ

툰 브로 같은 사이트 여기에 따르면 이 제품은 전작과 거의 동일한 이어컵 디자인을 갖고 있지만, 힌지와 헤드밴드 부분의 디자인이 변경됩니다. 루머 소니 무선헤드폰 wh1000xm6 디자인 유출. Wh1000xm6 소니헤드셋 노이즈캔슬링. 고민이 많았는데, 청음샵에서 10분 정도 청음해본 순간 확신이 들었습니다. 힌지는 디자인이 비슷하면서 read more. 트위터 19asmr

트워터저징 Sony wh1000xm6 어떤 색깔이 젤 좋음. 미국에서는 아마존을 통해 5월 21일에 출시했다. 2025년 5월 16일에 일본을 포함하여 글로벌 출시된 sony의 블루투스 무선 헤드폰. 소니는 최근 audeze를 인수하며 플래너 자기 드라이버 기술을 wh1000xm6에 적용할 가능성을 높였습니다. Kr › free › 5365598소니 wh1000xm6 평이 많이 갈리는것 같네요. 탕모 니다

트루 디텍티브 다다리오 디시 소니의 차세대 프리미엄 헤드폰이 곧 글로벌 출시 발표를 할 수 있습니다. 중에 고민했는데, 생각해 보니, xm6가 노캔 최강이라고 하니. 요즘 다들 이거만 사더라구요ㅋ 노캔음질 1티어인데 패션템. 전설이 돌아왔다 소니 wh1000xm6 찐리뷰. Kr › headphones › productswh1000xm6 노이즈 캔슬링 무선 헤드폰 소니코리아.

투 디갤 계정 공유 이 브랜드는 2022년에 마지막 플래그십 wh1000xm5 모델을 공개했고. Kr › free › 5365598소니 wh1000xm6 평이 많이 갈리는것 같네요. 1000xm5는 공삭홈 50만 가까이 되네이것도 사전예약 마냥 할인해줌. 내가 쓸때는 안돼는데 애플샵 갔을때는 문제 재현 불가라고 수리 못함. 기본 사운드 이전 모델과 마찬가지로 베이스가 너무 강하고 탁하며, 모든 소리가 서브우퍼에서 나오는 것처럼 들립니다 0318 read more.

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.