그 뒤에 오빠 연락처 지워버려서 잘 모르겠다.

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.

Com › remind01 › 223521586156갑자기 이별 통보, ‘이것’ 때문이다. 남친이 펨코 한다고 이별통보한 여자 유머움짤이슈. 지난 번에 만난 내담자 분은 헤어진 연인과. 이슈 7년 사귄 남친한테 이별통보 했는데 이렇게 와서 빌면 받아준다111 안받아준다222 5,710 13 무명의 더쿠 stheqoo.

이별 통보 갑자기 문자 왔을때 80% 실수하는 행동 필독 헤어질 것 같은 상황에서 이별 통보받는 준비된.

Net › dyb › 2205841084더쿠 이별잠수 한 전남친 생각나서 존나 빡침.. 나는 전 여친이 여시했었는데, 걔가 어떤 애인지 대화를 통해 알았으니까 별 상관 없었음.. Net › square › 3658685783더쿠 7년 사귄 남친한테 이별통보 했는데 이렇게 와서 빌면 받아준.. 나한테는 첫연애고 30일 좀 더 됬었어..

마음이 남아있지 않다고 차였어 나는 많이 좋아하고있는 상태였고 그전에도 기미가 잘 안보여서 전혀 몰랐ㅇㅓ 한달 반 지났는데 괜찮다가 한없이 우울해져서 미치겠고read More.

그 이별 통보의 이유가 내 기준에서 어이 없고 황당할 뿐.

바로 전날까지 사랑한다고 애정표현 다 하다가 이렇게 갑자기, 자리를 떠나려는 수현을 붙잡아보고 제발 버리고 가지 말아달라고 간절히 눈빛을 보내보지만 진혁의 손을 뿌리치고 나가버리는 수현 4단계 홀로 남게되서야 멍하니있다 주르륵 눈물이 흐름 이별한 다음날부터의 일상 밤을 새우고, 초췌해지고, 몸도 정신도 그저 멍함 괜찮아요 그냥 일이. Net › square › 989643538더쿠 이별통보를 받았을 때 현실 헤어짐 단계 feat. 내가 직접 보고 대화한 가까운 사람을 커뮤니티 했다는 read more.

연애를 하면서 큰 문제가 없었던 것 같은데, 갑자기 이별을 통보받으면 당황스러울 수밖에 없습니다.

이별통보 당하고 죽겠는데 조언좀 해줘 덬들아. 둘 다 이해간다고 난리였던 현실적인 이별 만화, 갑자기 이별통보_나를 돌아보는 시간 상담을 받기 전까지 저는 상대방의 감정을 고려하기보다, 제 감정에만 집중하며 ‘어떻게 하면 이별을 되돌릴 수 있을까’만 고민하고 있었어요. 이런 경우들은 상대방에 대한 심리 이해와 공감으로 이끌어내며, 적절한 해결책을 쥐어주면서 안심을 시켜주는게 도움이 될 수 있겠습니다. 나는 전 여친이 여시했었는데, 걔가 어떤 애인지 대화를 통해 알았으니까 별 상관 없었음.

바코바코 버스투어 하지만 상담을 통해 제가 놓치고 있던 부분을 하나씩 마주하게 되었습니다. 그 이별 통보의 이유가 내 기준에서 어이 없고 황당할 뿐. 공지가 길다면 한번씩 눌러서 읽어주시면 됩니다. 이번 글에서는 연인이 갑자기 이별통보하는 심리를 연애의자격 상담쌤께 배우고, 이해하며 재회를 현명하게 준비한 후기를 살펴보는 시간을 갖도록 할게요. 겉으로는 아무렇지 않은 척 하지만 read more. 백지헌 ㅗㅜㅑ 디시

반추 디시 Net › square › 3134969702더쿠 어느 한쪽을 욕하기 힘든, 비현실적이면서도 현실적인 이별. 잘만나고 있었는데 어느날 그냥 카톡으로 통보. 이슈 카톡으로 하는 이별통보에 대한 다른 새로운시선. 16 0500 이별 통보받고 얼마 안되었을 때는 기억 안나는 꿈이어도 종종 나왔는데 당시는 일상에서 자주 생각나니까 그러려니 했었고 점점 생각 옅어지고 잘 지내던 34개월차쯤 크리스마스 전후로 갑자기 꿈에 나와서 보고싶었고 미안하고 다시 잘해보자는. Net › square › 3658685783더쿠 7년 사귄 남친한테 이별통보 했는데 이렇게 와서 빌면 받아준. 바연에펨

박영자 수학 강사 Net › square › 3658685783더쿠 7년 사귄 남친한테 이별통보 했는데 이렇게 와서 빌면 받아준. 인영은 8년 만난 남자친구의 일방적인 이별 통보가 믿기지 않고. 이슈 카톡으로 하는 이별통보에 대한 다른 새로운시선. 며칠전 이별 통보 받았어 그렇다고 머 슬프다 화난다 그런건 아니야. ㅎ근데 아니더라 그 표정이랑 눈빛자체가 서늘하게 변해있더라 이유가 뭐냐니까 그냥 안맞는것 같대. 박담비 디시

박소연 섹트 이슈 둘 다 이해간다고 난리였던 현실적인 이별 만화 47,321 49 무명의 더쿠 stheqoo. 사랑스럽고, 다정하고, 지지해주고, 그의 제일. 하지만 이별을 통보하는 사람 입장에서는 대부분 충분한 고민 끝에 결정을 내리는 경우가 많습니다. 사람들한테 세상 성격좋고 대인관계 넓고 주말에 운동모임다니고 인싸라고 이름만 들으면 칭찬할 정도로 평판 좋은 새끼였는데 3년넘게 사귀고 하루아침에 갑자기 카톡으로 이별통보당함 그 뒤로 전화걸어도 씹고 카톡도 다 씹고 회피형 존빡 근데 사람들은. 갑자기 하루만에 이렇게 통보 당하니 마음이 안좋네요ㅠ 전 안맞는 부분은 제가 최대한 맞춰가려 하는 편이고 진지한 얘기도 자주 하면서 불편했던거나 고쳐줬으면 하는 부분에 대한 피드백도 곧잘 받았거든요.

백지영 비디오 원본 그런거 아니야 헤어지자 로 끝내더라도 오고가는 대화는 필요하다 생각. 그사람의 사정, 상황 다 아는데 더 이해해야하나 고민끝에 통보했는데 대답도 없이 그냥 끝나버려서 상황, 사정을 떠나 나에대한 마음이 없었던거구나 알게되었지만 혼자 남겨진 그사람이 안쓰럽고 안아. 그 이별 통보의 이유가 내 기준에서 어이 없고 황당할 뿐. Com › remind01 › 223521586156갑자기 이별 통보, ‘이것’ 때문이다. 바로 사람은 감정의 지배를 크게 받지만 겉으로는 드러내지 않는다는 것입니다.

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.