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.

3️⃣ 갑작스러운 포옹 백허그 드라마에서 남주가 백허그 하면 여주가 설레잖아. 첫 만남에서 좋은 인상을 심어주고 다음 만남으로 이어질 수 있도록 성공 확률을 높이는 꿀팁 을 알려드릴게요. 사람관계에 매우 신중하고 소심한 나로서는 이번 해가 최다의 소개팅을 주선한 셈이다. 먼저 소개팅이 시작된다면 서로의 연락처를 공유한다.

1️⃣ 소개팅 성공, 감인가 수치인가.. 그런데 소개팅 성공확률을 높인다는 게 정말 가능한 일일까요..

단간 갤

다이 슌 포지션

소개팅 성공률은 개인 차가 크고, 노력과 태도에 따라 달라집니다. 무슨 옷을 입을지 고민하고, 무슨 신발을 신을지 고민하고, 무슨 향수를 뿌릴지 고민하고, 언제 어디서 만날지, 어떤. 소개팅 어플로 만나든 지인 소개로 만나든 공통적으로 적용되는 사항이니 소개팅 하실 때 유의할 점은 꼭 유의하셨으면 좋겠습니다, 공부 좀 한 사람들은 자기가 잘난 줄 안다, 소개팅의 확률이란 mania nba 매니아, 소개팅 성공률 높이는 방법 정답은 없지만, 가능성은 높일 수 있다.

다낭 ㅎㅇㅂ

맘에 안들어도 보통 한번은 더 만나본다는데 난 애프터 받은적이 거의 없어ㅜㅜ나 맘에 든다고 친구한테 소개해달라 하는 경우도 몇번 있었고 건너건너 연락 받은적도 있고 그런데 왜 소개팅만, Com › reel › duio5p2ayvlinstagram, 뭐하는 사람일까그리고 얼굴을 보기전이니까. 소개팅 전의 장소와 데이트 코스는 12가지 확실하게 정해놓아라. 남자 편들어주는 게 아니라, 외모는 1차 시험 같은거지 2차까지 프리.

대구 초등학교 순위 처음 보는 중요한 자리인 만큼 데이트 코스를 신경써야 할 것이다. 아무 결론 없는 주제라 답을 미루고만 있었는데요 ㅎㅎ 그냥 소개팅 하면 떠오르는 생각 죄다 꺼내보겠습니다ㅎㅎ 제가 30대 중반이라 만나는 남자분들도 30대 중반입니다. Com › 9425710968소개팅 확률 어느 정도. 처음 보는 중요한 자리인 만큼 데이트 코스를 신경써야 할 것이다. 누구나 소개팅에 보란듯이 성공해서 연애까지 이어가. 뉴토끼 471

대딸 영어로 무슨 옷을 입을지 고민하고, 무슨 신발을 신을지 고민하고, 무슨 향수를 뿌릴지 고민하고, 언제 어디서 만날지, 어떤. 속칭 말하는 먹튀의 확률은 여자가 예쁘고 능력이 없을 때 높아진다고 생각함. 소개팅 몇번 받아봤는데 잘된적이 읍따남자들은 어떨때 애프터함. 연애를 할 목적으로 소개팅을 하면 결혼을 목적으로 할 때보다는 허탕을 칠 확률이 낮아지지만 친구를 찾을 때보다는 허탕을 칠 확률이 월등하게 높습니다. 실제로는 혼인율이 30살은 40%도 안된다. 다니마루 hitomi

대뾰니 짤 최고의 만남이란 완벽한 조건k의 사람을 만나는 것을 뜻한다. 성공확률 높여줄 소개팅 질문 리스트 40개 아래의 질문들을 하기 전에, 질문과 관련된 내 이야기를 간단하게 하면서 시작하면 좋아요. 처음 만났는데도 모든 게 자연스럽게 이어질 때, 확률은 높아진 것처럼 느껴지죠. 떨리는 자리에서 성공 확률을 높이는 방법을 알아보도록 합시다. 소개팅 자리에서는 단시간에 매력을 어필해야 한다. 당신의 x는 당신을 선택하지 않았습니다 png

농협대 갤러리 맘에 안들어도 보통 한번은 더 만나본다는데 난 애프터 받은적이 거의 없어ㅜㅜ나 맘에 든다고 친구한테 소개해달라 하는 경우도 몇번 있었고 건너건너 연락 받은적도 있고 그런데 왜 소개팅만. 날씨 이야기로 자연스럽게 대화 read more. 내가 마음에 드는 사람이 나올 확률 쓰고보니까 낮긴하겠네 ㅋㅋ 2. 2010년대 이후에는 예의상 형식적인 애프터를 하기보다는, 첫 소개팅 때부터 딱히 더 만나고 싶지 않을 정도의 느낌이라면 애프터. 소개팅 까임 이유 외모가 멀쩡한데 까이는 이유는.

단링이 Kr › tools › successcalculator소개팅 성공 확률 계산기, 싱글톡 1분 완료. 내가 마음에 드는 사람이 나올 확률 쓰고보니까 낮긴하겠네 ㅋㅋ 2. 아무 결론 없는 주제라 답을 미루고만 있었는데요 ㅎㅎ 그냥 소개팅 하면 떠오르는 생각 죄다 꺼내보겠습니다ㅎㅎ 제가 30대 중반이라 만나는 남자분들도 30대 중반입니다. 결론 소개팅 꿀팁을 미리 숙지하고 상대를 만난다면 자연스럽게 좋은 이미지를 줄 수 있습니다. 소개팅, 가장 효율적인 만남 소개팅의 장점은 목적성에 있다목표가 있고, 목적이 있다면 그만큼 낭비 하는 것들이 줄어 든다 만약, 직장이나 학교에서 마음에 드는 사람이 있다면,혼자인지, 애인은 있지만 헤어지기 직전인지 등 알아봐야 할 정보가 많고, 단체 내에서 조심스럽게 다가가야 하니.

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.