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 › questions › 21922688기니 놈들. 폭주기니는 별명으로 유명세를 타면서 mbti 테스트를 해보는 방법까지. 기니是一个韩语词汇，通常用作动词的后缀，表示某种状态或情况的发生。 它的基本含义是正在进行或正在发生。 在口语中，常用于表示某种行为的持续性或正在进行的状态。 例子： 1. Jp › content › 기니닭기니닭の意味 韓国語辞書 weblio日韓韓日辞典.

그 의미와 유래는 흥미롭고 여러 맥락에서 사용될 수 있습니다.. Guineakamba ngini‎ khmer ហ្គីណេ‎ ginei kikuyu gine‎ korean 기니 ‎ gini latin guinea‎ latvian gvineja‎ fem.. 해당 파트가 폭주기니라 불리는 이유는 폭주하는 기니피그 같아서 팬들 사이 붙여진 애칭이라고 하죠..

히토미 약점

이쁘게봐주세용 の意味について。 上記の韓国語をそのまま翻訳すると、 きれいに見てね！ となると思うのですが、 日本語ではどういう意味合いになるのでしょうか。 相手はテレビに出 ているようなお仕事の方なので、私を綺麗に見て！. Eu › 기니기니‎ korean meaning, translation wordsense, What is the meaning of 기니. 分類： 源自英語的朝鮮語借詞 派生自英語的朝鮮語詞 源自法語的朝鮮語借詞 派生自法語的朝鮮語詞 有國際音標的朝鮮語詞 朝鮮語詞元 朝鮮語專有名詞 朝鮮語 非洲國家 朝鮮語 國家 第一音節有長元音的朝鮮語詞 朝鮮語非詞元形式 朝鮮語形容詞變格形 手動轉寫與自動轉寫不同的朝鮮語詞 有詞條. アフリカの国 ギニア。 最終編集 3 年前、, Adjective 기니 gini sequential of 길다 sequential form of 길다 gilda, to be long, thus often as a consequence of being long or so long that.

히토미 온천

ขออนุญาตแอดมินกลุ่มครับ ติดตาม@ ผู้ดูแล@ทุกคน ปิดประมูลคืนนี้ 21. 폭주기니란폭주기니는 최근 kpop 그룹 아이브ive의 멤버 레이rei를 지칭하는 별명으로, 아이브의 신곡 attitude에서 레이가 선보이는 에너지 넘치는 안무가 마치 폭주하는 기니피그를 연상시킨다는 팬들의 반응에서 유래했습니다. What does 기니 gini mean in korean.

Com › questions › 22253561hinative, 최근 kpop 팬들 사이에서 폭주기니라는 신조어가 화제가 되고 있습니다. 아이브 레이 폭주기니 영상 보기 ‘폭주기니’의 유래 아이브 레이와 팬덤 문화 ‘폭주기니’라는 표현이 대중적으로 확산된 배경에는 kpop 아이돌 그룹 아이브 ive의 멤버 ‘레이 rei’가 결정적인 역할을 했습니다, 국가 기본 정보 국가명 기니 공화국 republic of guinea수도 코나크리 conakry언어 프랑스어정치 체계 대통령제 공화국통화 기니 프랑 gnf종교 이슬람교가 약 85% 이상인구 약 1,400만 명 2.

히토미 터치안됨

기니피그는 미국 기니피그 브리더 협회에서 인정한 13개의 품종이 있으나 이 협회에 인정받지 못했다고 해서 품종으로 인정받지 못한 것은 아니다. 아이브의 레이와 안유진이 함께하는 폭주기니 댄스를 만나보세요, 아이브 팬들이 제일 좋아한다는 폭주기니는 도대체 무엇. 힙합과 기니기니의 매력, 후지나가 스타일, 힙합 비디오, 기니기니 意味, ヴァーチャルインサニティ 和訳, virtual insanity 歌詞 日本語. 예로부터 영국에서 사용되다가 1971년에 폐지된 통화 단위 〔참고〕 기니에서 나는 금으로 만들어진 데서. Com › entry › 폭주기니뜻폭주기니 뜻.

今回の国名は「ギニア기니」です。 発音は「キニ」のようになります。 日本語では「～ニア」で終わりますが、. Com › entry › 폭주기니뜻폭주기니 뜻. 아이브 레이 폭주기니 영상 보기 ‘폭주기니’의 유래 아이브 레이와 팬덤 문화 ‘폭주기니’라는 표현이 대중적으로 확산된 배경에는 kpop 아이돌 그룹 아이브 ive의 멤버 ‘레이 rei’가 결정적인 역할을 했습니다.

히토미 창

とはどういう意味ですか？ 韓国語に関する質問 hinative 最終更新日： 2022年5月23日 toxic_ru 2022年5月23日 スペイン語 メキシコ 韓国語 韓国語 に関する質問. 기니是一个韩语词汇，通常用作动词的后缀，表示某种状态或情况的发生。 它的基本含义是正在进行或正在发生。 在口语中，常用于表示某种行为的持续性或正在进行的状态。 例子： 1. 1995년 10월 9일에 기니 인근해상에서 조업중이던 한국 어선들이 충돌해 3명이 실종되는 사건이 발생했다. ขออนุญาตแอดมินกลุ่มครับ ติดตาม@ ผู้ดูแล@ทุกคน ปิดประมูลคืนนี้ 21.

이름 그대로 폭주暴走 + 기니피그의 합성어로, 폭주하는 기니피그처럼 보이는 안무를 의미함ㅋㅋㅋ 도대체 폭주하는 기니피그가 뭘까. Com › word › ko기니피그の読み方・発音・意味｜モルモットの韓国語：ネーミング辞典, とはどういう意味ですか？ 韓国語に関する質問 hin.

참고로 기니 guinea는 북아프리카의 베르베르어 로 흑인의 땅이라는 의미로, 대항해시대에 백인들이 피부색 검은 원주민이 사는 땅에는 가리지않고 붙였기 때문에 서아프리카에서 동아시아에 이르기까지 세계 곳곳에 기니라는 이름을 가진 나라들이 존재한다. 기니是一个韩语词汇，通常用作动词的后缀，表示某种状态或情况的发生。 它的基本含义是正在进行或正在发生。 在口语中，常用于表示某种行为的持续性或正在进行的状态。 例子： 1. 폭주기니의 뜻폭주기니는 ‘폭주’와 ‘기니피그기니’의 합성어로, 멈추지 않고 달려가는 모습을 비유적으로 표현한 인터넷 밈이에요.

히토미갤 モルモットです。 explanation in korean 일본어에서 기니피그는 モルモット로 번역됩니다. Com › entry › 폭주기니뜻과폭주기니 뜻과 유래, 직장인도 쉽게 이해하는 밈 가이드. 20세기 중후반 기니 정부의 친 親사회주의 노선 및 북한과 더 긴밀한 외교관계 성향 때문에 20세기에 대한민국 과 수교한 적이 없다. 日本語の「モルモット」は、医学実験などでも聞いたことがある方も多いかも。 韓国では기니피그（ギニーピッグ）と read more. Adjective 기니 gini sequential of 길다 sequential form of 길다 gilda, to be long, thus often as a consequence of being long or so long that. 히토미 피메일온리

히토미 치어리더 目次 ページ先頭 朝鮮語 朝鮮語サブセクションを切り替えます 発音. 1995년 10월 9일에 기니 인근해상에서 조업중이던 한국 어선들이 충돌해 3명이 실종되는 사건이 발생했다. 힙합과 기니기니의 매력, 후지나가 스타일, 힙합 비디오, 기니기니 意味, ヴァーチャルインサニティ 和訳, virtual insanity 歌詞 日本語. 이쁘게봐주세용 の意味について。 上記の韓国語をそのまま翻訳すると、 きれいに見てね！ となると思うのですが、 日本語ではどういう意味合いになるのでしょうか。 相手はテレビに出 ているようなお仕事の方なので、私を綺麗に見て！. Org › wiki › 기니기니 ウィクショナリー日本語版. 히토미 헌트릭스

히토미 회장 What does 기니 gini mean in korean. Eu › 기니기니‎ korean meaning, translation wordsense. 目次 ページ先頭 朝鮮語 朝鮮語サブセクションを切り替えます 発音. 기니 너 정말 이렇게 시끄럽게 굴기니. とはどういう意味ですか？ 韓国語に関する質問 hin. 히토미 호리미야

히토미 이마이즈미 Comsorkel205223759849346 「기니（キニ）」はiveの間で流行ってる「集団」とか「族」を意味する言葉で多分ここでは熱狂的なfanを. 아메드 세쿠 투레는 1984년 3월 26일 미국에서 사망했고, 기니 군에서는 1984년 4월 3일, 란사나 콩테 가 쿠데타를 일으켜 정권을 잡았다. 韓国語「기는」とは？ 意味は、「〜することは、〜なことは」 また「〜するはずはないだろう、〜だなんて」などがあります。 「기는」を活用した音声付き例文とよく使う単語の例も一覧で載せてるのでお役立てください♪. What does 기니 gini mean in korean. 「기니 금화」とは？ 韓国語の意味・読み方・発音 スポンサーリンク ハングル기니 금화 英名・英訳 geordie 類義語 21실링의 금액 그방언 석탄배 탄갱부 この語句の意味を登録.

히토미코드검색방법 이 노래의 안무 중에서 폭주기니라는 별명이 붙은 파트가 특히 화제가 되고 있어요. Com › entry › 폭주기니뜻폭주기니 뜻. 그럼 폭주기니가 무엇인지 아이브와는 어떤 관계가 있는지 자세히 알아볼까요. 正式名称は フランス語 で république de guinée （レピュブリク・ドゥ・ギネ）。通称は guinée （ギネ）。 公式の 英語 表記は republic of guinea3 （リパブリック・オブ・ギニー）。通称は guinea （ギニー）。 日本語の表記は ギニア共和国3 で、通称は ギニア。 1958年 、 フランス領西アフリカ からの. 폭주기니란폭주기니는 최근 kpop 그룹 아이브ive의 멤버 레이rei를 지칭하는 별명으로, 아이브의 신곡 attitude에서 레이가 선보이는 에너지 넘치는 안무가 마치 폭주하는 기니피그를 연상시킨다는 팬들의 반응에서 유래했습니다.

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.