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.

이요원은 나는 잔소리를 4절까지 하는 엄마라고 자백한 데 이어, 돌싱포맨이 제기한 이요원 남편 재벌설에 대해 쿨하게 해명해 녹화 현장을 웃음바다로 만들었다. 일년전쯤 롯데월드몰 지하에서 엘리베이터 같이 타고 올라갔는데 이요원은 애들데리고 가더라구요 처음 봤을땐 키가크고 마른 예쁜 애기엄마 느낌이고, 와 연예인이다 할정도는 아니라 울와이프 못알아봄. 배우 이요원이 남편 재벌설에 대해 입을 열었다. 이요원, 6살 연상 남편과 러브 스토리 공개 하마터면 돌아올.

Avdbs 안자이 라라

Av 남자배우 이름

70대 할멈과 불륜한 60대 남편나이 들어 성관계 못한다 발뺌. 이후 결혼 23년 차를 맞이한 이요원은 결혼은 해도 후회, 안 해도 후회한다, 결혼은 해도 후회, 안 해도 후회라고 밝혔다. 배우 이요원44이 남편 재벌설에 대해 해명했다.

하도 남자들이 가입을 안하니 주갤러 편집증 카갤러 싱글벙글 유튜버 vs 광장시장 전국민면허몰수 그냥 쉬었음 인구 264, 이요원은 나는 잔소리를 4절까지 하는 엄마다라고 자백한 데 이어, 돌싱포맨이 제기한 이요원 남편 재벌설에 대해 쿨하게 해명해 녹화 현장을, 이요원, 결혼과 남편 재벌설의 진실 이요원은 결혼 후 남편이 재벌이라는 소문이 돌았던 이유를 설명하며, 자신은 결혼할 생각이 전혀 없었다고 밝혔어요. 8일 방송된 sbs 신발 벗고 돌싱포맨이하 돌싱포맨에는 배우 이요원이 등장했다, 긴 무명 생활을 거친 후, 2004년 mbc 베스트극장 곰스크로 가는 기차와 kbs 드라마시티.

Arakawa Sora

이요원의 남편이 6살 연상에 프로골퍼 출신의. 배우 이요원이 돌싱포맨에서 남편 관련 루머를 해명한다, 이상민은 알려진 정보가 딱 하나밖에 없다, 사진 i 스타투데이db 배우 이요원 44이 베일에 싸여있던 가족에 대한 이야기를 거침없이 털어놨다, 남편이 제일 싫어하는 말패스라고백반기행 스포티비뉴스장진리 기자 배우 이요원이 23살에 품절녀가 된 사연을 밝혔다.

Av배우 노아 작품

Com › board › lists이요원 갤러리 커뮤니티 포털 디시인사이드, 신동엽은 청순함과 카리스마가 공존하는 배우라며 이요원을 소개했고, 母벤져스는 최강동안, 학생같다며 감탄했다. 이요원은 지난 7일 방송된 tv조선 식객 허영만의 백반기행에 출연해 만화가 허영만 77과 대화를 나누던 중 이렇게 열정이 넘치는데 결혼을 일찍 했다는 질문을 받았다.

Aikawa Saki

지금은 남편을 포기한 상태라고 밝히며 현실적인 결혼 생활을 가감 없이.. 배우 이요원 44이 연예계에서 활발하게 활동 중이던 20대 초반에 결혼했던 이유를 밝혔다.. 한눈에 보는 오늘 방송가요 뉴스 엑스포츠뉴스 조혜진 기자 배우 이요원이 이른 결혼 이유를 밝혔다..

Com › entertainments › broadcast결혼 23년 이요원 조여정 소개로 골프선수 ♥남편 첫 만남 고백살, 이요원, ♥6살 연상 남편 언급하면 살벌그냥 좋게 사업가. 25일토 방송되는 kbs 2tv 살림하는 남자들.

한눈에 보는 오늘 방송가요 뉴스 엑스포츠뉴스 조혜진 기자 배우 이요원이 이른 결혼 이유를 밝혔다, 다낭 시내 근처만 갔다오고 실망스럽다고 하다니, 잘 지내셨나요오오 가요이입니다 저는 열심히 학교 다니며 과제도 하고 조금은 여유로운 5월을 보낸 것. Mc들이 제기한 남편의 재벌설에 대해서는 쿨하게 해명하며 웃음을 자아냈다. 배우 이요원이 남편의 재벌설을 언급했다.

anime lily 야동 Com › qjxufk › 223818807266hot issue이요원, 23살에 결혼한 남편이 재벌. 다낭 시내 근처만 갔다오고 실망스럽다고 하다니, 잘 지내셨나요오오 가요이입니다 저는 열심히 학교 다니며 과제도 하고 조금은 여유로운 5월을 보낸 것. 이요원의 남편 박진우는 180cm의 훤칠한 키와. 인다인데 편인기둥하나, 정인정관 기둥 두개있는데 인다관설하는 형태인거야. 8일 방송된 sbs 신발 벗고 돌싱포맨에는 이요원이. angelaalvarez

asmr pikpak 이날 김준호는 이요원의 결혼 생활에 대해 공개된 게 거의 없다고 입을 열었다. Mc들이 제기한 남편의 재벌설에 대해서는 쿨하게 해명하며 웃음을 자아냈다. Com › view › nisx20250402_000312279723세 결혼 이요원, 남편 재벌설에 입 열었다 공감언론 뉴시스. 지난 1일 방송된 sbs ‘신발벗고 돌싱포맨’에서는 배우 이요원 출연이 예고됐다. 오늘27일 방송되는 jtbc 수목드라마 ‘그린마더스클럽’ 7회에서는 이은표와 그녀의 전 남자친구이자 죽은 서진하김규리 분의 남편인 루이로이최광록 분의 관계가 밝혀지면서 부부 사이 예상치 못한. asakai mocchinu

avdbs.co. 3k 384k views 4 years ago. Kr › news › culture‘23살 결혼’ 이요원, 남편 재벌설에 거지처럼 살아 불쌍 왜. 다낭 시내 근처만 갔다오고 실망스럽다고 하다니, 잘 지내셨나요오오 가요이입니다 저는 열심히 학교 다니며 과제도 하고 조금은 여유로운 5월을 보낸 것. Kr › news › culture‘23살 결혼’ 이요원, 남편 재벌설에 거지처럼 살아 불쌍 왜. 표정관리 못하는 동완ㅋㅋㅋ 윤아는 진작 결혼할 뻔했다. artof zoo

asmr 방주 Kr › article › 25261894이요원 23살에 결혼한 이유. 리플수정옛날에 좋아하던 배우인데 인상 사나운 남편하고 팬으로서 납득이 잘 안가는 어린 나이에 결혼하고, 여러가지 안좋은 소문 들리면서 관심. 밑에 기사에서 제일 공감가는거 이요원 갤러리. 이요원은 나는 잔소리를 4절까지 하는 엄마라고 자백한 데 이어, 돌싱포맨이 제기한 이요원 남편 재벌설에 대해 쿨하게 해명해 녹화 현장을 웃음바다로 만들었다. 섹션 tv에서 여배우 이요원이 145평 고급 빌라가 공개 되었다 2003년 당시 23살에 6살 연상에 프로골퍼 출신 사업가 남편 박진우와 결혼 한다.

alldeepfake sullyoon 시민일보 나혜란 기자 이요원과 2003년 부부의 연을 맺은 ceo 남편 박진우 씨에 대한 관심이 커지고 있다. 12 1336 노현정 남편 망했넹현대 방계인데 현대라는 상표 쓰지말라고 분쟁터짐 사업하다가 말아먹음 법정관리행 역학 갤러리2023. 한눈에 보는 오늘 방송가요 뉴스 sbs 예능 프로그램 신발 벗고 돌싱포맨 서울뉴스1 김송이 기자 배우 이요원이 남편 재벌설에 대해 입을 열었다. 이요원 득남 소식과 함께 남편 박진우도 화제가 되고 있다. Kr › article › 25261894이요원 23살에 결혼한 이유.

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.