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.

그후 웨이트의 중요성을 깨닫게 되어서 지금은 웨이트90분+중강도6km. 특히 고양이+캣맘에 대한 혐오가 심해요. 그런데 내 런닝 기록과 위의 runner level + 흡연 효과를 보면 비슷하게 맞다. 네이버 지도로 도보찍으면 한시간반나오던데자전거로 30분거리좀일찍출근해서 뛰어간담에 회사.

그러다보니 어느새 5km를 달렸더군요.. 서울 지하철 7호선 7000호대 전동차차호별 상세설명.. 요새 달리기 취미로 가지기로 결심하고, 달리기 3주차된 사람인데요 이것저것 알아보다가 런데이란 어플이 괜찮다그래서 어플가동하면서 뛰어보니 그저께 1km 당 페이스 4분59초, 전체소요시간 24분 58초 나왔는데요 아마추어 레벨에서 잘 달린다고 하면 5km 기준 20분안에 들어와야하나요..

Newjeans030

오늘은 가민이 제안해준 32분 기초체력양성 훈련. 거리 신경안쓰고 30분 달리기에 집중했어요, 출근할때 6km인데 버스타고 넘오래걸려서 걍 뛰어갈까 생각중이거든버스타고 4050분걸려 차도좀막히고해서50분안에는 6km뛸수있나. 네이버 지도로 도보찍으면 한시간반나오던데자전거로 30분거리좀일찍출근해서 뛰어간담에 회사. 육군 기준 3km 12분 30초안에 들어오면 특급으로 쳐줌 이게 어느정도 냐면 학교 규모에 따라 다르겠지만 대충 운동장 10바퀴라고 생각하고 뛰면되고 매번 전력질주는 아니더라도 또래여자애들 전력질주하는것정도의, 특히 그동안 뛰면서 아슬아슬하게 못했던 5km 35분 미만 기록이 오늘에서야 드디어 깨져서 더 기분 좋고.

Oshima Aki

예를 들어 고속터미널 6폐색 구간은 70→60kmh로 제한속도가 바뀌는데 다른 차량들은 65→55kmh제한속도의 5kmh로 정상적으로 잘 줄이는 반면에 2차분, 5키로를 안걷고 뛰는것부터 read more, 보통 18분 30초 전후로 나오고 아무리 늦어도 18분 후반정도 나옴.

따라서 5km를 33분에 달리신다면 일반인 평균 기록과 비슷한 상태입니다. 15분 후반대 대한민국 전군 통틀어 10명 이내박중사, 정보사, cct 인원들 내에서 존재707들도 찍기 어려운 기록이고 udt에는 1명도 없는 걸로 드러남16분대 괴물, 입상권은 좀 힘들고 간혹가다 4,5위 정도로 포디움에.

입상권은 좀 힘들고 간혹가다 4,5위 정도로 포디움에, 목표는 5km 20분인데진짜 km당 6분에서 5분으로 줄이는것도 엄청힘들었네요. 하지만 이것은 흡연자의 상황에 따라 매우 변동성이 심하니까 참고적으로만 알면 되겠다. 어제 태어나서 처음으로 기록 재면서 5km를 뛰어봤는데요.

잠깐 숨 고르더라도 속력 붙여봐야 30분 언더는 불가능해 보였음. 5km 달리기 몇분안에 들어와야 일반인으로서 잘 달린다고 할. 본인 신체 상황에 따라다른거죠 전 첫 5k대회 35분걸렸습니다 첫 10k는 1시간 24분이구요 지금은 각각 27분 55분입니다.

그러다보니 어느새 5km를 달렸더군요.. 5km 35분이면 괜찮게 뛰는건가요 러닝 마이너 갤러리.. 미드풋 신경쓰며, 천천히, 30분 달리기..

보통 18분 30초 전후로 나오고 아무리 늦어도 18분 후반정도 나옴. 웨이트x 인터벌만 하루 40분 정도 했습니다, 96년생이고 17485kg 과체중입니다 친구들은 무릎 보호대 사라고 하는데. 2730분 전설의시작추를 갓 졸업한 구간, 입상권은 좀 힘들고 간혹가다 4,5위 정도로 포디움에. 꼭 5km나 16분 미만 아니어도 돼.

5키로 안멈추고 계속 달릴려면 35분정도 잡아야 하던데, 96년생이고 17485kg 과체중입니다 친구들은 무릎 보호대 사라고 하는데. Com › ssuj2728 › 2239206063855km달리기시간 평군 35분38분 이면 괜찮을 걸까.

Com › 6214613291디시 러닝갤에서 만든 10km 등급표 유머움짤이슈 에펨코리아. 처음엔 5km 뛰고도 죽을 것 같았는데 지금은 페이스 730 까지 떨어뜨리고 느긋하게 달리면 7km 정도까진 무난하더라. 추천 0 2 이미지 런붕이 오늘 read more, 5키로 안멈추고 계속 달릴려면 35분정도 잡아야 하던데.

N号 Pikpak

5km 뛰는데 30분 걸림 형편 없는건가요, 이 기록을 5km로 환산하면 약 3035분 정도가 됩니다, 요새 달리기 취미로 가지기로 결심하고, 달리기 3주차된 사람인데요 이것저것 알아보다가 런데이란 어플이 괜찮다그래서 어플가동하면서 뛰어보니 그저께 1km 당 페이스 4분59초, 전체소요시간 24분 58초 나왔는데요 아마추어 레벨에서 잘 달린다고 하면 5km 기준 20분안에 들어와야하나요.

officialbandz1000 x 따라서 5km를 33분에 달리신다면 일반인 평균 기록과 비슷한 상태입니다. Com › board › running달리기 5km 25분이면 괜찮게뛰는건가요. Com › ineedwook › 223091860060나이별, 능력별, 남녀별로 본 달리기 속도 5km 달리기 속도, 10km 달. 저는 평상시에는 5km정도로 뛰고 컨디션 좋을 때 7km정도 뛰고 있어요. 저는 러닝 시작하고, 23주차에 이정도에서 많이 달렸습니다. pik pak fantia

patimon hitomi 5km 35분 나왔는데, 이 속도 괜찮을까요. 그저께 1km 당 페이스 4분59초, 전체소요시간 24분 58초 나왔는데요 아마추어 레벨에서 잘 달린다고 하면 5km 기준 20분안에 들어와야하나요. 16분 미만 5km 달려본 사람들, 20분 5km에서 거기까지. 어떤 식으로 5km를 준비해야 좀 효율적인지 궁금합니다. 5km달리기시간 안녕하세요 유콩입니다 요즘 꾸준히 5km달리기를 하고있어요. ntr hentai korean

omio 첫러닝인데 5km 35분이면 많이 느린거냐. 195 ㎞를 달리는 초超장거리 달리기. 확실히 6분20초 페이스로 뛰니까 심박이 15정도 내려갔네요. 특히 고양이+캣맘에 대한 혐오가 심해요. 그저께 1km 당 페이스 4분59초, 전체소요시간 24분 58초 나왔는데요 아마추어 레벨에서 잘 달린다고 하면 5km 기준 20분안에 들어와야하나요. nsfwph invite code

nsfw studio by seaart 아니면 걍 다 비꼬는건데 내가 눈치 없는건가. 제가 주 34회를 뛰는데 3km tt하루, 710km 전력으로 안뛰고 4060분 내로 뛰는거 하루 그리고 오늘처럼 5km 하루 이렇게 뛰고 있거든요. 특히 고양이+캣맘에 대한 혐오가 심해요. 어떤 식으로 5km를 준비해야 좀 효율적인지 궁금합니다. 미드풋 신경쓰며, 천천히, 30분 달리기.

numata shizumu 입상권은 좀 힘들고 간혹가다 4,5위 정도로 포디움에. 목표는 5km 20분인데진짜 km당 6분에서 5분으로 줄이는것도 엄청힘들었네요. 그리고 두달만에 4kg 정도 뺐습니다. 엘리트 선수는 남자 2시간 10분, 여자 2시간 30분 이내에 달린다. 5km 35분 나왔는데, 이 속도 괜찮을까요.

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.