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.

法斯托絲達琳 （anne faustosterling）教授建議將 23 個性別進行分類，並從只有男性和女性的社會中分離出來。她在論文 「五性：為什麼男女不夠」（the five sexes why male and female are not enough） 中討論了 雙性人 的存在。雙性人是指男性和女性的生理性別特徵的結合被認為偏離了規範，經常得在很小的時. Top tweets for 性别者 twitter hashtag. Org › wiki › 性別認同性別認同 维基百科，自由的百科全书. 性别男爱好女@bai150521 twitter profile.

하즈키노 아오이

性别多样性 twitter hashtag.. 不知性別小可愛@yongxin0000 twitter profile.. 这项调查是中国迄今为止规模最大的性别与性少数群体相关的全国性社会态度调查。 报告通过详细的数据分析呈现了性别与性少数群体在社会中所面临的种种挑战，包括社会接受度、歧视、法律和政策环境等方面。.. 當照片成為照騙，有沒有騙過別人不確定，但至少是騙過自己了；看著圖像裡那個有點像又不太像我的人，作為一個自欺者，好像只有這樣才能多認同自己一些。read more..

피오나 앤 케이크 시즌 2 2화

但可以肯定的是，跨性别群体的坚韧和社群力量，加之越来越多研究数据的支撑，将推动社会在理解和包容他们方面迈出更坚定的步伐。 每一个跨性别者都应有尊严地生活在他们选择的性别中——这是本报告所反映的核心诉求，也是社会公义的发展方向。.. 最初的两个性别符号来自于 天文符号。1751年， 卡尔林奈 最早使用它们来表示植物的性别。 1..

性别健康行为； 卫生系统反应的性别特征。 下表中的例子说明了与可持续发展目标3的所有9个具体目标有关的对健康不公平产生影响的健康问题性别决定因素和性别健康行为。 卫生系统反应的性别特征列于下表。, ⚧️ 符号由代表男性的♂、女性的♀与中央结合的圆环组成 ，形成跨越传统性别二元框架的视觉意象。在简体中文语境中，它主要象征跨性别、非二元性别等多元性别认同，常见于lgbtq+相关讨论与平权倡导。其核心意义在于突破性别分类的界限，传递对多元身份的尊重与接纳。近年来也延伸为性别. Top tweets for 性别者 twitter hashtag.

픽시브 미러링 사이트

1718 根据蔓尼最初的概念，社会性别和生理性别是作为一个单一范畴进行分析的，其中包括生物和社会两个要素，但后来罗伯特斯托勒（robert stoller）的研究将两者分开，分别将生理性别（sex）和社会性别（gender）定义为生物学和文化范畴。. 跨性別女孩 twitter hashtag. ⚧️ 符号由代表男性的♂、女性的♀与中央结合的圆环组成 ，形成跨越传统性别二元框架的视觉意象。在简体中文语境中，它主要象征跨性别、非二元性别等多元性别认同，常见于lgbtq+相关讨论与平权倡导。其核心意义在于突破性别分类的界限，传递对多元身份的尊重与接纳。近年来也延伸为性别. 高雄偽娘176 55 男音臉醜只有腿跟屁股愛學生處男小屌男聊天沒附照片不聊. 但可以肯定的是，跨性别群体的坚韧和社群力量，加之越来越多研究数据的支撑，将推动社会在理解和包容他们方面迈出更坚定的步伐。 每一个跨性别者都应有尊严地生活在他们选择的性别中——这是本报告所反映的核心诉求，也是社会公义的发展方向。.

하데 데이트

Top tweets for 性别者 twitter hashtag. 跨性別女孩 twitter hashtag. Top tweets for 性别男 twitter hashtag. 在日常語言中，性別通常可以代指「生理性別」和「社會性別」，但在當代學術文獻中，這些術語通常具有不同的含義，尤其是在指涉人類時。 12 「生理性別」一般指生物學上的性別，而「社會性別」通常指與某人性別相關的社會角色（性別角色）或基於個人自我認知的 性別認同。 3456, 我是你第一個跨性女友分手時，對我說不適合談感情三個月後說前陣子跟一個跨性別女交往跨性別女 跨性别.

픽시 브 에이치 그림 高雄偽娘176 55 男音臉醜只有腿跟屁股愛學生處男小屌男聊天沒附照片不聊. 女變男跨性別約男 twitter hashtag. 这是败灯邀请到白宫的跨性别活动家此前，她在拍摄一段tiktok视频后走红，视频中她与年幼的孩子交谈，问他们你知道爸爸有阴道吗？。 性别多样性st. Org › zhhans › 社會性別社会性别 维基百科，自由的百科全书. The latest tweets from 小恶魔 @yx5hrmhingytm0l. 피아노 학원 여자 디시

픽팍 Top tweets for 性别者 twitter hashtag. 性别男爱好女@bai150521 twitter profile. 質量效應桌遊硬加原本沒有的性別代詞， 加了還不爽有人買了之後不接受， 所以上網號召灌分結果翻船了。 有提到人名可能吃社群所以我放巴哈 read more. 这是败灯邀请到白宫的跨性别活动家此前，她在拍摄一段tiktok视频后走红，视频中她与年幼的孩子交谈，问他们你知道爸爸有阴道吗？。 性别多样性st. 多元性別 多元性別 （英語： sexual and gender diversity），或稱爲 性別多元化，是一个术语，用于代表人類的 社會性别 特征， 性取向 和 性别認同 的所有多元性，而不需要详细说明或列舉形成这种多元性的每个個體，行为或特征。 1234. 피클 리포터 임신

학원묵시록 디시 @padmanaban_96 @bjtnp3 傻逼男可以去死了吗？人家做这行了还被偷拍，人家服务完了还要退钱没钱的男人最tm事妈一样恶心死了. 社会性别是近代的概念 27。在20世纪中期，人文社会科学界才开始著力探讨之 27。现时意指社会性别的英语gender在此之前一直只跟文法有关 28。 英语圈在用字上尝试 区分生物性别和性别角色 之前，gender一般只用在 文法分类 上 2930。比如一本有关婚姻家庭的书籍虽列出12,000多条1900年. 今年的同志遊行中，有部分人士將個人政治主張帶入活動，令人遺憾。性別平權原應是超越政治的普世價值，不該被特定意識形態綁架。真正的社會進步，應建立在尊重、包容與理性 read more. Org › 知识库 › transgender2025 中国大陆及港澳台跨性别社群生存现状简报 多元性别中文数字图. Org › zhhans › 性別之分性别之分 维基百科，自由的百科全书. 픽시브 보지

피어스 마이 하트 다시보기 你无非是反跨，打着lgbt旗号反lgbtqi 冷知识：性别认同自由是天赋人权trans 不是性别男 在民主国家不需要服二元性别下的所谓兵役，望周知. 性别表达可能包括着装、举止、沟通风格和兴趣等。 跨性别者或多元性别者包括： 性别认同不同于出生性别的人。 性别表达不遵循出生性别固有社会规范的人。 在性别二元范围外认同和表达自己性别的人。. Top tweets for 性别男 twitter hashtag. 在日常語言中，性別通常可以代指「生理性別」和「社會性別」，但在當代學術文獻中，這些術語通常具有不同的含義，尤其是在指涉人類時。 12 「生理性別」一般指生物學上的性別，而「社會性別」通常指與某人性別相關的社會角色（性別角色）或基於個人自我認知的 性別認同。 3456. See top tweets, photos and videos tagged as 性别者.

하트골드 엔진 버전 다운 在20世纪70年代，人们对于这些关于性别的用词方式还不能够达成一致。 1974年出版的《masculinefeminine or human》中，其作者使用了内在的性别（英文： innate gender）和习得的性别角色（英文： learned sex role）这两个词，然而到了1978年的版本中， sex 和. 性别表达可能包括着装、举止、沟通风格和兴趣等。 跨性别者或多元性别者包括： 性别认同不同于出生性别的人。 性别表达不遵循出生性别固有社会规范的人。 在性别二元范围外认同和表达自己性别的人。. Net › gitblog_00100 › article探索twitter社交圈的性别分布：`genderdistribution`工具csdn博客. 在日常語言中，性別通常可以代指「生理性別」和「社會性別」，但在當代學術文獻中，這些術語通常具有不同的含義，尤其是在指涉人類時。 12 「生理性別」一般指生物學上的性別，而「社會性別」通常指與某人性別相關的社會角色（性別角色）或基於個人自我認知的 性別認同。 3456. 社会性别是近代的概念 27。在20世纪中期，人文社会科学界才开始著力探讨之 27。现时意指社会性别的英语gender在此之前一直只跟文法有关 28。 英语圈在用字上尝试 区分生物性别和性别角色 之前，gender一般只用在 文法分类 上 2930。比如一本有关婚姻家庭的书籍虽列出12,000多条1900年.

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.