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.

@fouryn_astar 到底如何屏蔽这些跨性别 性别者. 在日常语言中，性别通常可以代指 生理性别 和 社会性别 ，但在当代学术文献中，这些术语通常具有不同的含义，尤其是在指涉人类时。 12 生理性别一般指生物学上的性别，而社会性别通常指与某人性别相关的社会角色（性别角色）或基于个人自我认知的 性别认同。 3456. Net › gitblog_00100 › article探索twitter社交圈的性别分布：`genderdistribution`工具csdn博客. 其实我也挺羡慕女性身体的，但我认为性别 和性别表达 是建构性和表演性的。就我而言，hrt相当于承认了性别二元论的合法性，被动迎合大众作为性别观众的刻板期待.

금딸 1년

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。.. Grok这么总结我对性别的态度，感觉很贴切 。这么说的话，我怀疑平行宇宙的我也是一个mtf🏳️‍⚧️ 性别 mtf 虚无主义 后无政府主义 解构 无性别 男娘 agender.. 妮妮跨性别@jenneydaji twitter profile..

그록 Nsfw 사용법

기유 ㅂㅇ

그라비아 모델 뜻

Org › zhhans › 社會性別社会性别 维基百科，自由的百科全书.. @fouryn_astar 到底如何屏蔽这些跨性别 性别者..

Org › zhhans › 社會性別社会性别 维基百科，自由的百科全书. 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, 約我出來真的有點困難哈哈哈 你們說是不是 我不是在上班就是打遊戲 我可是公認阿宅女的稱號原諒我最近消失太久三性 跨性別女孩 新竹 竹北. Org › zhhans › 社會性別社会性别 维基百科，自由的百科全书.

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, 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. 當中，我被展區的厭女言論氣到，寫下反駁拜金、公主病、蕩婦等女性污名的言論，並且敘述我對跨性別、男同性戀、愛滋病患者的一些觀點和立場。 全文大約7000多字。read more. Myy4399s tweet video. 经历性别 experienced gender是一个罕见的术语 45，指的是个人实际感知和经历到的性别。它考虑了个体对自己的性别身份和经验的认知。社会性别和虽然相关，但并非完全等同。社会性别指的是社会对个体所赋予的性别身份及社会对此的性别角色的期待，而经历性别更强调个体在生活中所感知和体验.

그록 19금 디시

Org › wiki › 社會性別社會性別 维基百科，自由的百科全书, 我们的目标是通过考虑新浪微博上的中文来扩大这项研究的范围。 我们提出了第一个中文性别歧视数据集——新浪微博性别歧视评论（swsr）数据集——以及一个由辱骂性和性别相关术语组成的大型中文词典 sexhatelex。. Top tweets for 性别者 twitter hashtag, 當中，我被展區的厭女言論氣到，寫下反駁拜金、公主病、蕩婦等女性污名的言論，並且敘述我對跨性別、男同性戀、愛滋病患者的一些觀點和立場。 全文大約7000多字。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. 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.

《黑貓急一個》 930早上十點半在北車尋求可以被將近20公分大屌幹的0號如果也願意幹女變男跨性別最好幹著鮑魚又被大屌幹做三明治也不錯有興趣請私訊報名喔！ 女變男跨 read more. Org › wiki › 性別認同性別認同 维基百科，自由的百科全书, 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。, 女變男跨性別約男 twitter hashtag.

김리리 보지 泰國的 變性人 早期就性取向進行書寫的著者一般會把之跟性別掛勾。比方說，他們會假定若身體為女性者認為其他身為女性者具吸引力，那麼前者就一定具男性氣質，反之亦然 35。很多19世紀中至20世紀早葉的理論家都這樣認為——這包括 卡尔亨利希乌尔利克斯 、 理查德克拉夫特埃賓 、 马. swsr数据集是首个针对中文的性别歧视数据集，由伦敦玛丽女王大学创建。该数据集包含10496条新浪微博内容，包括微博及其评论，旨在识别和分析中文网络环境中的性别歧视言论。数据集通过关键词搜索收集，涵盖多种性别歧视类型，如外貌、文化背景、微侵犯和性侵犯。此外，数据集还提供用户. 我们的目标是通过考虑新浪微博上的中文来扩大这项研究的范围。 我们提出了第一个中文性别歧视数据集——新浪微博性别歧视评论（swsr）数据集——以及一个由辱骂性和性别相关术语组成的大型中文词典 sexhatelex。. 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. ⚧️ 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. 김가영 deepfake

귀칼 포르노 一些 女权主义学者 对性别二元论提出质疑。 朱丽丝洛伯 （judith lorber）解释了将人们划分成两个群体会发现分类成性别二元的差异性比分成性别多元的差异更大。她认为这证实了性别二元论是随意被决定的，并导致两性的虚假期望；而先前假设性别二元的人可能也是不存在的 13。反而越来越多的. 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. Bai150521s profile image. 泰國的 變性人 早期就性取向進行書寫的著者一般會把之跟性別掛勾。比方說，他們會假定若身體為女性者認為其他身為女性者具吸引力，那麼前者就一定具男性氣質，反之亦然 35。很多19世紀中至20世紀早葉的理論家都這樣認為——這包括 卡尔亨利希乌尔利克斯 、 理查德克拉夫特埃賓 、 马. Myy4399s tweet video. 기계 유대 각인 회로망

그린 코믹스 무료보기 跨性別🏳️‍⚧️ @sunflower_5218 twitter profile. Na_an722912s tweet photo. 一些 女权主义学者 对性别二元论提出质疑。 朱丽丝洛伯 （judith lorber）解释了将人们划分成两个群体会发现分类成性别二元的差异性比分成性别多元的差异更大。她认为这证实了性别二元论是随意被决定的，并导致两性的虚假期望；而先前假设性别二元的人可能也是不存在的 13。反而越来越多的. 性别演化的原因，以及为何性别会一直延续到现在，仍然是在争论中的议题。 其中有许多可能的原因，包括：性可以创造子代中的变化，性有助于有利性状的散播，可以消除不利的性状，以及促进种系dna的修复。. Net › gitblog_00100 › article探索twitter社交圈的性别分布：`genderdistribution`工具csdn博客. 그록 콘텐츠가 조정되었습니다

근친 음성 See top tweets, photos and videos tagged as 性别者. 泰國的 變性人 早期就性取向進行書寫的著者一般會把之跟性別掛勾。比方說，他們會假定若身體為女性者認為其他身為女性者具吸引力，那麼前者就一定具男性氣質，反之亦然 35。很多19世紀中至20世紀早葉的理論家都這樣認為——這包括 卡尔亨利希乌尔利克斯 、 理查德克拉夫特埃賓 、 马. 其实我也挺羡慕女性身体的，但我认为性别 和性别表达 是建构性和表演性的。就我而言，hrt相当于承认了性别二元论的合法性，被动迎合大众作为性别观众的刻板期待. 网络性别歧视已成为社交媒体平台日益关注的问题，因为它影响了互联网的健康发展，并可能对社会产生负面影响。虽然性别歧视检测领域的研究正在增长，但大部分研究都以英语为语言，以 twitter 为平台。我们的目标是通过考虑新浪微博上的中文来扩大这项研究的范围。我们提出了第一个中文性别. Top tweets for 性别者 twitter hashtag.

귀칼 여캐 엉덩이 The latest tweets from 小恶魔 @yx5hrmhingytm0l. 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。. 其实我也挺羡慕女性身体的，但我认为性别 和性别表达 是建构性和表演性的。就我而言，hrt相当于承认了性别二元论的合法性，被动迎合大众作为性别观众的刻板期待. Org › wiki › 性别符号性别符号 维基百科，自由的百科全书. 《黑貓急一個》 930早上十點半在北車尋求可以被將近20公分大屌幹的0號如果也願意幹女變男跨性別最好幹著鮑魚又被大屌幹做三明治也不錯有興趣請私訊報名喔！ 女變男跨 read more.

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.