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.

알게 되다는 몰랐던 사실을 알게 되었을 때 쓰는 거예요. 국립국어원에서도 표준어는 깨닫다만 인정하며, 깨닳다는 사전에 존재하지 않습니다. 😊 단촐하다 vs 단출하다, 헷갈리는 맞춤법 1분 만에 총정리. 이 글에서는 올바른 표준말 맞춤법과 그 구분 방법을 쉽게 설명해 드리겠습니다.

왈도쿤

개요 깨달았다, 깨닳았다 중에서는 깨달았다가 맞는 표현에 해당합니다.. 🤔 근데 혹시 깨닳았다라고 쓰고 있진 않으셨나요.. 깨달았다 o 깨닳았다 x 깨달았다의 기본형인 깨닫다는 사물의.. 깨달았다와 깨닳았다 중 바른 표현은 깨달았다입니다..

우스레 온리팬스

그는 실수를 통해 중요한 교훈을 깨닳았다. 이 글에서는 올바른 표준말 맞춤법과 그 구분 방법을 쉽게 설명해 드리겠습니다. ️ 깨닫다 o → 생각해서 이치나 진리를 알게 되다.

저도 얼마 전에 중요한 메일을 보내려다 한참을 망설였답니다. 많은 사람들이 이 표현을 깨달았다의 변형으로 착각하고 사용하지만, 이는 표준국어대사전에서도 확인할 수 없는 잘못된 형태입니다, 국립국어원에서도 표준어는 깨닫다만 인정하며, 깨닳다는 사전에 존재하지 않습니다. 이 표현들은 전부 ‘닳다’를 잘못 사용한 표현이므로 주의하시기 바랍니다. ️ 깨닫다 o → 생각해서 이치나 진리를 알게 되다. 바로 이 느낌을 글로 표현하고 싶은데, 깨달았다가 맞는지 깨닳았다가 맞는지 아리송할 때가 많죠.

🤔 근데 혹시 깨닳았다라고 쓰고 있진 않으셨나요. 하지만 정확한 맞춤법을 알지 못하면 오해를 불러일으키거나 글의 신뢰도를 떨어뜨릴 수 있어요. 이번 시간에는 깨닳음과 깨달음이라는 두 가지 통찰에 대해 함께 이야기 나눠볼까 합니다.

온리팬스 보기 디시

👉 깨닳다는 표준어가 아니므로 절대 사용하지 않아야 합니다, 이 글에서는 올바른 표준말 맞춤법과 그 구분 방법을 쉽게 설명해 드리겠습니다, X 오늘 중요한 사실을 깨닳게 되었다.

하지만 정확한 맞춤법을 알지 못하면 오해를 불러일으키거나 글의 신뢰도를 떨어뜨릴 수 있어요. 오늘은 일상에서 매우 헷갈리는 받침을 지닌 깨달았다 깨닳았다 깨달은 깨닳은 올바른 맞춤법 표현에 대해 알아보겠습니다, 한국어를 공부하는 사람이라면 이러한 기본적인 맞춤법을 숙지하는 것이 중요합니다.

이 글에서는 깨달았다와 깨닳았다의 올바른, 이처럼 ‘깨달았다’는 올바른 맞춤법이며, ‘깨닳았다’는 잘못된 표현입니다. 이 글에서는 이 두 단어의 올바른 표준말 사용법에 대해 자세히 살펴보겠습니다.

그중에서도 깨달았다와 깨닳았다는 자주 혼용되는 단어입니다, 이 글에서는 깨달았다와 깨닳았다의 올바른. 이처럼 ‘깨달았다’는 올바른 맞춤법이며, ‘깨닳았다’는 잘못된 표현입니다, 항상 사용하는 단어인데 막상 쓰려고 하면 갑자기 헷갈려 하는 것 같아요.

요나 링 사진 또한 깨달음과 깨닳음 중에서는 깨달음이 맞는 표현에 해당합니다. 깨달았다와 깨닳았다 중 바른 표현은 깨달았다입니다. 결론적으로 ‘깨달았다’가 맞는 표현입니다. 어간 깨닫에 관형사형 어미 은이 붙음. 개요 깨달았다, 깨닳았다 중에서는 깨달았다가 맞는 표현에 해당합니다. 올 데프 애니 못 생김 디시

완벽한 여자 목소리 변조 디시 이 두 용어는 비슷해 보일 수 있지만, 실제로는 약간의 차이가 있습니다. 깨달음, 혹은 깨달았다는 말, 자주 쓰시죠. 특히 깨달았다와 깨닳았다와 같은 단어들은 많은 이들이 혼동하기 쉬운 부분입니다. 우리말에는 비슷한 발음의 단어들이 많아 혼동을 일으키기도 합니다. Hi all, as far as i know, both of these mean to come to realize, but whats the difference. 왁싱fc2

우미쉘 목사 사임 이 표현들은 전부 ‘닳다’를 잘못 사용한 표현이므로 주의하시기 바랍니다. 깨달았다는 realize, understand, grasp, perceive, learn a lesson 으로 번역 가능. 일하는 게 제일 쉬웠다는 것을 깨닳았다만삭에 했던 촬영도 디자이너개꿀 그리운 320쇼룸 23fw. 이처럼 ‘깨달았다’는 올바른 맞춤법이며, ‘깨닳았다’는 잘못된 표현입니다. 무언가가 줄어들거나, 감소하는 느낌으로 사용이 되는 말입니다. 온리팬스 영상 무료로 보는방법

온리팬스 유미 😊 단촐하다 vs 단출하다, 헷갈리는 맞춤법 1분 만에 총정리. X 오늘 중요한 사실을 깨닳게 되었다. 반면에 깨닳이라는 어간은 존재하지 않기 때문에 깨닳았다는 잘못된 표현입니다. 하지만 정확한 맞춤법을 알지 못하면 오해를 불러일으키거나 글의 신뢰도를 떨어뜨릴 수 있어요. 많은 사람들이 이 표현을 깨달았다의 변형으로 착각하고 사용하지만, 이는 표준국어대사전에서도 확인할 수 없는 잘못된 형태입니다.

옵파브 일본어로 그렇기에 깨닳음 이라는 표현은 말그대로 깨가 닳음 이라는 뜻일 read more. Com › gydms6 › 223529078928깨달았다 깨닳았다 바른표현을 알아봤어요 네이버 블로그. 이 표현들은 전부 ‘닳다’를 잘못 사용한 표현이므로 주의하시기 바랍니다. 반면에 깨닳이라는 어간은 존재하지 않기 때문에 깨닳았다는 잘못된 표현입니다. 오늘은 일상에서 매우 헷갈리는 받침을 지닌 깨달았다 깨닳았다 깨달은 깨닳은 올바른 맞춤법 표현에 대해 알아보겠습니다.

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.