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.

보면 볼수록 빠져든다니까 표정하고 눈빛이 진짜 ㅜ. 외모 관리부터 태도와 품격, 언어와 말투, 사회적 행동, 취미와 여가활동. 지성미와 인성이 바른 품격있는 여자를 말한다. Net › name_beauty › 1286802고급스러운 얼굴 조건이 뭐라고 생각해 인스티즈 instiz 뷰티 카.

귀칼 무료 사이트

국제커플 디시

고급스런 여자얼굴의 필수조건 나갤러 14.. Jpg 201806202102 해외축구 갤러리.. 검정머리 스타일 추천, read more.. 요즘 간혹 상담하다 보면 이렇게 표현하시는 분들이 꽤 있습니다..

이미 20년 전에 연구가 된 부분임남성성이 높은 남자일수록 남성성 낮은 남자보다 여성스럽게 생긴 여자를 더 좋아함반대로 베타퐁퐁남들처럼 남성성이 낮으면 상대적으로 남자같이 생긴 여자에 대해 괜찮게 봄, 고급스럽게 생긴 얼굴 말이야 메이크업 갤러리, 09 184235 조회 14064 추천 222 댓글 111 고급스럽게 생겼네 or 차갑게 생겼네 둘중 하나라도 들어봤으면 찐으로 이쁜거고 한번도 못들어봤으면 좀 애매하게 생기거나 못생긴거ㅇㅇ 222 3 107. 고급스럽게 생긴 얼굴 말이야 메이크업 갤러리.

이미지 근데 여자는 피부톤이 절반먹고들어가는데. Com › talk › 317013346@@사진有고급스럽게 생긴여자는 이런여자, Com › secret › 557358난 아직도 남자들이 대체 어떻게 생긴 여자를 좋아하는지 모르겠어 &g, 박지현 성격 내가 예전에 1년 사귄 전여친이랑 존똑이라 소름이네, 이미 20년 전에 연구가 된 부분임남성성이 높은 남자일수록 남성성 낮은 남자보다 여성스럽게 생긴 여자를 더 좋아함반대로 베타퐁퐁남들처럼 남성성이 낮으면 상대적으로 남자같이 생긴 여자에 대해 괜찮게 봄, 보통 좀 반반하면 자기가 고급스럽게 예쁘다고 생각하는데 사실 고급스럽게 예쁘려면 명품쳐발쳐발 도도한 눈빛이런거 아니고 지적인 미가 있어야 고급져보임.

공업용 드립

39살 연봉 7000 인 여자가 대시할정도로.. 앞모습은 막 사각사각하지 않은데 측면에서 봤을때 귀밑턱이 얼굴을 힘 있게 받쳐주고 있음 근데 귀밑턱 있어도 이목구비 조화롭고 얼굴폭 좁고 read more..

블라인드 썸연애 남자들도 고급짐 그런거 따져. 좌훈에 사용이 되는 약초는 치네올이라는 성분이 있어 피부영양을 공급하고 탄력적인 피부로 변합니다, 경기도 성남에서 출생하였고 키 163cm, 몸무게 45kg, 혈액형은 ab형, 학력은 read more.

구닝 게임 고급스럽게 생긴 얼굴 말이야 메이크업 갤러리. 보호본능을 자극하는 얼굴이기도하고 씹덕상. 절대다수는 그냥 헌팅포차나 클럽에서 보이는 그런 여자 느낌. 요즘 고급스럽게 이쁜사람 귀해짐 ㅇㅇ 125. 박지현 성격 내가 예전에 1년 사귄 전여친이랑 존똑이라 소름이네. 고파 pding

구강세정기 추천 디시 Com › board › view얘들아 귀티는 예쁜 외모랑 높은 콧대로 따지는 게 아니야 해 역학. 익명수다방 썸＆연애 난 아직도 남자들이 대체 어떻게 생긴 여자를 좋아하는지 모르겠어 익명글쓴이 작성일 231001 054817 조회 156,482회. 09 184235 조회 14064 추천 222 댓글 111 고급스럽게 생겼네 or 차갑게 생겼네 둘중 하나라도 들어봤으면 찐으로 이쁜거고 한번도 못들어봤으면 좀 애매하게 생기거나 못생긴거ㅇㅇ 222 3 107. 예뻐도 고급스러워보이지않는 얼굴이 있잖아 그럼 고급스러운데 못생긴건 가능하다고 생각함. 이번 글에서는 고급스러움의 진정한 의미를 탐구하며, 고급스러운 여성이 가진 10가지 특징을 심도 있게 다뤄볼것이다. 귀멸의 칼날 야스

광대플 노예 13 디시앱 설치 전체리스트 로그인 회사소개 광고안내 이용약관 개인정보. 세련된 얼굴 특징이뭔거같냐 메이크업 갤러리. 이미지 근데 여자는 피부톤이 절반먹고들어가는데. Com › board › view가장 고급스럽게 생긴 걸그룹. 저 턱이 고급스러운 턱이야 성형한 개턱 세모입 이마툭 코 빨래찝 꼬막성형눈 보다 예쁘지. 곽민선 야동

구십구 나이트 인더 포레스트 Com › 9mjack › 222957655655고급스러운, 귀티나는 분위기의 얼굴 특징과 조건은 뭘까요. 세련된 얼굴 특징이뭔거같냐 메이크업 갤러리. 고급진 얼굴을 갖고 계신 연예인이나 셀럽들이 많이 계신데 내얼굴은 어떻게 하면 고급져 보일까요. 저 턱이 고급스러운 턱이야 성형한 개턱 세모입 이마툭 코 빨래찝 꼬막성형눈 보다 예쁘지. 좌훈에 사용이 되는 약초는 치네올이라는 성분이 있어 피부영양을 공급하고 탄력적인 피부로 변합니다.

권정열 디시 니 주변 존예들이 말수가 별루없는 이유. 고급스럽게 생긴 얼굴 말이야 메이크업 갤러리. 찐으로 이쁜애들만 들어본 말 ㅇㅇ223. 베플들말에 전적으로 공감하는게 10대부터 30살인 지금까지 남자들이 미치는 여자는 이목구비 화려하게 이쁜여자가 아니라 오목조목 이쁘장하게 분위기가 청순한 여자들임. 이미지 근데 여자는 피부톤이 절반먹고들어가는데.

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.