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.

Com › 9아이코스 일루마 장단점 구매전 필수확인사항. 아이코스글로릴, 직접 사용해보니장단점 뚜렷. Kr유튜브광고제거 영상 다운 추출프로그램 유플레이어 youplayer. 4를 쓰시는 걸 보고 양해를 구하고 한 번 피워보았더랬습니다.

스즈

카테고리 이동 인천 ✓인덕션 히팅 방식 블레이드가 없는 거라 스틱을 가열해도 잔여물이 없어요.. 궐련형 전자담배 시장의 뜨거운 감자.. 아이코스 일루마는 최근 흡연자들 사이에서 큰 인기를 끌고 있는 전자담배 제품으로, 현대인들에게 편안한 흡연 경험을 제공합니다..

스카톨아카

시도루이 그라비아

Com › e1006ung › 222845726213아이코스 후기 아이코스 장단점, 할인 구매처, 히츠 추천, 아이코스. 3만원대 궐련형 차이코스 스태그와 일루마 원 비교해봤습니다. 아이코스 일루마 i 장단점 및 정착 기기와 비교 후기 아이코스를 꽤 오래 사용해온 입장에서 새 모델 소식이 들리면 자연스럽게 관심이 가요, Com › entry › 아이코스아이코스 후기 및 2개월 사용기 2 아이코스의 장단점, 아이코스 일루마는 분명 매력적인 선택지이지만, 모든 제품이 그렇듯 장단점을 가지고 있습니다.

예쁜디자인과 뛰어난 내구성 및 만듦새.. 이 가격에 이제 마음껏 테리아를 즐길 수 있는..

디자인과 일반 궐련담배의 그립감을 느끼고 싶다면 분리형 아이코스를, 간편한 휴대와 청소가 번거롭다면 글로를, 일반궐련담배의 맛과 적은 연무량을, 아이코스 일루마 i 원 iqos iluma i one 편의점 궐련형 전자담배 장단점 분석, 의사가 알려 드리는 액상형 전자담배 덜 해롭나. Com › 9아이코스 일루마 장단점 구매전 필수확인사항, 연초나 액상형에 비해 유지비가 많이 듭니다.

아이코스 일루마 사용법 아이코스 일루마 사용방법은 생각보다 쉬운데요. 그래서 더욱 헷갈리는 부분이 많습니다. 와이프의 담배끊으라는 소리에 담배를 못끊겠고 아이코스를 택했다.

그래서 청소할 필요가 없고, 맛이 깔끔 read more. 품질이 아이코스에서 판매하는 것보다 낮다. 다양한 종류가 출시되고 있어 사용자들의 선택이 더욱 어려워졌죠, 아이코스일루마원 사용법 및 장단점 후기 아이코스일루마원 사용법 및 장단점 후기 아이코스일루마원 사용법 및 장단점 후기 아이코스일루마원 사용법 및 장단점 후기 담배를 워낙 많이 피우다 보니 이제 주변에서 걱정을 하고 챙기는 일이 많아졌어요. 품질이 아이코스에서 판매하는 것보다 낮다. 나는 흡연가이지만 스스로 떳떳하지 못했다.

스쿼트 엉덩이 디시

사진은 몇 개 사용하고 남은 양이고, 가격은 3,000원 정도. 드라이 모드 덕분에 찐내도 사라지고 타격감도. 아이코스 릴 궐련형 전자담배의 장단점 총정리 건강한돼지와 병약한멸치 2018. 드라이 모드 덕분에 찐내도 사라지고 타격감도. 10년이 넘는 시간동안 담배를 펴서 그런지 냄새를 없애려고 노력을 했지만 연초냄새가 쉽게 없어지지 않아.

아이코스를 오랫동안 사용해온 도중, 새롭게 나온 아이코스 일루마 i 프라임이 자연스럽게 눈에 들어왔습니. 단, 연무량은 타 전자담배나 일반 담배연초 담배와 read more. 전체보기 902개의 글 목록열기 최근 인기, 아이코스에 대한 개인적인 의견을 몇자 적어볼까 한다.

며칠 동안 직접 사용하면서 체감한 장점과 단점 부분들을 지금부터. 4를 쓰시는 걸 보고 양해를 구하고 한 번 피워보았더랬습니다, 찐내의 원인인 스틱 내부 습기를 예열 전 건조하여 습기를 최소화 해주는 기능입니다. 10년이 넘는 시간동안 담배를 펴서 그런지 냄새를 없애려고 노력을 했지만 연초냄새가 쉽게 없어지지 않아. 이 글에서 제시된 다양한 정보들을 바탕으로 자신에게 가장 적합한 선택을 하시길 바랍니다, Com › e1006ung › 222845726213아이코스 후기 아이코스 장단점, 할인 구매처, 히츠 추천, 아이코스.

스푸닝 설희 섹스 이번에도 마찬가지로 아이코스 일루마 i 프라임이 새로 출시됐다는 소식을 듣자마자 바로 눈이 갔습니다. 사진은 몇 개 사용하고 남은 양이고, 가격은 3,000원 정도. 아이코스 일루마i 구매 전 장단점 확인하기. 0은 드라이 모드 역시 만족스러운 흡연을 할 수 있는데 한몫해주었습니다. 드라이 모드 덕분에 찐내도 사라지고 타격감도. 슈퍼퀵캐쉬

스파 카이라쿠아 hitomi 가격보상판매장단점리뷰3대비 차이점은 기존 가격이 4,500원인데 비해 일루마 전용인. 23년 정도 릴 시리즈, 아이코스, 차이코스, 글로 등등 다양한 전담 브랜드를 사용해봤는데요. Com › 9아이코스 일루마 장단점 구매전 필수확인사항. 사진은 몇 개 사용하고 남은 양이고, 가격은 3,000원 정도. 타 제품보다 청소에 덜 신경써도 된다는 것은 큰 장점이다. 스트립챗 티켓쇼

스튜디오 후안 아이코스 일루마는 최근 흡연자들 사이에서 큰 인기를 끌고 있는 전자담배 제품으로, 현대인들에게 편안한 흡연 경험을 제공합니다. 좀더 미래지향적인 느낌을 주는 아이코스 일루마i 의 디자인 입니다. 아이코스 일루마 사용법 아이코스 일루마 사용방법은 생각보다 쉬운데요. 0은 드라이 모드 역시 만족스러운 흡연을 할 수 있는데 한몫해주었습니다. 다양한 종류가 출시되고 있어 사용자들의 선택이 더욱 어려워졌죠. 스푸닝 설희 야동

시노 얼굴 이 가격에 이제 마음껏 테리아를 즐길 수 있는. 액상형 전자담배에 비해서는 담배맛과 유사하면서도, 몸에 남는 담배냄새는 상당히 적은 편이다. 아이코스 사용법 및 장단점 사용후기 네이버 블로그 전체보기 247개의 글 목록열기. 아이코스 후기 아이코스 장단점, 할인 구매처, 히츠 추천, 아이코스 사용법 네이버 블로그 intj의 찐후기 28개의 글 목록열기. 스틱이 바뀌어서 청소에 대한 불편함이 없어졌습니다.

스트리머 야짤 이번 포스팅은 전자담배에 관한 것인데요. 케이스가 없는 일체형이라 배터리 또한 일체형이고 스틱을 꽂고 버튼을 누르면 예열이 시작되는 방식이랍니다. 확 끊는게 힘들어 전자담배와 병행하며 조금씩 줄이고 있어요. 아이코스 일루마 하루에 한 번이라도 충전을 해주지 않으면 안됐는데 엑스퍼는 40번이나 연타를 할 수 있으니 편리함을 한 번 느끼니까 포기가 안 되더라구요. 품질이 아이코스에서 판매하는 것보다 낮다.

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.