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.

Size @yyngsdf898ciulx twitter profile. 這個說法是用來輕鬆地描述自己喝醉了，語氣比較輕鬆，不會太嚴肅。 另一方面，「i overindulged in alcohol」這個表達比較正式，常用在正式場合或商業場合的對話中。 這個說法是在比較認真、反省的語氣下，承認自己喝太多酒了。. 「煲湯不放肉好喝嗎？」 只要材料配搭得宜，沒放肉的湯可以比有肉的好喝。 曬菜乾可以自己動手；不捨得倒掉的湯渣可幻化成另一道小菜；日常被忽略的材料成為素菜湯最 read more. 多项家庭暴力相关指控，被判决四个月监禁和两年缓刑。然而他在监狱报到日的前一天，开车前往芝加哥岳父母家行刺。最终被奋力抵抗的岳父按倒在地并反刺1 时政.

트위터 자기위로

트위터 섹트 Sotwe Tree__i

把喝多了直接翻译为 drink too much，虽然老外能够听懂，但是表达一点都不地道。 简单来说，喝了很多酒可以用一个单词搞定，那就是booze，有豪饮；痛饮的意思，表示喝了大量的酒。 除了 booze，还有一个常用的词可以泛指喝醉： drunk。 例句：.. 多项家庭暴力相关指控，被判决四个月监禁和两年缓刑。然而他在监狱报到日的前一天，开车前往芝加哥岳父母家行刺。最终被奋力抵抗的岳父按倒在地并反刺1 时政.. Tongge001129s profile image..

Xiongyu419s tweet video, You have an important meeting to attend, Liangliang137 @liangliang137 twitter profile.

把喝多了直接翻译为 drink too much，虽然老外能够听懂，但是表达一点都不地道。 简单来说，喝了很多酒可以用一个单词搞定，那就是booze，有豪饮；痛饮的意思，表示喝了大量的酒。 除了 booze，还有一个常用的词可以泛指喝醉： drunk。 例句：. Com › episode › 6006588b411c5dc2ce701, Com › article › 7492983164966388263记住：你喝多了！不是you drink too much.

파괴의신섹트남

Alan昨天真的喝多了。 其实，喝了很多酒还可以用一个单词搞定，就是：booze 豪饮；痛饮。 意思相近的表达还有harddrinking和excessive drinking，意思是过度饮酒。.. 那喝多了说成drink too much没问题，但除了这个你还会其他表达吗？ 其实，喝了很多酒用一个单词就可以搞定，这个单词就是 booze。 booze多指喝了大量的酒，意思相近的表达还有 harddrinking 和 excessive drinking，意思是过度饮酒。.. 喝多了≠ drink too much 把喝多了直接翻译为 drink too much，虽然老外能够听懂，但是表达一点都不地道。 简单来说，喝了很多酒可以用一个单词搞定，那就是 booze，有豪饮；痛饮的意思，表示喝了大量的酒。 除了 booze，还有一个常用的词可以泛指喝醉..

在英语中，我们可以用一个词来表达喝多了，这个词就是booze，它作名词时，指的是酒，但不是简单的酒，而是酗酒（英文解释：booze is alcoholic drink），还有一个地道的表达是on the booze，表示喝大量的酒，狂饮。, Net › zhtw › heync請告訴我 「喝太多了」 的英語！ hey. Com › zhtw › ne2jnq8「你喝多了」英語怎麼說？別是會用「you drink too much」！.

加入收藏 那個每天早上飛快倒著走的怪人，堅持喝「麥茶」要加糖；讓sm女王和奴隸都搶 read more. Alan昨天真的喝多了。 其实，喝了很多酒还可以用一个单词搞定，就是：booze 豪饮；痛饮。 意思相近的表达还有harddrinking和excessive drinking，意思是过度饮酒。, 「煲湯不放肉好喝嗎？」 只要材料配搭得宜，沒放肉的湯可以比有肉的好喝。 曬菜乾可以自己動手；不捨得倒掉的湯渣可幻化成另一道小菜；日常被忽略的材料成為素菜湯最 read more, Comtweet16663241 肉壮大叔的完美身材，胖壮类型的，还有肌肉，不过你都喝醉了只能被我一个人玩了，一看大叔的内裤湿了一片就知道肯定喝多了.

It is detrimental to your health. 05记住：你喝多了！不是you drink too much. 例句： his father always boozes with friends at weekends. 这句话可不是指像鱼一样喝酒，而是指：过量饮酒；喝多了。 例句： alan really drank like a fish yesterday. 这句话可不是指像鱼一样喝酒，而是指：过量饮酒；喝多了。 例句： alan really drank like a fish yesterday, Shit是 屎， face是 脸，这两个单词放一块儿，很有画面感，挺让人辣目掩鼻的，实际上它用来形容人喝得烂醉的，烂醉如泥的，喝的脸色煞白的。 当然这种说法是一种非常粗鲁的表达方式，使用的时候一定要注意场合。 例句 he was absolutely shitfaced.

這個說法是用來輕鬆地描述自己喝醉了，語氣比較輕鬆，不會太嚴肅。 另一方面，「i overindulged in alcohol」這個表達比較正式，常用在正式場合或商業場合的對話中。 這個說法是在比較認真、反省的語氣下，承認自己喝太多酒了。. 我也是醉了 twitter hashtag, Sotwe video boy, sotwe tiktok trends, boy love series thailand 喝湯更不能錯過骨仔肉湯 骨仔肉有這麼多 還是八顆蘋果、整隻雞+大骨的慢, Uchū inu @yxnwpswn9hfs773 twitter profile.

Uchū inu @yxnwpswn9hfs773 twitter profile. Duoroubaby_s profile image, Com › article › 7492983164966388263记住：你喝多了！不是you drink too much, ｜19y 沒有 只有小 ｜ 限制級 ｜推止推｜很常emo｜努力更新｜休學尋找方向｜單女｜ 身家調查｜ 圖文電愛｜你抖內我抖m. 其实，喝了很多酒用一个单词就可以搞定，这个单词就是 booze。 booze多指喝了大量的酒，意思相近的表达还有 harddrinking 和 excessive drinking，意思是过度饮酒。 我们都应该适度饮酒，用英语说就是 moderate drinking.

트위터 미러 사이트 디시

｜19y 沒有 只有小 ｜ 限制級 ｜推止推｜很常emo｜努力更新｜休學尋找方向｜單女｜ 身家調查｜ 圖文電愛｜你抖內我抖m, Com › zhtw › ne2jnq8「你喝多了」英語怎麼說？別是會用「you drink too much」！. Size @yyngsdf898ciulx twitter profile, Coupvuxlqre3 肉壮大叔的完美身材，胖壮类型的，. 這個說法是用來輕鬆地描述自己喝醉了，語氣比較輕鬆，不會太嚴肅。 另一方面，「i overindulged in alcohol」這個表達比較正式，常用在正式場合或商業場合的對話中。 這個說法是在比較認真、反省的語氣下，承認自己喝太多酒了。.

Sotwe video boy, sotwe tiktok trends, boy love series thailand 喝湯更不能錯過骨仔肉湯 骨仔肉有這麼多 還是八顆蘋果、整隻雞+大骨的慢. Comsotwejeddf英國金融時報（financial times）15日發布以「台灣軍方將防範中國入侵帶到百姓家 read more. Tongge001129s profile image, You have an important meeting to attend.

트위터 실시간 랭킹 보는법 Yau tsim mong district. 加入收藏 那個每天早上飛快倒著走的怪人，堅持喝「麥茶」要加糖；讓sm女王和奴隸都搶 read more. ｜19y 沒有 只有小 ｜ 限制級 ｜推止推｜很常emo｜努力更新｜休學尋找方向｜單女｜ 身家調查｜ 圖文電愛｜你抖內我抖m. It is detrimental to your health. Duoroubaby_s profile image. 트위터저장하자

트위터 학생 자위 其实，喝了很多酒用一个单词就可以搞定，这个单词就是booze。 booze多指喝了大量的酒，意思相近的表达还有harddrinking和excessive drinking，意思是过度饮酒。 我们都应该适度饮酒，用英语说就是moderate drinking。 例句： his father always boozes with friends at weekends. Sotwe video boy, sotwe tiktok trends, boy love series thailand 喝湯更不能錯過骨仔肉湯 骨仔肉有這麼多 還是八顆蘋果、整隻雞+大骨的慢. Com › article › 7492983164966388263记住：你喝多了！不是you drink too much. You have an important meeting to attend. 喝多了就哭@tongge001129 twitter profile. 트위터 쥬시 디시

트위터 비디오 툴 19 澡堂奇遇记1 周末跟朋友去汤泉，泡澡的时候看到一个直男，应该是喝了挺多， 疲软的时候耷拉着甩来甩去，提前跟着看他住在那个小隔间，半夜三点偷偷确定他睡死，开始了大胆的第 read more. Tongge001129s profile image. Tongge001129s profile image. 澡堂奇遇记1 周末跟朋友去汤泉，泡澡的时候看到一个直男，应该是喝了挺多， 疲软的时候耷拉着甩来甩去，提前跟着看他住在那个小隔间，半夜三点偷偷确定他睡死，开始了大胆的第 read more. Liangliang137 @liangliang137 twitter profile. 트위터 백장미

판다티비 노출 「煲湯不放肉好喝嗎？」 只要材料配搭得宜，沒放肉的湯可以比有肉的好喝。 曬菜乾可以自己動手；不捨得倒掉的湯渣可幻化成另一道小菜；日常被忽略的材料成為素菜湯最 read more. 有没有弟弟互看的？我想看你的大鸡鸡了，用我小穴包裹 read more. 其实，喝了很多酒用一个单词就可以搞定，这个单词就是booze。 booze多指喝了大量的酒，意思相近的表达还有harddrinking和excessive drinking，意思是过度饮酒。 我们都应该适度饮酒，用英语说就是moderate drinking。 例句： his father always boozes with friends at weekends. Size @yyngsdf898ciulx twitter profile. 4 kings 2 เต็มเรื่อง 123.

트위터 피딩 디시 4 kings 2 เต็มเรื่อง 123. Alan昨天真的喝多了。 其实，喝了很多酒还可以用一个单词搞定，就是：booze 豪饮；痛饮。 意思相近的表达还有harddrinking和excessive drinking，意思是过度饮酒。. 别喝多了。 你明天还要参加一场重要的会议。 2. 喝多了≠ drink too much 把喝多了直接翻译为 drink too much，虽然老外能够听懂，但是表达一点都不地道。 简单来说，喝了很多酒可以用一个单词搞定，那就是 booze，有豪饮；痛饮的意思，表示喝了大量的酒。 除了 booze，还有一个常用的词可以泛指喝醉. 在英语中，我们可以用一个词来表达喝多了，这个词就是booze，它作名词时，指的是酒，但不是简单的酒，而是酗酒（英文解释：booze is alcoholic drink），还有一个地道的表达是on the booze，表示喝大量的酒，狂饮。.

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.