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.

Jp › media › 53744高校生カップルの平均交際期間は？長続きの秘訣＆リアルな別れの原因. 恐怖！ 1年以内に破局するカップルはなんと73%も存在. 胎内市、阿賀町、関川村に発表（雪崩注意報） 24日1024時点. つい最近のことだけど、付き合って2週間くらいでお別れした人がいる。 私は2年前に、合計5年半くらい付き合った（1度別れている）相手がいた。.

아서 르클레르

飯島の没後もブログには連日ファンのコメントが書き込まれ続けており、故人を偲ぶ宝物のような存在になっていたが 15 、2015年9月18日に放送された『中居正広の金曜日のスマたちへスペシャル』（tbs）で、ブログを管理している両親の意志によりブログを. 本作は、妻殺しの罪を着せられたパティシエが、自らの潔白を証明するために「愛する家族と過去を捨て、全くの別人に顔を変える」という、日曜劇場史上類を read more. 付き合って2週間でもう別れたいって思うことありますか？ 絶賛別れたいです。 人間味がないというか中身がペラペラだと言うことを知ってしまいあ、もう一緒にいる意味がない 目的もないのに付き合う意味もないと思っ, マッチングアプリで出会ったカップルの多くが3ヶ月以内に別れるという「恋愛3ヶ月説」。しかし、これは必ずしも避けられない運命ではありません。心理カウンセラーとして、マッチングアプリカップルの別れの原因を分析すると、共通の友人がいない環境や、ア. 相手を束縛しないで適切な距離を保つ 23. 私は、告白されて彼氏ができても、 すぐに別れを切り出されるのではないかという不安があります。 今まで、4人くらい付き合って、4人全員に1週間もせず振られました。 その程度の覚悟で付き合うと言われてたのか、 正直何が原因かわかんないんです。.

아라카와 소라 나무위키

Jp › hideroom0720 › entry12871818859高校生カップルが短期間で別れる理由と長続きさせるポイント ヒデの.. そもそも距離を置くってどういうこと？ 私たち別れるの？ 突然距離を置こうだなんて言われてもすぐに納得なんてできません！ そこで、距離を置くことになった場合の対処法を考えていきましょう！ ※本サービス内ではアフィリエイト広告を利用しています.. すぐ別れるカップルの行動 ① 「恋人が欲しい」と勢いだけで付き合ってしまった ② どちらかが、自分に自信がなさすぎる ③ 一緒にいる時間が多すぎる..

つい最近のことだけど、付き合って2週間くらいでお別れした人がいる。 私は2年前に、合計5年半くらい付き合った（1度別れている）相手がいた。. 恐怖！ 1年以内に破局するカップルはなんと73%も存在, Jp › topics › id婚活で失恋続き 恋愛・結婚 発言小町. 付き合いはじめたころは、好きで好きでずっと一緒にいたい！ と思っていた. 高校一年生です。 つい2週間前、初めての彼氏で約1ヶ月付き合った人と別れました。 （正確に言うと振られました。ちなみに告白は向こうからでした。）. 本作は、妻殺しの罪を着せられたパティシエが、自らの潔白を証明するために「愛する家族と過去を捨て、全くの別人に顔を変える」という、日曜劇場史上類を read more.

신태일 시청자 디시

様々な理由がありますが、多くの理由は以下の2つです。 ・自分にとって都合が悪くなってしまったとき ・恋愛に関する価値観の違いに気づいたとき. Com › entry › 20250808高校生カップルの「月ごとの変化」とは？別れる時期・長続きのコツを. Jp › media › 53744高校生カップルの平均交際期間は？長続きの秘訣＆リアルな別れの原因, 様々な理由がありますが、多くの理由は以下の2つです。 ・自分にとって都合が悪くなってしまったとき ・恋愛に関する価値観の違いに気づいたとき.

아라이 리마 작품

すぐ別れるカップルの行動 ① 「恋人が欲しい」と勢いだけで付き合ってしまった ② どちらかが、自分に自信がなさすぎる ③ 一緒にいる時間が多すぎる. 相手を束縛しないで適切な距離を保つ 23. Jp › topics › id婚活で失恋続き 恋愛・結婚 発言小町.

Com › entry › couplesbreakupカップルが別れる時期は決まっている？恋愛が終わる瞬間を徹底解説.. 高校生です。 付き合ってから一週間の彼氏にlineで別れ話を持ちかけられました。 原因を聞いたところ自分の問題で私は悪くないと言われました。.. 高校一年生です。 つい2週間前、初めての彼氏で約1ヶ月付き合った人と別れました。 （正確に言うと振られました。ちなみに告白は向こうからでした。）..

시청 오피스

カップルが別れる期間の平均とその理由に迫る 恋愛お, 私も今同じ状況で2週間で別れたいと感じています。 今日中には伝えようと思っています。 この回答はいかがでしたか？ リアクションしてみよう. Pisos en alquiler portugalete particulares. 様々な理由がありますが、多くの理由は以下の2つです。 ・自分にとって都合が悪くなってしまったとき ・恋愛に関する価値観の違いに気づいたとき.

高校一年生です。 つい2週間前、初めての彼氏で約1ヶ月付き合った人と別れました。 （正確に言うと振られました。ちなみに告白は向こうからでした。）. 喧嘩しても謝る 中学生の恋愛の期間についてのまとめ. Pisos en alquiler portugalete particulares.

Jp › topics › id婚活で失恋続き 恋愛・結婚 発言小町. 「イヤなポイントが判明した」と「付き合ったという事実がゴールで、そこでなんとなく終わってしまった」というパターンになってまいりました。 好きだったはずなのに、付き合ったらな～んか違う、って、ありますよね。. Anuncios de particulares y agencias inmobiliarias, Jp › topics › id婚活で失恋続き 恋愛・結婚 発言小町.

신태일 형량 디시 別れてから次の人と付き合うまでの期間 高校一年生です。. 高校生です。 付き合ってから一週間の彼氏にlineで別れ話を持ちかけられました。 原因を聞いたところ自分の問題で私は悪くないと言われました。. カップルが別れる期間の平均はどれくらい？ 付き合ってすぐ終わるケースから、1年・3年の節目で訪れる別れのタイミングまで詳しく解説。 短期間で別れるカップルと長続きするカップルの違いや、恋愛を長く続けるためのコツも紹介。. 子に希望ある未来へ 小林修平 35 みら新 5区 衆院選 千葉. 中学時代から知るプログラミング仲間の安野貴博党首とともに昨夏の参院選に立候 ・・・ 残り 330文字. 싸커웨이

심청이 플렉스 別れてから次の人と付き合うまでの期間 高校一年生です。. 本作は、妻殺しの罪を着せられたパティシエが、自らの潔白を証明するために「愛する家族と過去を捨て、全くの別人に顔を変える」という、日曜劇場史上類を read more. 高校時代 その後、日本で1年間アメリカンスクールに通って2年間ニューヨークに留学するはずであったが、精神的な不安などから過呼吸で倒れ、パニック障害を患い2週間で. 去年の自殺者数が過去最少に 初めて2万人を下回るも小中高生. 最近の高校生について。 何で最近の高校生って付き合ってすぐ別れるんですか？ 私は今高1で、彼氏と2年付き合ってます。 お互い初めてのお付き合いです。 中学生の時もずっと思ってたんですが、終わるの早すぎじゃないですか. 아라이 리마 fc2

신상언 논란 カップルが別れる期間の平均はどれくらい？ 付き合ってすぐ終わるケースから、1年・3年の節目で訪れる別れのタイミングまで詳しく解説。 短期間で別れるカップルと長続きするカップルの違いや、恋愛を長く続けるためのコツも紹介。. Com › 263高校生のカップルはどのくらいで別れるの？続く期間の目安は. じゃ別れていいと思います。 ずるずる付き合っても時間の無駄です。 結婚を1日で決める人もいるんですから、別れを2週間で決めても全然早くない。 なるほど 1 そうだね 0 ありがとう 0. Jp › school_life › koukouseicouple高校生カップルの別れる理由とは！？対処法を知って別れを回避しよう. Jp › media › 53744高校生カップルの平均交際期間は？長続きの秘訣＆リアルな別れの原因. 시루다냥 디시

아라카와 소라 야동 2週間で別れた理由 これも「何かしらガマンできない大問題が発生した」ですね。ポケットマネー強調やワンデーコンタクト問題は何も知らない外野として見. 私も今同じ状況で2週間で別れたいと感じています。 今日中には伝えようと思っています。 この回答はいかがでしたか？ リアクションしてみよう. 別れ話 高校生です。 付き合ってから一週間の彼氏にlineで. 私も今同じ状況で2週間で別れたいと感じています。 今日中には伝えようと思っています。 この回答はいかがでしたか？ リアクションしてみよう. Jp › topics › id婚活で失恋続き 恋愛・結婚 発言小町.

싸이코드 트위터 11週ぶりの値上がりです。 イラン情勢を巡る緊張の高まりで原油価格が上昇したことや衆議院の解散観測報道で進んだ円安が影響したという read more. Com › surprisingstatisticsonthe驚くべき統計. Pisos en alquiler portugalete particulares. 11週ぶりの値上がりです。 イラン情勢を巡る緊張の高まりで原油価格が上昇したことや衆議院の解散観測報道で進んだ円安が影響したという read more. 様々な理由がありますが、多くの理由は以下の2つです。 ・自分にとって都合が悪くなってしまったとき ・恋愛に関する価値観の違いに気づいたとき.

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.