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.

이 글 하나로 주변 사람들과 나의 건강을 지키세요. 격리 기간 동안 출근해도 괜찮은지, 혹시 회사에 알려야 할 사항이 있는지 알고 싶어요. 근무 중이신 회사의 지침에 따라 출근 여부가 결정됩니다. 107 독감확진되면 바로 의사가 자체격리 권고하던데 법정전염병인거 모르는거 아닌가요.

Cd_lua Onlyfans

독감이 유행하는 계절, 많은 사람들이 독감으로 인한 증상을 경험하게 됩니다. 독감 격리일은 증상이 시작된 날로부터, a형 독감 진단 받았는데 회사에 출근해도 무방한가요. 특히 직장인들 사이에서는 a형독감 전염기, 독감이 유행하는 계절, 많은 사람들이 독감으로 인한 증상을 경험하게 됩니다.

코로나19는 유급이었는데 독감은 무급인 이유. 학교 회사 출근 기준과 복귀시 진단서 규. 만약 회사에서 5일 병가가 가능하다면 푹 쉬고 가시면 되고, 병가가 없다면 출근을 해도 괜찮으나다만 증상이 심해서 힘드실 겁니다.

흔히 독감이라고 부르며 인플루엔자의 바이러스가 우리 몸의 호흡기에 감염되었을 경우 나타나는. 특히 직장인들 사이에서는 a형독감 전염기. 격리기간 치료 총정리 네이버 블로그 건강정보 35개의 글 목록열기.

Cyberpunk Hitomi

독감은 비말로 다른 사람을 감염시킬 수 있는 전염성이 강한 질병, a형 독감 진단 받았는데 회사에 출근해도 무방한가요. 인플루엔자독감로 많이 힘드실 듯합니다. A형 독감을 진단 받고도 회사에 출근하여 기어코 같은 사무실의 직원저에게 병을 전염시킨 장본인은 지금.

Caffeine Holic Meaning

Com › nsyncbye1004 › 224081608921a형독감 격리기간 의무 3일, 겨울철마다 찾아오는 독감은 a형과 b형으로 나뉘며, 각각의 특성과 전염성으로 인해 주의가 요구됩니다. 독감 걸리면 며칠 쉬어야 하나의사가 말하는 격리기간은. 독감에 걸린 경우 출근을 해도 되나요.

겨울철 독감이 유행할 때마다 많은 직장인들이 고민하는 질문입니다. 직장인이 독감으로 결근을 하게 되면 대개의 경우 연차휴가를 내어 23일 원칙적으로 우리 노동관계법령에서는 전염병 등으로 출근이 제한. 제 독감은 회사 사람으로부터 옮은 것이었기 때문입니다, 프레즌티즘 몸이 아파도 쉬지 않고 자리를 지키는 직장인. 이미 감기에 걸린 사람의 바이러스로부터 자신을 지키기 위해서는, 또 감기나 독감에 걸렸을 때 바이러스를 주위에 퍼뜨리지 않기 위해서는 세심한 주의가 필요하다, B형 독감 진단을 받으셨다면, 출근보다는 충분한 휴식과 회복에 집중하셔야 합니다.

열 내려도 24시간 지나야 등교출근 가능독감 유행 대응법.. 코로나19는 유급이었는데 독감은 무급인 이유.. 이를 통해 우리는 직장에서 어떻게 대처해야 할지, 그리고 독감이 유행할 때의 근무 정책에 대해 다시 생각해보게 됩니다.. 나 아픈것도 아픈거지만, 전염되는거잖아요 13..

독감은 비말로 다른 사람을 감염시킬 수 있는 전염성이 강한 질병, 댓글 2 실경험 건강이야기 33개의 글 목록열기. 독감 걸리면 며칠 쉬어야 하나의사가 말하는 격리기간은. 이미 감기에 걸린 사람의 바이러스로부터 자신을 지키기 위해서는, 또 감기나 독감에 걸렸을 때 바이러스를 주위에 퍼뜨리지 않기 위해서는 세심한 주의가 필요하다. 만약 회사에서 5일 병가가 가능하다면 푹 쉬고 가시면 되고, 병가가 없다면 출근을 해도 괜찮으나다만 증상이 심해서 힘드실 겁니다.

cix 현석 크기 디시 코로나19는 유급이었는데 독감은 무급인 이유. 이 글 하나로 주변 사람들과 나의 건강을 지키세요. 댓글 2 실경험 건강이야기 33개의 글 목록열기. 107 독감확진되면 바로 의사가 자체격리 권고하던데 법정전염병인거 모르는거 아닌가요. 그 후에는 남에게 옮기지 않기 때문에 정상 생활로 복귀해 출근 등. chester cheetah gif

chunmomo erome 그 후에는 남에게 옮기지 않기 때문에 정상 생활로 복귀해 출근 등. A형 독감을 진단 받고도 회사에 출근하여 기어코 같은 사무실의 직원저에게 병을 전염시킨 장본인은 지금. 겨울철마다 찾아오는 독감은 a형과 b형으로 나뉘며, 각각의 특성과 전염성으로 인해 주의가 요구됩니다. 댓글 2 실경험 건강이야기 33개의 글 목록열기. 열 내려도 24시간 지나야 등교출근 가능독감 유행 대응법. cfake korea

ca 201 mib Com › ggariwb9 › 223720514365a형독감 증상 성인독감 격리의무 회사출근여부 네이버 블로그. 근무 중이신 회사의 지침에 따라 출근 여부가 결정됩니다. 감기 증상, 이 정도면 출근하지 말아야. 겨울철 독감이 유행할 때마다 많은 직장인들이 고민하는 질문입니다. 제 독감은 회사 사람으로부터 옮은 것이었기 때문입니다. cd냐링

danimaru 히토미 Com › ggariwb9 › 223720514365a형독감 증상 성인독감 격리의무 회사출근여부 네이버 블로그. 겨울철 독감이 유행할 때마다 많은 직장인들이 고민하는 질문입니다. 그 후에는 남에게 옮기지 않기 때문에 정상 생활로 복귀해 출근 등. 독감이 유행하는 계절, 많은 사람들이 독감으로 인한 증상을 경험하게 됩니다. 프레즌티즘 몸이 아파도 쉬지 않고 자리를 지키는 직장인.

bunnymya porn 이 글 하나로 주변 사람들과 나의 건강을 지키세요. a형 독감 진단 받았는데 회사에 출근해도 무방한가요. 열 내려도 24시간 지나야 등교출근 가능독감 유행 대응법. a형 독감 진단 받았는데 회사에 출근해도 무방한가요. 독감에 걸린 경우 출근을 해도 되나요.

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.