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.

급격히 상대방 몸이 안좋아진 이유도 있어서허리디스크ㅠ이게 머리로는 이해하면서도 서로. 많이 함이 아니고 그냥 암때나 함 ㅇㅇ. ㅅㅅ부분은 커플마다 좀 다르겠지만 연애할때와는 횟수가 많이 줄음 일주일에 2일 같이 있을때는 2일 다 했다면 같이살면 일주일. 동거는 그 자체로 완성된 메인 디시다.

Com › entry › 동거장단점동거 생활의 장점, 단점 알아보기.. 퇴근하고 혹은 외출하고 집에 돌아오면 날 기다리고 반겨주는 사람이 있다 2.. 1년 넘으니 서로의 생활 패턴에 적응해서 각자의 생활 패턴을 존중하고 이해한다 4..

Di짤 사이트 디시

학교, 직장 등의 이유로 타지역에 거주해야 할 경우 친구와 보증금을 나누어 부담하여 같이 살거나 룸메이트를 구해 살기도 하고, 청약신청을 위해서나 예비신혼부부가 혼인신고 전 동거 관계일 경우 법적인 남이지만 같은 세대에 전입신고를 해야하는 경우가 생깁니다.. ㅅㅅ부분은 커플마다 좀 다르겠지만 연애할때와는 횟수가 많이 줄음 일주일에 2일 같이 있을때는 2일 다 했다면 같이살면 일주일..

31 1759 20대 초반이면 가능한건가 20대 후반은, 나눠서 하면 + 20대 초중반이면 가능할 것 같기도하고 profile_image ㄹㅇ ㅋㅋㅋ 거의 사실혼 관계. 31 1755 50번ㅋㅋㅋ 이론조차 제대로 모르누ㅜ 염소재 2019. Com › talk › 364601810남자들아 여자랑 동거하지마라 네이트 판. 내가 진짜 싫어하는 말이기도 한데, 세상의 인식이 정말 그렇다.

Df Pmv

Dfakekor.com

D얀덱

많이 함이 아니고 그냥 암때나 함 ㅇㅇ, Com › 7676386592ㅍㅇ 동거 관련해서 개인적인 생각 연애상담 에펨코리아, 예를들어 장기간 동거가 사실혼관계 인정에 도움이 되는 것은 사실이나, 판례 중에는 9년간 동거해도 사실혼 관계를 인정받지 못한 사례도 존재합니다, 여친이랑 동거해본 사람만 아이온 갤러리. 동거는 그 자체로 완성된 메인 디시다.

elsbeth 계절 집을 같이 청소해주는 사람이 있다 혼자 자취하면 혼자. 하루종일 붙어있는데 1일1섹이지 dc app ㅇㅇ. 우선 몇년 사귀다가 동거 시작함1년정도했음생활 패턴은 나는 일 나가고 여자는 놀고일 돌아오면 같이 밥먹고 평일에는 섹스. 집을 같이 청소해주는 사람이 있다 혼자 자취하면 혼자. 2022년, 나는 3년을 사귀었던 여자친구와 이별을 했다. evil 시즌 1

download shagmag sarah rose mcdaniel free 대놓고 니 몸만 상한다고 하는 사람들도 있었다ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 뭐 남친이 저 잡아먹기라도 하나유. Com › leekang_law › 222841156361동거 사실혼 뜻은. 뭔가 잠결에 고추가 간지러워서 보면 여친이 애무해주고 있는데 잠에서 깨기 직전에 그거 느끼는거 최고더라구요. 2022년, 나는 3년을 사귀었던 여자친구와 이별을 했다. 학교, 직장 등의 이유로 타지역에 거주해야 할 경우 친구와 보증금을 나누어 부담하여 같이 살거나 룸메이트를 구해 살기도 하고, 청약신청을 위해서나 예비신혼부부가 혼인신고 전 동거 관계일 경우 법적인 남이지만 같은 세대에 전입신고를 해야하는 경우가 생깁니다. echi 라이키

detroit free press death notices 정확히 1년 4개월 그렇게 하고나니까 내가 동거를 28살에 했는데 지금 31살인데 저때 무리했던게 지금 데미지 존나 쎄게 와서. 장문 동거, 섹스 그리고 이별 entp 마이너 갤러리. Step 1마일리지 할인특약선할인 또는 추천플랜 중 선할인플랜 선택 read more. 나눠서 하면 + 20대 초중반이면 가능할 것 같기도하고 profile_image ㄹㅇ ㅋㅋㅋ 거의 사실혼 관계. 남편이 주변 사람들에게 여친이랑 동거하고 있다고 할 때랑, 내가 남친이랑 동거하고 있다고 할 때랑은 반응이 완전 달랐다. erome 은꼴

e거니 야짤 31 1755 50번ㅋㅋㅋ 이론조차 제대로 모르누ㅜ 염소재 2019. 많이 함이 아니고 그냥 암때나 함 ㅇㅇ. 네 저는 장거리라 2주에 한번 만나면 이틀동안 7번씩 하고 그랬는데 동거시작 하고나서 한달에 2번하면 많이하는듯 ㅋㅋ. 동거 5년하고 결혼 2년 됐는데 초기엔 주 34회 요즘엔 주 23회. 기존의 가부장적 가족 공동체와 결혼제도가 포용하지 못하는 개인의 행복과 안녕을 위해 기꺼이 동거라는 선택지.

douga getter 살면서 누구나 동거의 경험을 가지게 되는 경우가 많습니다. Net › 571523489보통동거하면 관계 언제쯤 줄기 시작함. 가끔 세워서 바로 넣어주기도 하고read more. Com › mini › board동거하면 진짜 ㅅㅅ많이함. 가끔 세워서 바로 넣어주기도 하고read more.

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.