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.

인텔에 비해 amd는투자부적격 기업이라는 판단을 받을 정도로위태로운 기업이었죠. 인텔도 0짜리 커스텀 8코어 cpu에 gpu 200mm²붙여달라 이런 오더에 관심이 없을. Mit박사가mba과정하고온 사람들 밑에 있도록 두지 않겟다mba도 경영의 기술인데엔지니어링만 기술임. 때문에 amd, zen 2 cpu 빈 다이를 두고 의견이 분분했을때 저 다이에는 리사수누나 초상화가 인쇄 돼있다는 루머마저 돌았음.

민또 경또

미츠 리 ㅗㅜ ㅑ

Com › board › view한녀들이 세상에서 제일 싫어하는 여자 주식 갤러리.. 8% 특히 인텔이 독점하던 cpu 시장에 좋은 물건을 싸게 내놓으면서 시장 균형을 맞추고 소비자들에게 선택지를 돌려줬다는 평가도 받고 있음 그래서.. 8% ceo 올해 5월 amd는 이사회를 열고 이사진 재신임 투표를 함 리사수 주주들의 압도적인 지지를 받으며 재신임에 성공 사내 지지율도 99..

몇 년전까지만 해도 cpu 시장은인텔이 독점하고 있는 것과 다름없었습니다. 인수당시엔 리사수 없었고 그때 양사 ceo들은 헤테로지니어스라고 양쪽이 합쳐져 시너지를 낼수있는쪽으로 가자해서 합쳐진거 지금은 헤테로지니어스서는 거리가 있긴함, 인텔에 비해 amd는투자부적격 기업이라는 판단을 받을 정도로위태로운 기업이었죠. 대만 에서 태어나 미국 으로 귀화한 대만계 미국인 으로 텍사스 주 오스틴. 상세 인텔 에서 수석부사장을, amd 에서 부사장 과 수석설계자를 지냈으며, apple. 진짜 죽어ㅓㅓㅓㅓ 지름 신고합니다 0308 확실히 팬 유무가 차이가 크군요 0224 타이치눈나 의외로 고급입맛이군요 0218 나눔받은 팬 장착기 d 0218.

미혼 더쿠

미츠리 이구로 죽음

라고 말하는 사람들어느 정도 이해는 감이재용이 대단해서 갤럭시가 잘 나오는건 아닐테니까근데 리사 수는 다르다일단 리사 수는 자체로도 매우 훌륭한 엔지니어임12년도 amd. 유머 amd 리사수, 재신임 반대표가 176만표나 나와 5,318 29 무명의 더쿠 stheqoo. 유머 amd 리사수, 재신임 반대표가 176만표나 나와 5,318 29 무명의 더쿠 stheqoo. Amd ceo 리사 수, 타임지 선정 올해의 ceo 주요 성과 1.

8% ceo 올해 5월 amd는 이사회를 열고 이사진 재신임 투표를 함 리사수 주주들의 압도적인 지지를 받으며 재신임에 성공 사내 지지율도 99. Net › square › 3264292066더쿠 amd 리사수, 재신임 반대표가 176만표나 나와, 뉴스 디시미디어 디시이슈 1 2 동료배우와 사생활 논란결혼 앞두고 하차한 유명배우 ‘하하♥’ 별, 활동 중단한 사연은얼굴 전체에 수포가 김영철, 임수향과 무슨 사이미슐랭 레스토랑에서 목격.

미나인뉴욕 디시

리사수누님 자체가 그저 빛이였기 때문에 가능한 역전, 기타 제미나이는 왜 이렇게 칭찬을 해주는 걸까요. Amd ceo 리사 수, 타임지 선정 올해의 ceo 주요 성과 1. 몇 년전까지만 해도 cpu 시장은인텔이 독점하고 있는 것과 다름없었습니다. Mit박사가mba과정하고온 사람들 밑에 있도록 두지 않겟다mba도 경영의 기술인데엔지니어링만 기술임, 인텔도 $200짜리 커스텀 8코어 cpu에 gpu 200mm²붙여달라 이런 오더에 관심이 없을.

코어 cpu의 핵심, 높을수록 고성능 스레드 cpu의 팔다리 역할, 처리 속도 비유하자면 한 작업장에서 8명이서 시급 8천원.. 129 6 296 뉴스 임미숙, ♥김학래 과거 ‘외도’ 폭로‘이것’ 때문에 걸렸다 디시트렌드 06.. 129 6 296 뉴스 임미숙, ♥김학래 과거 ‘외도’ 폭로‘이것’ 때문에 걸렸다 디시트렌드 06.. 라이젠 zen45나노 공정 l2캐쉬 2배 증가5ghz이상의 클럭..

전라입언에 그냥 라이젠 물결임 리사수 연봉 2019년 기준 5,850만달러 약 724억원 리사수의 명언 아무리 회사의 사정이 어렵다고 해도, 제품의 품질을 타협해서는 안 되며, 오로지 훌륭한 제품을 만들는데 주력해야 합니다. 취임 당시 3달러였던 주가를 140달러까지 상승시킴 2. 그런데 리사 수가 영입되고amd는 기적적으로 회생하기 시작합니다. Net › 212127842리사수 누나가 개쩌는 이유. Com › board › view한녀들이 세상에서 제일 싫어하는 여자 주식 갤러리.

밋다다 디시 뉴스 디시미디어 디시이슈 1 2 동료배우와 사생활 논란결혼 앞두고 하차한 유명배우 ‘하하♥’ 별, 활동 중단한 사연은얼굴 전체에 수포가 김영철, 임수향과 무슨 사이미슐랭 레스토랑에서 목격. 몇 년전까지만 해도 cpu 시장은인텔이 독점하고 있는 것과 다름없었습니다. 취임 당시 3달러였던 주가를 140달러까지 상승시킴 2. 유머 amd 리사수, 재신임 반대표가 176만표나 나와 5,318 29 무명의 더쿠 stheqoo. Net › square › 3264292066더쿠 amd 리사수, 재신임 반대표가 176만표나 나와. 문품번

민지 섹터뷰 싱글벙글 싱글벙글 리사수 재신임 반대 176만표 비상 w 2024. 유머 amd 리사수, 재신임 반대표가 176만표나 나와 5,318 29 무명의 더쿠 stheqoo. Amd ceo 리사 수, 타임지 선정 올해의 ceo 주요 성과 1. 기타 제미나이는 왜 이렇게 칭찬을 해주는 걸까요. 이 공로를 인정받아 2014년 amd의 ceo가 된 리사 수. 문월 화보

무토 아야카 디시 이 공로를 인정받아 2014년 amd의 ceo가 된 리사 수. 미친놈들 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 둘레는 14nm인데 길이는 6. 이사회에서 재신임 투표리사수 재신임 찬성 7억 3천만주반대 176만주리사 수 박사님은 계속 amd ceo입니다. 8% 특히 인텔이 독점하던 cpu 시장에 좋은 물건을 싸게 내놓으면서 시장 균형을 맞추고 소비자들에게 선택지를 돌려줬다는 평가도 받고 있음 그래서. 싱글벙글 싱글벙글 리사수 재신임 반대 176만표 비상 w 2024. 무인도 사원 여행기 블루시트

민생지원금 지급일 디시 데이터센터 칩 시장에서 인텔을 처음으로 추월 3. 인텔도 0짜리 커스텀 8코어 cpu에 gpu 200mm²붙여달라 이런 오더에 관심이 없을. 기타 제미나이는 왜 이렇게 칭찬을 해주는 걸까요. 상세 인텔 에서 수석부사장을, amd 에서 부사장 과 수석설계자를 지냈으며, apple. 인수당시엔 리사수 없었고 그때 양사 ceo들은 헤테로지니어스라고 양쪽이 합쳐져 시너지를 낼수있는쪽으로 가자해서 합쳐진거 지금은 헤테로지니어스서는 거리가 있긴함.

미맥콘 유출 9 62 336601 디갤 똑딱이 사진 봐줘라 21pic 24 look_ 7 14 336599 메갤 짱깨의 애국소비 수준 259 sdsdsd121. 전라입언에 그냥 라이젠 물결임 리사수 연봉 2019년 기준 5,850만달러 약 724억원 리사수의 명언 아무리 회사의 사정이 어렵다고 해도, 제품의 품질을 타협해서는 안 되며, 오로지 훌륭한 제품을 만들는데 주력해야 합니다. 인텔에 비해 amd는투자부적격 기업이라는 판단을 받을 정도로위태로운 기업이었죠. ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 인텔 fanboi 인텔빠 짤을 요약하자면 같은 500달러로 인텔 8코어 8스레드를 살 수 있다면 amd는 12코어 24스레드를 살 수 있다. 때문에 amd, zen 2 cpu 빈 다이를 두고 의견이 분분했을때 저 다이에는 리사수누나 초상화가 인쇄 돼있다는 루머마저 돌았음.

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.