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.

일반 살때문에 쇄골 상중하견인지 모르겠는데 어케암. 바로 쇄골의 형태 때문인데요왼쪽같이 쇄골형태가 모양이라면 어깨가 좁아보이고오른쪽 처럼 쇄골이 평행할 수록 어깨가 엄청 넓어 보입니다. 그냥 사진 찍으면 쇄골 안보여서 가슴 살짝 들었음 나도 쇄골 드럽게 짧아서 견봉과 견봉 35cm 나올랑말랑함 그런데 그런거 신경안쓰고 운동하니깐 삼각근과 삼각근 길이 재보면 46cm 나옴 사진보면 알겠지만 운동한지 얼마 안되어서 삼각근 있지도 않은데. E글중심 개강 여신이 줄었다는데탈코르셋 운동 효과.

1xbet 어플

쇄골은 짧은데 어깨는 넓은 사람 궁금합니다.. 말 그래도 어깨의 높낮이 위치를 기준으로 나눈 표현입니다.. 바로 쇄골의 형태 때문인데요왼쪽같이 쇄골형태가 모양이라면 어깨가 좁아보이고오른쪽 처럼 쇄골이 평행할 수록 어깨가 엄청 넓어 보입니다..

300 (2006) Imdb Rating

1000페소 환율

123av 123av

Com › mgallery › board이정도면 쇄골 개짧은거임. 스쿼트 자세 엉망으로 했다가 무릎 다쳐서 의사쌤한테 갔는데, 세상에서 제일 멍청한 운동이라면서 무릎 다 망가진다고 하더라고, 가장 중요한걸로서, 어깨는 상견 하견인지를 구분할때 무조건 상.

V자쇄골하견, 어좁1자쇄골상견, 어깡이라는 상식과 달리 오히려 반대로 상견일수륵 v자 쇄골로 어깨가 떠있는 형태고 하견일수록 1자 쇄골로 어깨가 쳐진 형태에 가까움. 디시인사이드 커뮤니티에서 다양한 주제를 다루며 사용자 간 소통과 정보 교류를 제공합니다, 아무리 운동을 해서 근육으로 벌려도 쇄골이 날개뼈를 붙잡는데 한계치에 다다르면 더이상 늘어날리가 없잖아.

4697874 fc2 헬스 시작한지 한달된 고등학생 헬린이 입니다 이런 질문 드려서 죄송하지만 제 쇄골길이가 얼마나 심각한 수준인가요. 너가 한남처럼 갸름해서 사각턱을 모르나보지 dc app. 쇄골 아래 근육인 대흉근과 승모근의 밸런스가 무너지면 어깨 통증이 발생합니다. 너가 한남처럼 갸름해서 사각턱을 모르나보지 dc app. 상견, 중견, 하견은 이 3가지 뼈의 상대적인 위치를 기준으로 구분한 것입니다. 072q anal

2109903 쇄골 길이 비교, 남자 쇄골 모양, 쇄골 짧음 디시, 어깨 운동으로 쇄골 관리하기, 쇄골 아름다움 팁. 의사쌤이 스쿼트가 세상에서 제일 멍청한 운동이고 무릎에. 다양한 헤어 컨설팅 정보와 트렌디한 남자머리 스타일을 확인하세요. 반면에 쇄골뼈의 두께는 중앙 부분에서 약 12cm 정도로 얇고 긴. 간혹 저런 체형의 경우 쇄골 자체의 길이는 길지만 체지방 분포 혹은 쇄골의 타고난 구조 때문에 저렇게 보이는 경우가 있습니다. 314_514_414

4162750 名前 반면에 쇄골뼈의 두께는 중앙 부분에서 약 12cm 정도로 얇고 긴. 말 그래도 어깨의 높낮이 위치를 기준으로 나눈 표현입니다. 사람의 어깨는 쇄골, 견갑골, 상완골 등 3가지 뼈로 구성되어 있습니다. 의사쌤이 스쿼트가 세상에서 제일 멍청한 운동이고 무릎에. 근육 부피가 늘어나고 몸무게가 불어나면 당연히 커지는 것은 상식이죠. 3333jg

14cm 크기 머리가 커서 운동이라도 열심히 하려는데 쇄골길이가 많이많이 짧은거 같아 걱정. Com › index쇄골은 짧은데 어깨는 넓은 사람 궁금합니다 몬스터짐. 다양한 헤어 컨설팅 정보와 트렌디한 남자머리 스타일을 확인하세요. 바로 쇄골의 형태 때문인데요왼쪽같이 쇄골형태가 모양이라면 어깨가 좁아보이고오른쪽 처럼 쇄골이 평행할 수록 어깨가 엄청 넓어 보입니다. 과연 운동으로 어깨는 넓어질 수 있는가, 물론 당연히 넓어질 수 있습니다.

336knb-382 Com › mgallery › board훌쩍훌쩍 어깨는 운동해도 안 넓어지는 이유 싱글벙글 지구촌 마이. 쇄골 갤러리 설정 연관 갤러리 00 갤주소 복사 이용안내 남녀노소 아름다움을 느끼는 부위인 예쁜 쇄골 사진을 올려주세요 매니저 부재중입니다. 오늘은 쇄골에 대해 깊이 이해해 보는 시간을 가져보겠습니다. 상견은 쇄골이 가장 높은 경우, 중견은 쇄골과 견갑골이 비슷한 경우, 하견은 견갑골이 가장 높은 경우를 말합니다. Com › mgallery › board훌쩍훌쩍 어깨는 운동해도 안 넓어지는 이유 싱글벙글 지구촌 마이.

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.