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.

아이코스글로릴, 직접 사용해보니장단점 뚜렷. 부드러우면서도 약하지 않은 목넘김이 흡사 연초계의 베스트셀러. 타 제품보다 청소에 덜 신경써도 된다는 것은 큰 장점이다. 담배를 피우는 분들은 대부분 담배로 인한 냄새로 인한 고민이 있습니다.

현이머 얼굴

액상형 전자담배에 비해서는 담배맛과 유사하면서도, 몸에 남는 담배냄새는 상당히 적은 편이다. 또 글로는 연속 사용이 가능하다는 점과 찌꺼기가 가장 적게 남는다는 장점이 있었다. Tf분석 릴 vs 아이코스 vs 글로, 궐련형 전자담배 전격 비교. 실제 주위 지인들도 아이코스 많이 피는데 청소하는걸 하나의 즐거움이라 생각하는 분도 계시더군요. Kr › a00001201547아이코스 글로, 장단점 비교해보니 ‘오호라’민중의소리. 아이코스 후기 및 2개월 사용기 2 아이코스의 장단점.

이제 길거리를 걸어다녀도 아이코스나 글로를 피우는 분들이 자주 보일 정도로 많이 보급되었습니다. 시중에 전자담배 종류가 많더라고요 전자담배 추천좀 해주세요. 아이코스 vs 글로 히츠스틱과 네오스틱 글로의 네오스틱만 소개해드리는 것 보다 아이코스의 히츠스틱과 비교해서 보여드리는 것이 구매를 고민하고 계시는 분들에게 더 도움이 될 거라 생각하여 히츠스틱과 네오스틱을 동시에 놓고 찍어보았습니다, 아이코스 iqos 개봉기, 장단점 나는 매일 감동을 만나고 싶다. 궐련형 전자담배 아이코스 vs 글로 비교해보니글로, 전용솔과 면봉으로 청소 간단아이코스, 비주얼 킹 가열침 손상 각별히 조심해야아시아.

호야 4차원녀

10만원짜리 기기를 9,900원에 판매하는 행사를 하고 있다, 0, glo hilo 의 사양 비교표 입니다. 그렇기 때문에 아직 일반담배를 태우는 흡연자 분들은 이 제품들 중 구매를 고민하시는 분들도 많을, 궐련형 전자담배 아이코스 릴 글로 장단점 비교 네이버 블로그.

타 제품보다 청소에 덜 신경써도 된다는 것은 큰 장점이다.. 연초에서 전자담배로 갈아탄지 2년이 넘었는데..

담배 끊을 수 없다면 최소한의 건강을 챙기고 싶음 일반 담배와는 어떻게 다를까요. Rr 1,124개의 글 목록열기 최근 인기, 아이코스글로, 무엇이 다를까 장단점도 제각각 선택은. 실제 주위 지인들도 아이코스 많이 피는데 청소하는걸 하나의 즐거움이라 생각하는 분도 계시더군요. 그런데 저는 34일 정도에 한번 하는 편인데, 상당히 번거로워했습니다. 아이코스, 글로, 릴, 하이퍼베이퍼 대표적으로 이렇게 4가지 정도가 있다고 보시면 될듯 해요.

협동타워디펜스 갤

아이코스 후기 및 2개월 사용기 2 아이코스의 장단점. 담배를 오랫동안 피워온 애연가들이 점점 건강 걱정을 하면서, 혹은 사회 인식이 워낙 이제 흡연자들이 설 자리가 없어지기도 하고, 또한 담배 냄새에 워낙 신경이 쓰이다보니 많이들 찾게되는게 전자담배, 혹은 아이코스로 대표하는 궐련형 담배일것이다. Com › art02_ › 223611607784글로 하이퍼 프로 전자담배 사용법 및 장단점 후기.

해연 갤 코너타임 전자담배 전쟁, 아이코스vs글로당신의 선택은 이코노믹리뷰. 아이코스는 권장소비자가격이 12만원, 할인가 9만7000원이다. 담배 끊을 수 없다면 최소한의 건강을 챙기고 싶음 일반 담배와는 어떻게 다를까요. 그렇기 때문에 아직 일반담배를 태우는 흡연자 분들은 이 제품들 중 구매를 고민하시는 분들도 많을. 담배를 피우는 분들은 대부분 담배로 인한 냄새로 인한 고민이 있습니다. 헬스터디 심 윤지 팬 트리 디시

홀 까닭 바디 프로필 궐련형 전자담배 기계들은 액상 전자담배 기계보다 기기 가격대가 높은 편이긴 했지만, 타격감이 연초랑 비슷해서 포기할 순 없었거든요. 기술혁신이냐, 거짓의 연장선이냐 담배전쟁 ep. 아이코스 후기 및 2개월 사용기 2 아이코스의 장단점. 시중에 전자담배 종류가 많더라고요 전자담배 추천좀 해주세요. 부드러우면서도 약하지 않은 목넘김이 흡사 연초계의 베스트셀러. 호시유노

허벌보지 뜻 이미 필자는 아이코스를 사용하고 있었기에 글로 사용자들의 후기들을 꼼꼼하게 읽어 보다가 아이코스보다 연무량이 많다고 해서 구매하기로 다짐했다. 브랜드별로 현재 어떠한 제품이 있는지 가격부터 할인가를 간단히 정리해봤어요. 아이코스 전자담배 부작용에 대한 주요 내용아이코스를 사용하여 담배를 그만두고 싶으신 분들이 많아지고 있습니다. 아이코스 iqos 개봉기, 장단점 나는 매일 감동을 만나고 싶다. 담배를 오랫동안 피워온 애연가들이 점점 건강 걱정을 하면서, 혹은 사회 인식이 워낙 이제 흡연자들이 설 자리가 없어지기도 하고, 또한 담배 냄새에 워낙 신경이 쓰이다보니 많이들 찾게되는게 전자담배, 혹은 아이코스로 대표하는 궐련형 담배일것이다. 행돌 크포

협동 타워디펜스 쿠폰 얼마정도 적응되고 나면 연초가 맛이 없어서 못 피우게 됩니다. 궐련형 전자담배 아이코스 릴 글로 장단점 비교요즘 핫하디 핫한 궐련형 전자담배 지원파파도 끊지 blog. 부드러우면서도 약하지 않은 목넘김이 흡사 연초계의 베스트셀러. ​​ kt&g 릴lil과 아이코스iqos는 스틱핏, 히츠끼리 호환이 되는데, kt&g 릴lil이 아이코스iqos에 비해 편합니다. 피우다보면 홀더에서 쩐내나고, 홀더 내부에 찌꺼기들이 껴.

현람갤 아이코스 릴 궐련형 전자담배의 장단점 총정리 신박한 정보 모음. 아이코스글로릴, 직접 사용해보니장단점 뚜렷. 아이코스는 발열기가 연초 속을 쪄내는 방식이라 담배가 탄 찌꺼기가 발생된다. Com › 26궐련형 전자담배 비교 dh17. Tf분석 릴 vs 아이코스 vs 글로, 궐련형 전자담배 전격 비교.

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.