Ask and answer glarity.

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.

특별한 뜻은 없으며 해당 발언을 한 제로베이스원 이하 제베원의 멤버인 김지웅 을 비하하는 말 이다. 모든 밈이 그렇게 흘러가듯 유래와 관련없이 중립적인 관용구적 성격으로 쓰고있습니다. 09 710,065 공지 알림결과 2025년 하반기 주요 공연장 일정 98 24. Com › 13111_ › 223430003888앙딱정 뜻, 앙딱정 유래 밈 알려드립니다 네이버 블로그.

태산루코

대한민국의 보이그룹 zerobaseone 의 멤버이자 배우.. 사과로 끝날 일을 눈덩이처럼 키운 사건 사람은 누구나 본인이 뱉은 말에 책임을 다해야합니다.. よくkpopの挨拶で、最後の部分が、 字幕を見る限り、以上、 でした〜 みたいな終わり方をすると思いますが、 しゅんかじうりぬん？みたいな部分って、 何と言ってて、またどう言う表記か教えて頂けないでしょうか..

태국 문신대회 노출

Results for 양산 아이스✪탤 𝐆𝐓𝐌𝐀𝐍𝟖𝟓✪캔디, 이 표현은 보이그룹 zerobaseone의 멤버 김지웅과 관련된 사건에서 유래된 인터넷 밈으로, 많은 사람들에게 친숙해졌습니다. 최근 인터넷에서 자주 사용되는 표현 중 하나인 앙딱정에 대해 알아보겠습니다. Funny face challenge with yoon seobin, 사과로 끝날 일을 눈덩이처럼 키운 사건 사람은 누구나 본인이 뱉은 말에 책임을 다해야합니다. 김지웅 앙딱정 뜻이 뭔가요 네이버 지식in.

김지웅 영통팬싸에서 욕설 논란있었을때 김지웅이 버블에서 앙 딱 정리해줄게 내가 안했으까 걱정마 이렇게 쓴게 덕질하는 사람들 사이에서 밈이된거예요, Com › postview앙딱정 뜻, 앙딱정 유래 밈 알려드립니다 네이버 블로그. 박상현 공식계정, 박상현 공식 계정, 앙딱정 김지웅 뜻, 류우녕 공식.

탄지로 사망 나이

제로베이스원은 9인조 그룹으로, 엠넷 보이스플래닛이라는 오디션 프로그램으로 결성된 그룹이다. 처음 앙딱정이라는 단어를 듣고 새롭게 생겨난 신조어 인가. 1214 の絵文字 意味 과거사진vs현재사진 성한빈 sung hanbin leader zb1, 앙딱정의 유래와 의미앙딱정은 2024년 2월 18일, 김지웅이 자신의 버블에서 사용한 발언에서 시작된 독특한 밈입니다.

이 표현은 2020년에 트위치 스트리머인 루시아가 복권 10장을 긁는 방송을 하던 중 2천만 원에 당첨된 사건에서 시작됐어요, 처음 앙딱정이라는 단어를 듣고 새롭게 생겨난 신조어 인가. Vermissing bennie dijkslag broer zoekt antwoorden.

탱주7

Original sound hoodnation🤍 ️🖤, 앙딱정 유래 앙딱정은 제베원 김지웅이 사용하며 유래되었다 3. 특히, 대중의 사랑을 받는 공인이라면 더욱 조심해야합니다, 지웅이 그만 괴롲히세요 지웅이에 데한 허위사실은 모두 고소진행 하겠습니다.

트위터 남자 야노

다음으로 소개할 신조어는 이왜진이에요, 영상팬싸에서 욕설을했다는 논란이 있던 모 아이돌이 팬들에게 전한 해명의 메시지. 박상현 공식계정, 박상현 공식 계정, 앙딱정 김지웅 뜻, 류우녕 공식.

트위터 게이 박제 유튜브를 넘기다가 영상을 봤는데 제목이 앙딱정딱정이의 길을 걸어가 offical mv인데 댓글에 김지웅 어쩌고 이런댓이 많더라고요 앙딱정이란 말을 처음 듣는데 앙딱정이 무슨뜻인가요. 최근 인터넷에서 자주 사용되는 표현 중 하나인 앙딱정에 대해 알아보겠습니다. Com › 4앙딱정 아이돌 문화에서 유래된 독특한 밈. Ask and answer glarity. Tiktok에서 김지웅 공식계정 앙딱정 관련 동영상을 찾아보세요. 토비타 신치

트위터 게이 박제 앙딱정 뜻과 유래에 대해서 알아보겠습니다. 용례 민희진사건 앙딱정 해드림 오늘메뉴 앙딱정 3줄요약 앙딱정 의미 간단하게 정리 or 뭐하면되는지 정해주기 언제까지 쓰일진 모르겠지만 아직은 활발하게. よくkpopの挨拶で、最後の部分が、 字幕を見る限り、以上、 でした〜 みたいな終わり方をすると思いますが、 しゅんかじうりぬん？みたいな部分って、 何と言ってて、またどう言う表記か教えて頂けないでしょうか. 먼저 앙딱정이라는 표현부터 살펴볼게요. 앙딱정 is a term that originated from a controversy involving kim jiwoong, a member of the boy group zerobaseone. 탱고 어플 디시

텐겐 사망 아 머영이 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 요즘 앙딱정 컨설팅을 앙딱말아. 206 likes, 7 comments binnie_offlcial on janu i’m messed up. 만약 본인이 실수를 했거나 잘못을 했다면 사과해야합니다. 다음으로 소개할 신조어는 이왜진이에요. Ask and answer glarity. 탄지로 미츠리 목욕

텀트위터 よくkpopの挨拶で、最後の部分が、 字幕を見る限り、以上、 でした〜 みたいな終わり方をすると思いますが、 しゅんかじうりぬん？みたいな部分って、 何と言ってて、またどう言う表記か教えて頂けないでしょうか. 아 머영이 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 요즘 앙딱정 컨설팅을 앙딱말아와서 칭찬세례 답변 된 질문. 173 likes, tiktok video from fbg amiri @amiri_fbg amiristyles🦅🦅. 하지만 뻔뻔한 태도로 일관한다면 사람들의 비판을 받을 수밖에 없습니다. 지웅이 그만 괴롲히세요 지웅이에 데한 허위사실은 모두 고소진행 하겠습니다.

트위터 랭킹 다운 디시 앙딱정 is a term that originated from a controversy involving kim jiwoong, a member of the boy group zerobaseone. 김지웅은 팬과의 영상통화 후 욕설을 했다는 의혹에 휘말렸었죠. It has become an internet meme and catchphrase. 물론, 적당히 자리를 가려가며 쓰는 것이 중요하겠죠. 27 likes, tiktok video from antonia greaves @antoniagreaves capcut.

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.