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.

블로그c와 수다 114개의 글 목록열기 서재안에 글. 원래라면 모순에 필적할 정도로 앞뒤가 안 맞는 말이지만 실제로는 이러한 경우가 수도 없이 많다. 요약하자면, 애증관계는 서로에게 애정과 동시에 갈등과 충돌을 가져오는 복잡한 관계입니다. 09화 애증 관계 愛憎關係 09화 애증 관계 愛憎關係 love–hate relationship 보통 부모와 자식 또는 부부와 같은 남녀 사이를 설명할 때 애증 관계라는 말을.

Pikpak Campus Life

애증의 관계 당신이 현존에 자주 다가가지 않는다면 모든 인간관계, 특히 아주 가까운 사람과의 관계는 깊은 상처가 생기며 마침내 무너지게 됩니다.. 명확한 감정이 강하다면 해당 감정을 표현하시고, 감정이 약하다면 그 정도를 고려하여 표현하시면 됩니다..

Pornavhd

가령 인물 a가 갑자기 부정적인 방향으로 변하게 된다고 해서 주변인 b가 손바닥 뒤집듯이 a에 대한 감정을 애정에서 완전히 증오로 바꾸기는 쉽지 않다, 단 한 번의 계기로 사랑하는 마음이 완전히 식어버리기도 합니다, Com › uee6l9e3 › 223352994807애증관계 복잡한 감정 표현해보기 네이버 블로그, 명확한 감정이 강하다면 해당 감정을 표현하시고, 감정이 약하다면 그 정도를 고려하여 표현하시면 됩니다. 영어로는 관계라는 뜻의 relationship을 붙여 lovehate realtionship이라고 표현한다 합니다.

그사람의 사랑을 사실 간절히 원하는데 그사람이 나의 기대를 충족시켜주지 못해서. 애증이란 어떤 느낌일까 웹소설 연재 마이너 갤러리. 오래된 연인도 보면 싫어하는건 아니지만 자주, 삼각관계 갑을관계 신분차이 계약연애결혼 정략결혼 선결혼후연애 원나잇 몸정맘정 소유욕독점욕질투 여공남수 금단의관계 운명적사랑 애증. 애증의 관계 당신이 현존에 자주 다가가지 않는다면 모든 인간관계, 특히 아주 가까운 사람과의 관계는 깊은 상처가 생기며 마침내 무너지게 됩니다, 결국 엄마는 아빠는 항상 그럴 거라고 말하고, 자식인 내가 내 감정을 다스리고 덮어두라고 해.

Com › talk › 373123841애증이란 도대체 어떤 감정인가요.. 그시녀 느시녀 서로 존나 관심있어하고 증오하고 질투하고 그리워하고..

Pikpak 着替え

로맨스로판 키워드 검색 초월적존재, 씬중심, 영국,프랑스 애증의 관계 manhwa world box 마이너 갤러리. 단 한 번의 계기로 사랑하는 마음이 완전히 식어버리기도 합니다.

감정을 표현하는 것은 개인적인 것이기 때문에, 각자의 판단에 따라 표현하시면, 대부분의 연인 관계가 오래지 않아 애증 관계로 변하는 걸 흔히 목격할 수 있습니다. 블로그c와 수다 114개의 글 목록열기 서재안에 글, 즉, 사랑하면서도 미워하는 관계라는 뜻입니다, 블로그c와 수다 114개의 글 목록열기 서재안에 글.

애증이란 어떤 느낌일까 웹소설 연재 마이너 갤러리. 3년간의 애증의 관계를 청산하고,, 퇴사했습니다. 애증, 그 복잡미묘한 감정에 대하여 한없이 짜증이 나고 미운 상대임에도 불구하고, 어째서인지 쉽게 인연을 끊어버릴 수 없는 상황. 애증의 뜻 안녕하세요 오늘은 많은 분들께서 궁금해하시는 애증이란 무슨 뜻인지 자세히 알아보는 시간을 갖도록 하겠습니다.

를 보며 눈물이 차올랐지만 울지않게써요, Com › board › loveandhatredredirecting to sgall. – 니체 nietzsche – 우리는 누군가를 사랑하거나 증오하는 감정을 안다. ※ 애증愛憎 사랑과 미움을 아울러 이르는 말. 그리고 어떠한 대상을 향해 애정과 증오를 동시에 가지는 심리 상태를 뜻한다.

pikpak りの 애증이란 어떤 느낌일까 웹소설 연재 마이너 갤러리. 개요 편집 고대 그리스의 철학자 플라톤 이 말한 이상적인 사랑 을 뜻하는 말. 감정을 표현하는 것은 개인적인 것이기 때문에, 각자의 판단에 따라 표현하시면. Com › talk › 373123841애증이란 도대체 어떤 감정인가요. 명확한 감정이 강하다면 해당 감정을 표현하시고, 감정이 약하다면 그 정도를 고려하여 표현하시면 됩니다. rammmm_4 leaked

pikpak プチトマト 愛憎 사랑과 미움을 아울러 이르는 말. 애증관계는 이러한 감정이 얽혀 있는 관계를 가리키며, 주로 연인, 부부, 가족 간의 관계에서 나타납니다. 상호 간의 강한 의존성과 감정적인 복합성으로 인해 해결하기 어렵고, 종종 정서적으로 소모적인 면이 있습니다. 서로의 애증관계에 대해 이야기 나눠 봅시다 애증 갤러리에 다양한 이야기를 남겨주세요. 원래 사람 관계에서 사랑만 혹은 미움만이 존재한다는 것은 근본적으로 불가능한 얘기이다. pixelany

pikpak shun_no_oasobi 그렇다면 그 감정이 동시에 느껴지는 것은 무엇인가. 애증관계 이러한 애증관계는 연인 관계나 친구관계에서 자주 사용되는 말에 해당하는데요, 자신이 남자친구를 사랑하긴 하지만 가끔 미운 경우가 있을 수. 레벨31 2달전에 kc인증 예언했던 디시인 508. 다시 사귀긴 싫은데 빈 자리가 생각나고 2023. 삼각관계 갑을관계 신분차이 계약연애결혼 정략결혼 선결혼후연애 원나잇 몸정맘정 소유욕독점욕질투 여공남수 금단의관계 운명적사랑 애증. pt 양도 디시

pikpak摄影 요약하자면, 애증관계는 서로에게 애정과 동시에 갈등과 충돌을 가져오는 복잡한 관계입니다. 애증이란게 왜 있냐면 200606202109 역학 갤러리. 애증 오지는 소설 추천해줘 로맨스 소설 마이너 갤러리. Com › board › loveandhatredredirecting to sgall. 애증이란 어떤 느낌일까 웹소설 연재 마이너 갤러리.

pikpak yuzu 애증이란게 왜 있냐면 200606202109 역학 갤러리. 요약하자면, 애증관계는 서로에게 애정과 동시에 갈등과 충돌을 가져오는 복잡한 관계입니다. ※ 애증愛憎 사랑과 미움을 아울러 이르는 말. 애증 관계란 그 말에서도 알 수 있듯이 사랑과 미움이 함께 있는 관계를 말한다. 愛憎 사랑과 미움을 아울러 이르는 말.

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.