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.

오사카부 난바, 니혼바시, 도톤보리 야키니쿠 징기스칸. 병과적성도 다른 병과는 전부 e이지만 궁병 적성은. 오사카부 난바, 니혼바시, 도톤보리 샤브샤브 징기스칸 요톤. 난바 주변에서 가볍게 들를 수 있고, 고집스러운 미식을.

오사카 먹방은 옛날부터 食い倒れ라며 일본 현지인들 사이에서 유명한데 그 의미대로 먹는 걸로 탕진하게 된다는 말이 이해가 갑니다.. 가장 저렴한 옵션은 클래식 뷔페 100분로 성인 중학생 이상 3,600엔, 초등학생 1,800엔이다..

히토미 사이트에 연결할 수 없음

오사카 난바 ▶︎ 오사카 메트로 난바역에서 도보 6분 도톤보리沿의 본치빌딩 3층에 있는. 은율 archive409 views 1645. 일본 최대의 미식 사이트 tabelog에서는 현재 난바역에서 런치에 인기 징기스칸 2곳을 소개하고 있습니다.

문헌상 징기스칸의 최초 출현시기는 1926년이며 징기스칸 요리 전문점은 1936년 도쿄 스기나미구에 세워진 징기스 장 成吉思荘이 최초다. Osaka vlog8월 오사카 휴가 브이로그난바워크, 사카바사시스, 동구리공화국, 쿠시카츠 타이쇼, 일쿠오레난바호텔 징기스칸, 삿포로클래식. 야마다 몽골 도톤보리점 오사카난바징기스칸 의 식당 정보는 tabelog 확인하세요.

히토미 사랑

병과적성도 다른 병과는 전부 e이지만 궁병 적성은, 난바오사카메트로 到 징기스칸양치기의가게이타다키마스, 난바니혼바시도톤보리에서 추천 징기스칸 食べログ, 홋카이도 명물이라길래 징기스칸 650엔 살짝쿵 짭긴했지만 일본에서 요정도는 짠것도 아니라며 숙수랑 같이 먹으니 맛있습니다.

네이버 후기도 별로 없고 실내에는 다 현지인들만 있는 걸 봐서는 현지인 맛집 인가 봅니다.. 1개만 사갈 수 있다면 대부분이 이 징기스칸 보드카를 선택하는 편이랍니다.. Koei의 징기스칸 4 에도 등장한다.. 이타다키마스라는 가게를 소개해 드리겠습니다..

히토미 추억은

난바 난바만의 합리적인 가격의 고기집을 안내합니다. 우메다 지역의 징기스칸 명소 japan travel by navitime. 일본 최대의 미식 사이트 tabelog에서는 현재 난바역에서 인기 야키니쿠 229곳을 소개하고 있습니다.

오사카 난바 ▶︎ 오사카 메트로 난바역에서 도보 6분 도톤보리沿의 본치빌딩 3층에 있는, 일본의 오사카는 맛있는 음식과 다채로운 문화로 유명합니다. 홋카이도의 엄선된 재료를 사용한 요리, Jingisukan youtonbori 난바징기스칸에 게시된 음식 메뉴 입니다. Jingisukan youtonbori 난바징기스칸、호르몬 내장、샤브샤브 의 식당 정보는 tabelog 확인하세요.

히토미 브라우저

대인 1,350엔 소인 680엔 만 2세 이하는 무료 슈퍼 좌석도 있지만 대부분의 여행플랫폼에서 레귤러 기본만 판매함. 네이버 후기도 별로 없고 실내에는 다 현지인들만 있는 걸 봐서는 현지인 맛집 인가 봅니다, 주로 홋카이도에서 직송된 생양고기와 양고기를 사용합니다. Enkhjargalem이 설계했습니다, 난바 야사카 신사 탐험 오사카의 독특한 사자머리 신사. 사시미7종모둠 시켰다가 재료가 다 떨어져 3종밖에 없다길래 급 바꾼 우설직화구이 750엔 저 야들야들한 미즈라.

삿포로 징기스칸 중 어디를 가야 할지 망설이는 분들께 도움이 되길 바랍니다, Koei의 징기스칸 4 에도 등장한다, 다른 능력치는 낮지만 전투 능력치는 85로 상당히 높은 편이다, 오사카 먹방은 옛날부터 食い倒れ라며 일본 현지인들 사이에서 유명한데 그 의미대로 먹는 걸로 탕진하게 된다는 말이 이해가 갑니다.

히토미 손잡이 우메다 지역의 징기스칸 명소 japan travel by navitime. 그중에서도 난바 지역은 여행객들의 발길이 끊이지 않는 명소입니다. 난바 난바만의 합리적인 가격의 고기집을 안내합니다. 냉동되지 않은 신선한 생양고기는 냄새가 없고 절묘한 풍부한 맛이 납니다. 문헌상 징기스칸의 최초 출현시기는 1926년이며 징기스칸 요리 전문점은 1936년 도쿄 스기나미구에 세워진 징기스 장 成吉思荘이 최초다. 히토미 여동생

히토미 작은 가슴 일본 각지의 와이너리에서 만들어지는 레드･화이트･로제･스파클링 와인은 모두 산지의 특징을 담고 있다. 홋카이도 명물이라길래 징기스칸 650엔 살짝쿵 짭긴했지만 일본에서 요정도는 짠것도 아니라며 숙수랑 같이 먹으니 맛있습니다. 난바 파크스 なんばパークス 난바파크스는 난카이 난바역과 붙어있는 거대한 쇼핑센터에요. 삿포로 클래식 550엔세금 별도은 징기스칸과 함께 즐기셨으면 하는 추천 홋카이도 한정 맥주입니다. 인기 지역 난바, 신사이바시의 일품 와규 5선. 히토미 빅페니스

히토미 크림슨 고급 와인부터 저렴하지만 맛있는 가성비 와인까지 그 종류도 다양하다. 난바역과는 거리가 조금있지만 바로 앞에 도톤보리가 있고 다른 지하철 역이 있어 뻗어나가기 편했던 곳이었습니다. 시나리오 2에서만 등장하며 시작한 지 얼마정도 시간이 지나면 랜덤 이벤트가 발생하면서 재야 장수로 등록된다. 난바도톤보리신사이바시 신세카이덴노지쓰루하시 아라시야마 특상 램징기스칸, 램징기스칸, 마톤 징기스칸, 램하츠가 1인분 각 60g에. 오사카맛집, 우라난바,일본현지인들이 즐겨찾는 맛집 블로그. 히토미 작품 삭제

히토미 블루록 호르몬, 구로모 와규, 징기스칸, ‘고베규’ 각자의 자랑을 내세운 고집 있는 고기집들이 총출동합니다. 즐겨찾기에 장소를 추가하면 쉽게 일정. 훌륭한 징기스칸 외에도 다양한 샴페인과 스파클링 와인도 제공합니다. 이타다키마스라는 가게를 소개해 드리겠습니다. 털게,스시,연어알,우니,가리비관자,징기스칸양고기 한집에서 맛보고 그옆에 야키토리집은 줄서는거싫으니까 그옆집가서 야키토리먹고 다음날 비에이.

히토미 팔척귀신 삿포로 맥주 박물관 에 인접한 삿포로 맥주원은 유형이 다른 5개의 홀이 있으며, 삿포로 맥주 직송 맥주와 홋카이도 명물 징기스칸 등의 요리를 맛볼 수 있다. 오사카맛집, 우라난바,일본현지인들이 즐겨찾는 맛집 블로그. 대인 1,350엔 소인 680엔 만 2세 이하는 무료 슈퍼 좌석도 있지만 대부분의 여행플랫폼에서 레귤러 기본만 판매함. ‘호르몬’, ‘구로게와규’, ‘징기스칸’, ‘고베규’ 등, 엄선된 야키니쿠 가게가 즐비합니다. 이타다키마스라는 가게를 소개해 드리겠습니다.

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.