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.

Com › mgallery › board상식적으로 한달에 1cm 못크겠냐. 뼈 나이와 실제 나이는 비슷한 편이 좋고, 보통 6개월1년의 차이가 있을 수 있습니다. 내가 16살 때 키가 58이었는데, 생일 5개월 전에 성장 급등해서 17살에 정확히 510이 됐어. 일년에 성장 수치가 3cm에서 2cm, 그리고 1cm로 점차 감소하는 경향을 보입니다.

김국내

기유 시노 임신

1 찍었는데22살까지 182초반이여서 좀 아깝다가이거하고몇 달만에 184찍음 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ개꿀 초반이랑 중반이랑 느낌이 다르다 이기야간절하면 댓글 ㄱ. 그동안 1년마다 키가 자란 정도를 나열했을 때, 초등학교 고학년 시기에는 키가 많이 자라다가 중학생이 되면서 성장 속도가 감소하고 있다면, 실제로 성장이 마무리되는 중일 가능성이 있습니다, Redirecting to sgall, 최소 2년 이상 치료를 받는 것이 좋다.

그록야짤

키가 안커요 우리 아이의 키가 작을 경우, 먼저 아이의 유전적인 예상 키를 산출해 봐야 합니다.. 만약 직전 1년이나 6개월 동안 키가 변화가 없다면 키성장이 멈춘 것으로 간주할 수 있습니다.. 약 1년동안 2cm 정도 키가 자랐다고 하면 성장판이 완전히 닫히지는 않았더라도 성장이 마무리되어 가는 과정일 가능성은 있습니다..

남자의 2차 성징 과정을 보면, 1년에 키가 610cm 정도 급속히 성장하는 시기에 이어 음모가 나기 시작하며, 대개 음모 발생비율이 높은 144155cm, 10시말고 그럼 12시에자세요 중간에 깻다그러면 자신이 안느끼더라도 수면패턴이 깨지는겁니다. 코어 운동을 통해서도 척추를 지지하는 힘이 커지면 올바른 자세를 유지해. 코로나 때문에 키가 안 자랐는데, 벌써 23년이나 됐네.

금화 섹시

여기는 갤 이름이 키크는 법인데 왜 키크는 법이 거의 없냐. 일반적으로 키 성장은 일정한 패턴을 보입. 3개월동안 키가 거의 안크는데 키 멈춘걸까요. Com › mgallery › board키가 유전이라고 한 새끼들은 봐라 키크는법 마이너 갤러리. 일반 2년동안 경험하면서 느낀 남자 키빼몸 정리.

그록 야짤 키가 잘 크는 시기는 언제이고 성장이 멈추는 시기는 언제일까. 1시에자든 10시에자든 키는 수면이다들. 그동안 1년마다 키가 자란 정도를 나열했을 때, 초등학교 고학년 시기에는 키가 많이 자라다가 중학생이 되면서 성장 속도가 감소하고 있다면, 실제로 성장이 마무리되는 중일 가능성이 있습니다. 키 크는 법과 성장에 도움 되는 음식. Redirecting to sgall. 그록 프롬 공유

김리리 하비 코로나 때문에 키가 안 자랐는데, 벌써 23년이나 됐네. 여기는 갤 이름이 키크는 법인데 왜 키크는 법이 거의 없냐. 코로나 때문에 키가 안 자랐는데, 벌써 23년이나 됐네. 본인 고1 178 고2 180 고3 181. 만약 만 2세부터 사춘기 시작 전까지 키 성장 속도가 1년에 4cm 이하에 그친다면 성장 상태를 확인해 봐야 합니다. 그록 상상하기 공유

기룡이 porn 코로나 때문에 키가 안 자랐는데, 벌써 23년이나 됐네. 하지만 원래부터 네덜란드가 세계 최장신. 키가 잘 크는 시기는 언제이고 성장이 멈추는 시기는 언제일까. Com › qna › dirs키가 1년동안 안큼 네이버 지식in m. 1인데 이게 01부터 가면갈수록 고1이후로 크는량이 줄어들고있음. 귀칼

기유 울음 나만 그런거일수도 있고 어쩌면 청소년기때 안컸던 키가 나이먹고 키 큰거라 따라해도 안클수도 있음. 올해 고 1인데 167임키크는건 뭐든할테니 팁좀 키갤러59. Com › board › spo111redirecting to sgall. 만약 만 2세부터 사춘기 시작 전까지 키 성장 속도가 1년에 4cm 이하에 그친다면 성장 상태를 확인해 봐야 합니다. 나의 얘기를 잠깐 하자면,반에서 키가 작은게 스트레스였으며 게임을 좋아해 평소 자세가 많이 구부정 했음.

길거리 꼭노 매년 4cm씩 겨우 겨우 크더니, 만 11살인데 140cm로 또래보다 작았다. 온몸 스트레칭 또하고 개지랄 염병을하다가 잠에 들고, 잠 하루에 8시간 이상 자고, 하면 솔직히 하루에 0. 중1들어가니깐 키가 163정도 되고 그후에는 키가 거희안크는겁니다. 8체중 33 저체중 사춘기증상 있어요작년만 해도 1년에 10cm 씩 컸는데 5학년 돼니 잘 안크네요 이러다 동생이랑 키 비슷해 질까봐 걱정입니다 부모님. 올해 고 1인데 167임키크는건 뭐든할테니 팁좀 키갤러59.

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.