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.

이성이 강한 사람은 연락 안하게 되는데 불안심리가 강하면 연락하겠지 난 이성이 먼저라 연락하고 싶다가도 이성으로 참는다. ㅇㅇ미련도 헤어지고 힘든 것도 없으니까 다른 사람도 금방 만나고 기본적으로 여자면 연애시장에서 더 유리하기도 하니까. 2년연애 헤어진지 2달x는 친구들이랑 풋살도 하고 너무 신나게 잘노네표정이 너무 행복해보여서 씁쓸하다. 근데 본인이 반가운 마음에 재회에 대한 의지를 내비치고 옛날 추억팔이.

무표정녀 야동

헤어지고 상대가 너무 매달리고 귀찮게 굴어서 3.. 전 애인과 관계를 잘 유지하는 기자 수전 밋우치 는 모르는 번호로 메시지를 받았을 때 옛 연인이 아닐까 두려움이 먼저 든다면 이르다며..

문품번 영상 삭제

무이치로탄지로

ㅇㅇ미련도 헤어지고 힘든 것도 없으니까 다른 사람도 금방 만나고 기본적으로 여자면 연애시장에서 더 유리하기도 하니까. 상대에게 잊지 못할 추억을 안겨주는 겁니다. 삼성전자 u 잘 지내는척 노력하다보면, 진짜 잘 지내게 되고. 그런데요, 이게 싫으면 처음부터 헤어지지 말았어야 했어요. 너가 헤어지자했는데 친구로 지내자는건 미련이 있는거고 상대방이 헤어지자해놓고 친구로 지내자는건 걍 남주긴아깝고 갖긴 별로니깐 옆에 두고 지켜보는느낌.

카톡 프사 프뮤 아무것도 없는게 더 궁금해 미쳐할까요 지금은 헤어진지 한달됐고 지금까지 무소식인데 얼마전 그 남자가 후폭풍 온 것 같은데 연락이 왔음 좋겠어서 자존심이 센편이라 어떤게 더 그 사람에게 자극이 될지 궁금해요 55글자 더 채워주세요.. 헤어지고 더 이상 상대를 생각하고 싶지 않아서 2.. 전 애인과 헤어진 슬픔을 상당히 잊게 해준다.. 제임스는 구독 좋아요 알람설정을 원한다..

기본적으로 여자는 남자에 비해 자존심 발동이 더 잘 됩니다, Net › name › 47744947이별 헤어지고 친구로 지내는 사람 있어요. 상대에게 잊지 못할 추억을 안겨주는 겁니다. 이 과정이 복잡하다고 느껴질 수 있습니다, 부서 단위로 여초인 곳도 있고, 회사 전체가 여초인 경우도 있죠, 디시人터뷰 좋아해요로 친하게 지내면그 친하게 지낸 여자는 바로 정치매장임이런거.

헤어진지 이틀만에 너어무 잘 지내는 전 여자친구 썸연애. 찼음내가 한달뒤 연락 아쉬워하는게 안보여서 재회 안함. 그친구가 봐줬으면 하고 내가 이렇게 지내고 있다 잘지내는 사진 암울한 사진 올리면서 그럼 상대방은 아무리 안좋게 헤어졌더라도 이미지 헤어지고.

제임스는 구독 좋아요 알람설정을 원한다, Com › mgallery › board헤어지고 전여친남친 잘 지내는거같음, 헤어진 다음날 남자분들sns로 헤어진 여자친구가 사진도 올리고 잘지내는 근황같은거 보면 나없이도 잘지내네 란 생각이 드나요 아님 더 궁금하고 생각나고 보고싶나요, 💬 헤어지고 잘지내는 모습 보이지 마라 별붕이121. 싱글벙글 여초 말투 따라하는 디시 디시 트렌드 05.

미션어리 헤어지고 감정을 외면하면 안되는 이유이거 찐임 이별. 헤어진 다음날 남자분들sns로 헤어진 여자친구가 사진도 올리고 잘지내는 근황같은거 보면 나없이도 잘지내네 란 생각이 드나요 아님 더 궁금하고 생각나고 보고싶나요. 너가 헤어지자했는데 친구로 지내자는건 미련이 있는거고 상대방이 헤어지자해놓고 친구로 지내자는건 걍 남주긴아깝고 갖긴 별로니깐 옆에 두고 지켜보는느낌. 168 1032 57 0 793500 💬 여친이랑 헤어지고 자기계발중인데 더 좋은듯 ㅇㅇ106. 헤어진지 얼마 안됐는데 마음이 평온해 별붕이112. 미디 251127

미나모 헤어진 다음날 헤어진지 한달하고 2주정도 되었습니다 자꾸 전남친 인스타를 염탐하게되는데 저랑 만났던 5년이 가까운 시간동안 sns 활동을 거의 하지 않았고 인스타 스토리 한번 올려본적. 부서 단위로 여초인 곳도 있고, 회사 전체가 여초인 경우도 있죠, 디시人터뷰 좋아해요로 친하게 지내면그 친하게 지낸 여자는 바로 정치매장임이런거. ㅇㅇ미련도 헤어지고 힘든 것도 없으니까 다른 사람도 금방 만나고 기본적으로 여자면 연애시장에서 더 유리하기도 하니까. 찼음내가 한달뒤 연락 아쉬워하는게 안보여서 재회 안함. 재회를 하더라도 이별이 또 찾아올 수 있으니까 할 거 하면서 기다려. 미래 자위 디시

미모넬 히토미 제임스는 구독 좋아요 알람설정을 원한다. 기본적으로 여자는 남자에 비해 자존심 발동이 더 잘 됩니다. 즉, 4년간의 연애시간이 의미가 없을정도로 여자친구의 태도가 너무 별로라는 이야기 뭘믿고 결혼까지 할생각이었는지는 모르겠다만, 자극에 상당히 취약한 여자라서 결혼해도 글쓴이가 꽤나 마음고생할거라고 보인다. Com › mgallery › board남자들아 헤어지고 상대가 ㅈㄴ 잘사는거 vs 감감무소식 이별 마이너. 247 1030 61 0 793499 💬 인생네컷 전남친부분 잘라내고 명함이랑 증명사진받은거 별붕이218. 밋다 빨간약

문유미 헤어지고 잘지내는 모습 보이지 마라 이별 마이너 갤러리. 그친구가 봐줬으면 하고 내가 이렇게 지내고 있다 잘지내는 사진 암울한 사진 올리면서 그럼 상대방은 아무리 안좋게 헤어졌더라도 이미지 헤어지고. 헤어질때 만났을 때 재밌었다 잘지내라고 끝냈었는데 이별. 247 1030 61 0 793499 💬 인생네컷 전남친부분 잘라내고 명함이랑 증명사진받은거 별붕이218. 84웅 너 전여친이 난 아니야 후회하냐고 왜 안잘해줬냐고는 너탓하는거네 너때문에 헤어진거라고 걔가 찼더래도 너가 나한테 최선을 read more.

미타니 아카네 missav 상대에게 잊지 못할 추억을 안겨주는 겁니다. 헤어진 다음날 남자분들sns로 헤어진 여자친구가 사진도 올리고 잘지내는 근황같은거 보면 나없이도 잘지내네 란 생각이 드나요 아님 더 궁금하고 생각나고 보고싶나요. 보통 헤어지고 전화나 카톡차단 박는 경우는 1. ㅇㅇ미련도 헤어지고 힘든 것도 없으니까 다른 사람도 금방 만나고 기본적으로 여자면 연애시장에서 더 유리하기도 하니까. 계속 반복이고 상처만 입는다면 카톡상태가 그립거나 잘지내도 연락안할겁니다 왜냐 이젠 만나도 같을거란걸 느꼈으닌까요 하지만 처음헤어졌거나 싸워서 홧김에라면 아무래도 카톡상태에 잘지내는척하면 옵니다.

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.