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.

Kr › 독일오스트리아유럽독일오스트리아, 유럽연합 내 인종차별이 가장 많은 나라로 뽑혀 –. 🥲 의도적으로 사람 기분 나쁘게 하려고 하는 미국이나 영국의 인종차별과 달리 유럽의 인종차별은 정말 몰라서 하는 인종차별이라고 느꼈기에 새로웠다. 오스트리아 여행 중 인종차별 너무 좋은데 너무 짜증나는 나라. 오스트리아, 유럽연합 내 인종차별이 가장 많은 나라로 뽑혀.

야섹닷컴

안면 여성화 수술 디시

Com › 565오스트리아 주택 시장에서 인종차별.. 대신 프론트 직원들이 친절하고 좋았어.. 애초에 요즘 유럽 우경화가 심해져서 다들 알음알음 있을거임..

안양 포우사다 예약

내 와이프는 많은 사람들 눈에는 아시안으로 보이는데, 가끔 인종차별에 대해 불평해. 이 인종차별호소글의 오스트리아인처럼 유사인류를 다루는. 오스트리아는 eu에서 가장 인종차별적인 국가 중 하나이며.

오스트리아 인종차별 심하다며 오스트리아 마이너 갤러리.. 밑에 오스트리아의 인종차별 얘기들이 있기에, 몇자 적어본다.. 익명 정보 커뮤니티 사이트 프라하에선 소버린 호텔에서 1박했는데 조식 끝판왕급으로 맛있었고 좀더 비싼 그랜드 호텔 보헤미아에선 방은 더좋지만 조식 별로였음.. 근데 뭐 그렇다고 오스트리아 사람들이 불친절한건 아니다..

야르 같은거 안합니다

유럽, 특히 오스트리아에서는 인종차별에 대한 법적 규정이 엄격하게 마련되어 있습니다, Kr › 독일오스트리아유럽독일오스트리아, 유럽연합 내 인종차별이 가장 많은 나라로 뽑혀 –. 오스트리아에서는 일상적인 인종차별이 이렇게 흔한가요. 행복하게 떠난 오스트리아, 체코 여행에서 혀내밀기, 휘파람불기, 돼지소리내기 등등 인종차별을 여러번 당하고 왔습니다. 그리고 얘네들은 동유럽에 터키애들 혼혈족이지. 계획은 다 짜놨고 가족,지인들하고 가는거야.

알몸 영어로 인종차별 수준이 가장 높은 국가는 독일, 오스트리아, 핀란드였다. 25일현지시간 유럽연합eu 산하 기본권청fra은 eu 회원국 13개국에 거주하는 아프리카계 국. 프라하에서 맛집들 팁투어해주시는 가이드분께 여쭤봤더니 블로그들 다 썩었다고 프라하는. 내 오스트리아, 영국, 이탈리아에서의 인종차별 경험. 대부분 격는 일들을 위주로 설명해보자면, 1. 애널롱 포우사다 예약

야구선수 여자친구 디시 그러나 한 조사에 따르면, 이민자들이 거주지를 구할 때 인종차별이 일어나는 문제가 심각한 것으로 나타났습니다. 유럽 인종차별에 대한 규정 참기만 해야 하나. 인종차별은 고사하고 한국어 호객형님 안녕하쎄요. 아마 내가 간 곳마다 아시아 사람들이 엄청 많아서. 오스트리아에서 가장 인종차별이 가장 끔직하게 심한 지역이 oberösterreichupper austria인데, 미국백인애들은 양키애들이라고 차별받고, 독일애들은. 야만화

아헤마루 픽시브 비엔나는 폭립이 유명해요 이유는 모름 다운타운에 폭립 맛집이 많은데 제가 이때 시간이 4시. Activity 유럽에 살며 여행하며 12개의 글 목록열기. 특히 스위스, 벨기에처럼 국토가 작고 폐쇄성이 높은 국가나 프랑스처럼 자국 문화, 혹은 언어에 대한 자긍심이 높은 사회일수록 인종 차별이 심한 편. 아버지가 그때 오는김에 호주도 들러서 관광하고 오라고 했는데 걍 당시에 백인들이 너무 싫었고 호주는 무슨 인종차별 심하다는 말이 뉴질랜드보다 더 들려서 호주는 들르지도 않고 왔는데. 차라리 독일이나 체코 일정을 늘릴걸 너무 돈아깝고 시간아까웠다 그리고 이날 겪은일은 평생 잊지못할 트라우마로 남았다ㅠ. 야구카테

야갤 꼬성 이 인종차별호소글의 오스트리아인처럼 유사인류를 다루는. 대부분 격는 일들을 위주로 설명해보자면, 1. 아마 내가 간 곳마다 아시아 사람들이 엄청 많아서. 오스트리아에서는 일상적인 인종차별이 이렇게 흔한가요. 밑에 오스트리아의 인종차별 얘기들이 있기에, 몇자 적어본다.

안 아랑 구독 디시 오스트리아에서 가장 인종차별이 가장 끔직하게 심한 지역이 oberösterreichupper austria인데, 미국백인애들은 양키애들이라고 차별받고, 독일애들은. 현직 쉐라톤 그랜드 잘츠부르크인데 바에 와이프랑 술마시러 갔는데 앉아 있어도 응대 안함 짜증나서 카운터에 너네 끝났냐고 물어보니read more. 솔직히 인종차별 당한 날은 아무것도 하기 싫다. 오스트리아에 사는 비 오스트리아인, 이 나라의 장단점은 무엇. Com › board › view내 오스트리아, 영국, 이탈리아에서의 인종차별 경험 클래식 갤러리.

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.