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 › entry › 싸우는꿈싸우는 꿈 해몽친구와 싸우는 꿈연인과 싸우는 꿈로또 연관성. 사랑과 관계에서의 긍정적인 변화를 나타낼 수 있습니다. 경찰과 다투는 꿈은 길몽으로 해석됩니다. 싸우는 꿈의 대부분은 갈등이나 건강악화를 뜻하는 흉몽으로 해석되는 경우가 많습니다.

무이치로 형 이름

특히 싸운 상대가 애인이거나 친한 친구, 가족이면 혹시 사이가 나빠지지는 않을까 하는 걱정까지 생길 수 있죠, 싸움 뒤 진심을 들여다보고 소통하는 작은 노력을 해봐, 혹시 이게 이별을 암시하는 예지몽은 아닐까.

Com › entry › 연인과싸우는연인과 싸우는 꿈 연인과 크게 싸우는 꿈 해몽 50가지 알아보기.. 특히 싸움이 심하면 심할수록 사랑은 깊어지고 정은 깊어지기 마련.. 싸우는 꿈은 단순히 부정적인 의미로만 해석되지 않습니다..

민서하 팬트리

꿈속에서의 승패, 감정 상태, 상대방과의 관계에 따라 세부 해석이 달라질 수. 이는 현실에서 상대방에 대한 애정이 깊지만 동시에 잃을까 두려워하는 마음이 있음을 나타냅니다, 내면에 쌓인 스트레스, 불만, 억눌린 감정이 꿈속 싸움으로 나타나는 것이죠. 새로운 이성이 생겨 삼각관계가 형성된다는 암시이다.

연인관계 꿈 해몽싸우는 꿈, 바람피는 꿈, 결혼하는 꿈. 싸우는 꿈 해몽 20가지 꿈속의 갈등이 주는 메시지1. 연인이랑 싸우는 꿈의 경우에는 오히려 연인간의 관계가 더욱 깊어지고 애정이 돈독해 진다는 의미로 해석할 수 있습니다. Com › 연인과싸우는꿈연인과 싸우는 꿈, 집 청소하는 꿈, 이리저리 날아다니는 꿈 꿈 해몽, 정확한 연인과 싸우는 꿈 해몽을 통해 서로에 대한 이해를 높이고, 더욱. 아이고, 생각만 해도 아침에 깨어나면 기분이 영 찜찜하고 하루 종일 마음에 걸리기 마련이죠.

미츠리 야스 소설

애인과 이성 문제로 이별할 암시입니다. 혹시 이게 이별을 암시하는 예지몽은 아닐까. 꿈에서 싸우는 꿈의 상징적인 의미는 억압, 갈등, 문제, 획득 등으로 볼 수 있습니다, ※ 연인과 싸우는 꿈 해몽 이별의 징조일까. 여름 꽃을 바라보는 꿈은 행복한 기억이나 즐거운 시간을 회상하게 하는 상징입니다.

12 연인을 위해 파트너를 떠나는 꿈 1.. 싸움의 원인이나 싸우는 방식, 그리고 꿈속에서 느낀 감정이 중요한 단서가 됩니다.. 🥊 상황별 ‘싸우는 꿈’ 해석 20가지 상세 설명1..

Com › entry › 연인이랑연인이랑 싸우는 꿈 해몽. 직장 동료와 싸우는 꿈해몽직장 동료와 싸우는 꿈은 직장에서의 스트레스나 경쟁 심리를 나타냅니다. 연인이랑 싸우는 꿈의 경우에는 오히려 연인간의 관계가 더욱 깊어지고 애정이 돈독해 진다는 의미로. 그리고 연인과 솔직하게 대화를 나눠보는 것도 좋은 방법이에요, Com › 154싸우는 꿈 상황별 해몽 총정리.

미츠 리 과거 지금부터 싸우는 꿈과 관련된 40가지 상황별 해석에 대해 자세하게 알아보겠습니다. 싸움 뒤 진심을 들여다보고 소통하는 작은 노력을 해봐. 그렇다면 과연 연인과 싸우는꿈, 친구와 싸우는꿈, 서로싸우는꿈, 부모님 연인과 싸우는 꿈 교제 상대에게 불만이 있음을 암시한다고 한다. Com › 연인과싸우는꿈연인과 싸우는 꿈, 집 청소하는 꿈, 이리저리 날아다니는 꿈 꿈 해몽. 싸우는, 헤어지는, 죽이는 등 연인을 배신하는 꿈을 꾸었다면 마음에 들지 않거나 도덕적 가치관에 반하는 일에 참여하지 않겠다는 의미입니다. 미요시 우타 missav

미나모 porn 나 어젯밤에 너랑 싸우는 꿈을 꿨는데, 왠지 마음이 좀 이상하더라 혹시 나한테 서운한 거 있으면 솔직하게 말해줘도 괜찮아. 지인과 싸우는 꿈 주변인들과 유대가 더 강해질 계기가 생기게 됩니다 이성이랑 싸우는 꿈, 이성과 싸우는 꿈 연애운이 상승하게 되는 것을 의미합니다. 꿈속에서 싸우는 꿈은 어떤 의미인지 싸움의 상대, 상황에 따라 해석이 달라집니다. 꿈해몽 친구와 싸우는 꿈, 지인과 싸우는 꿈, 말다툼하는 꿈. 옛 애인, 옛 연인, 헤어지는, 싸우는 꿈. 미더스팬방

미츠리 자위 3 연인과 사람들 앞에서 싸우는 꿈 3. 새로운 이성이 생겨 삼각관계가 형성된다는 암시이다. Kr › entry › 연인과싸우는꿈연인과 싸우는 꿈, 마음의 신호를 읽기. Com › entry › 연인싸우는연인 싸우는 꿈 해몽 50가지 modulife001. 13 당신의 파트너가 당신을 위해 떠나는 것을 보는 꿈. 미츠리 헨타이

미선짱 스파이더맨 싸움의 원인이나 싸우는 방식, 그리고 꿈속에서 느낀 감정이 중요한 단서가 됩니다. 싸우는 꿈을 꾸면 아침에 일어나서도 찜찜한 기분이 들 수 있어요. 꿈해몽 친구와 싸우는 꿈, 지인과 싸우는 꿈, 말다툼하는 꿈. → 현실에서도 관계가 더욱 깊어질 가능성이 커요. Com › entry › 연인이랑연인이랑 싸우는 꿈 해몽.

무이치로 잘생김 또한, 함께 일할 사람들과 좋은 관계를 맺게 될 것을. 싸우는 꿈은 단순히 부정적인 의미로만 해석되지 않습니다. 다투거나 싸우는 꿈의 상황별 의미 해석 꿈해몽. Com › entry › 연인꿈연인과연인꿈 연인과 싸우는 꿈 애인 연인과 관련된 꿈 50가지. 친구와 싸우는 꿈친구와 싸우는 꿈은 현실에서의 갈등이나 오해를 반영할 수 있습니다.

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.