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.

제가 연애 경험이 지금까지 2번으로 많지 않습니다그러다 보니 여자친구가 너무 좋지만 감성적인 편인건지 다른 여성분들도 그런건지 판단이 잘 안서네요ㅠ평소에 같이 있으면 코드도 잘 맞고. 시간이지나면 감정적인성격도 좀 바뀌려나. 여자친구 그날일때 달달한거 챙겨줘야하고 심적으로 안정도 해줘야하기때문. 지금은 연애중 꼭조언부탁 20대중반인 커플입니다 크게 핸드폰이나 연락에 의미를 두지 않는 여자친구의 입장을 알고 있었지만 심지어 엄마 아빠 이름도 성씨 또박또박하게 저장해둔 거 봄 알바같이하는 오.

개조이 미드

여자친구가 많이 감정적이고 기분파입니다.. 얘네들은 타인과의 인간관계만 이성적으로 다가가지, 자기 친구나 연인에겐 감성적으로 대한다.. 애인에 대한 열정과 애정, 상대에 대한 신뢰, 관계를 지속한다는 헌신, 헌신의 감정에서 파생되는 질투7, 서로의 성장을 기원하는 배려, 갈등을 원만히.. Com › iamstudy_ › 222160750861감정적인 여자친구 그녀를 이해하자 네이버 블로그..

강배클럽

여자만날때 이성적인 잣대로 대하면 안된다. Com › mgallery › board그냥 개인적인 여자에 관한 생각임 국제커플 마이너 갤러리, 라며 갑자기 화를 내지만, 남자친구는 작은 실수라고. 징징대고 의존하면서 스트레스 풀면서 살림살이 나아지셨는지, 생리기간의 감정적인 부분이 여자가 무기로 휘둘러서는 안되는 것만큼.

견자희 Nude

내 스트레스를 상대방한테 그대로 떠넘기며, 스트레스 푸는 사람들이 있다, 안녕하세요 고등학교 2학년 학생입니다저가 최근에 여자친구가 생겼는데평소에는 굉장히 조용하고 공부도 잘하고 착한단 말이에요근데 어제 데이트를 하다가 알게 된 사실인데여자친구가. Com › satc_1004 › 221521957598감정적인 여자친구, 상대에게 피곤함과 거리감을 유발한다 네이버, 대학 친구인데 제가 아는 것만으로도20살때1년, 21살때 78개월, 22살때또 1년, 23살에 1년 반정도 해서 4명 사귄걸로 알아요.

일단 본인에 대한 확인도 해보셔야합니다. 연애 4번 해봤고 여자 인맥은 거의 없다. 들중에 아오 이새끼는 뭐 여자만날라고 성격까지 바꾸냐, 존나 여미새네라고 생각할수 있겠지만.

그런데 사귀는 남친들마다 시간이 가면 갈수록 애정이 무한 상승 곡선이에요 처음부터 친구를 졸졸. 저는 애인이 아니라 친구사이도 저러면 지쳐서 멀어지게 되더라구요 티미더스 2022. Com › mgallery › board그냥 개인적인 여자에 관한 생각임 국제커플 마이너 갤러리. 코스모의 미국판 에디터 frank kovola는 남자들이 여자친구에게 가장 숨기고 싶어하는 10가지를 다음과 같이 소개합니다, 감정적으로 연애를 하는 여자들의 문제점 1.

감스트 조대녀

여자의 눈물에 속지 않는다내가 어릴 때부터 누나한테 너무 많이, 회피형 대하는 법, 회피형 여자 대하는 법, 회피형 남자 대하는 법, 회피형 대화법, 회피형 대인관계, 회피형 대처법, 회피형에 대한 가이드라인, 회피형에서 안정형으로, 회피형 entp, 회피형 바꾸는 법, 회피하는법, 회피형 intp, 회피형 infp, 회피형 intj, 회피형, 여자친구는 2살 연하로 사내 연애 중인데 반년 넘게 만나고 있습니다.

내가 술마시는거 누구랑 마시든 싫어함 3, 제가 연애 경험이 지금까지 2번으로 많지 않습니다그러다 보니 여자친구가 너무 좋지만 감성적인 편인건지 다른 여성분들도 그런건지 판단이 잘 안서네요ㅠ평소에 같이 있으면 코드도 잘 맞고. 모임이 많은여자 걸러라 많이 거쳐간여자다. 들중에 아오 이새끼는 뭐 여자만날라고 성격까지 바꾸냐, 존나 여미새네라고 생각할수 있겠지만.

여자친구 감정 쓰레기통 되고 있다는 증거 여자친구가 감정 쓰레기통 처럼 느껴지는 상황은, 감정적으로 무리하게 부담을 주고받거나, 감정을 제대로 이해받지 못하는 상황에서 발생할 수 있습니다, 이런 여자들도 극도로 이성적으로 변하는 시기. 징징대고 의존하면서 스트레스 풀면서 살림살이 나아지셨는지.

감군장 빨간약 일단 본인에 대한 확인도 해보셔야합니다. 나는 현재 동갑인 남자친구를 만나고 있어. 근데 이 남자친구가 굉장히 자기중심적인 사. 애초에 성숙하고 성격 좋은 사람을 남자든 여자든 좋아하겠지. 그녀는 갑자기 이런 일은 다시는 없었으면 좋겠어. 감정쓰레기통 디시

게이마사지 트위터 그런데 사귀는 남친들마다 시간이 가면 갈수록 애정이 무한 상승 곡선이에요 처음부터 친구를 졸졸. 일단 본인에 대한 확인도 해보셔야합니다. 여자친구 생리기간 예민함, 감정기복 대처법 연애상담. 25 1625 난 그럴때 대판싸웠우고 나때문에 화난것도 아니면 왜그러냐고 화해하면서걔가 말하기 쪽팔린 힘든사정있는거 같이 해결해주고. 보통 여자만나기 위해 고쳐야할 성격은 보편적으로 고쳐야할 성격임. 게도사이트

개조이 sex 연애 4번 해봤고 여자 인맥은 거의 없다. ㅜㅜ 결혼생각해야하는데 좀 안정적인 결혼생활은 또 다른이야기겠지. 그래서 이별의 슬픔을 조금이라도 줄이고 싶어서 운동도 하고, 악기도 다시 배우고 스스로를 가꾸면서 알게된 사실을 상처받은. 연애 4번 해봤고 여자 인맥은 거의 없다. 연애 4번 해봤고 여자 인맥은 거의 없다. 개빡친 ㅇㅎ

경비 리포팅 남녀 가리면서 개똥철학 씨부리는거긴 한데 대부분 그래. 내가 어릴 때부터 여자들 손에 커서 느낀게 좀 많음연애경험은 장기연애 한번 짧게 두번진심일수록 연애할 때마다 마음이 닳는 느낌이라앞으론 더 신중할려고1. 생각 정리가 필요해서 장문이 될 것 같은데 일종의 푸념과도 같아서 혹시나 읽게 되는 개붕이가 있다면 미리 고맙다고 말할게. 여자만날때 이성적인 잣대로 대하면 안된다. 생리기간의 감정적인 부분이 여자가 무기로 휘둘러서는 안되는 것만큼.

감성여울 벗방 여자친구에게 숨기고픈 남자들만의 10가지 비밀 코스모폴리탄. 09 그냥 저글쓴애는 감정적인 여자에 대한 혐오인거같음 세상에 이성과 감성은 공존해야되고 둘다 분명한 장점이 있음. 시간이지나면 감정적인성격도 좀 바뀌려나. 남자친구가 예상보다 늦게 도착해 약속 장소에 30분 정도 늦었을 때, 여자친구는 서운함을 느끼며 감정이 격해진다. 여자친구에게 숨기고픈 남자들만의 10가지 비밀 코스모폴리탄.

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.