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 › enko › tepidtepid wordreference 영한 사전. 방법 물의 온도 손으로 만졌을 때 따끈 미지근한 정도가 알맞다. Tepid adj, liquid slightly warm 액체가, 미지근한, 미온의 형. A tepid reaction is not enthusiastic 3.

릴파 고세구 디시

로타리클럽 디시

The tea was tepid by the time i drank it, Tepid bath water 유의어 lukewarm, 기타 단어 tephra 뜻 tephrite 뜻 tephrochronology 뜻 tephroseris, The crowd ’s tepid applause reflected their disinterest in the performance.

Other definition of tepid is relatively unenthusiastic or apathetic. How to use tepid in a sentence, Tepid 온도나 신체적 감각을 설명하는 데 자주 사용되는 경미하거나 중간 수준의 강도를 의미하는 반면, indifferent 감정이나 태도를 설명하는 데 자주 사용되는 강도가, 1400년경에 tepid라는 단어는 미지근한을 의미하는 형용사인 라틴어 tepidus에서 발전했으며, 그 이전에는 따뜻하다를 의미하는 동사인 라틴어 tepere에서 유래했습니다.

단어 tepid 의 번역, 문법, 영어 사전 한국, 논란의 여지가 있는 질문에 대한 미온적인 답변 이후, 대변인은 더 이상의 발언이 그들의 조직을 비방하는 것만 될. If you describe something such as a feeling or reaction as tepid.

로봇 프로세스 자동화 Slideshare

The meaning of tepid is moderately warm lukewarm, Tepid의 뜻은 미지근한, 열의없는 뜻인데 우리말 사투리 발음 뎁히다덥히다 느낌이 난다. 미온수 목욕은 미온수 마사지라고 부르기도 하고, 영어로는 테피드 마사지tepid massage라고 하기도 합니다.

The meaning of tepid is moderately warm lukewarm. 아하사전 tepid 한글발음 테피드, 뜻 미지근한, 미온의, Com › j55force › 223845529408수능 편입 필수어휘 tepid 무슨뜻.

리정 딥페

그는 미지근한 반응을 보이며 제안을 거의 인정하지 않았다.. Tepid cambridge learners dictionary에서의 의미.. The crowd ’s tepid applause reflected their disinterest in the performance.. The crowd ’s tepid applause reflected their disinterest in the performance..

린지 리 포르노배우

영어로는 tepid massage 혹은 tepid sponging이라고 하며, tepid라는 말은 미지근한을 의미한다, 미온적인 미지근한 테피드 trepidation after the tepid response to the controversial question, the spokesperson decided to clam up and not say a word, fearing that any further statements would only serve to vilify their organization. 아이들은 말을 못해서 아픈지 알기 더 쉽니, 자세한 정의, 발음, 실제 예문, 동의어, 반의어 및 tepid의 사용법을 확인하세요, 미온수 목욕은 미온수 마사지라고 부르기도 하고, 영어로는 테피드 마사지 tepid massage라고 하기도 합니다. Pronunciation engness.

루이시도 The definition of tepid in the dictionary is slightly warm. Pronunciation engness. , मतलब, مَعْنَى, 뜻, ความหมาย, berarti, 意味. Pronunciation engness. The audience gave a tepid applause after the performance. 릴카

링크박스 조개파티 사용법 tepid은 일반적으로 온도 관련 문맥에서 사용할 뿐만 아니라, 상황이나 감정이 약하거나. Tepid cambridge learners dictionary에서의 의미. Tepid 열정적이지 않다, 무관심하다와 동의어로 미지근한 반응, 미지근한 박수 등의 표현으로 쓰인다. 영 미지근한 물※같은 뜻의 lukewarm water는 영미에서 쓰임. Tepid massage 대류현상을 이용해 열을 발산시키는 방법. 롤덬

링콩이 실물 Longman dictionary of contemporary english의 정의 tep‧id ˈtepɪd adjective 1 a feeling, reaction etc that is tepid shows a lack of excitement or interest 동의어 lukewarm a tepid response from the audience 2 tepid liquid is slightly warm, especially in a way that seems unpleasant 동의어 lukewarm tepid coffee 말뭉치의 용례 tepid sales are so grim they are offering. Comparative effectiveness of tepid sponging and antipyretic drug versus only antipyretic drug in the management of fever among children a randomized conrolled trial. Of liquid not very warm 2. Look through examples of tepid translation in sentences, listen to pronunciation and learn grammar. Martha slid into the tepid bath water, shivering. 로제 레전드 디시

림잡 일본어 Cold fish 는 `찬고기가 아니라 `냉정한 사람 `쌀쌀맞은 사람을. 비유적으로는 열의가 부족하거나 감정이 미온적인 상태를 설명하는 데도 사용됩니다. 관중의 미지근한 박수는 그들의 공연에 대한 무관심을 반영했다. The definition of tepid in the dictionary is slightly warm. 영어 뜻 형용사 feeling or showing little interest or enthusiasm.

렌고쿠 배경화면 고화질 Tepid adj, liquid slightly warm 액체가, 미지근한, 미온의 형. Tepid translation in english korean reverso dictionary, see also tepid, tide, trepidation, tempted, examples, definition, conjugation. Com › j55force › 223845529408수능 편입 필수어휘 tepid 무슨뜻. The meaning of tepid is moderately warm lukewarm. If you describe something such as a feeling or reaction as tepid, you mean that it lacks enthusiasm.

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.