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.

在英国入侵之前，巴基斯坦人认为性别模糊和跨性别身份是一種常態，反lgbt+的法律是由英国人实施的，与他们在英国的法律相一致。根据历史记录，印度教、穆斯林、锡克教徒和其他宗教少数民族对同性恋者没有强烈的仇恨。在许多方面，制定支持lgbt社区的法律可以被视为 去殖民化 行为。 2009年. 台湾谈及多元性别议题时，常一并谈及保障 lgbt 社群（香港 指为 性小众）的权益。自 台湾民主化 后，社会开始注重包括的各种 人权 议题。2000年 叶永鋕事件 后，《两性平等教育法》改为《性别平等教育法》，明列性别、性倾向、性别气质与性别认同，教育政策也从两性教育延伸转化成为性别平等. Org › zhhans › 社會性別社会性别 维基百科，自由的百科全书. Org › zhhans › 性別之分性别之分 维基百科，自由的百科全书.

카리나 야한

치지직 이적 디시

女變男跨性別約男 twitter hashtag.. Org › zhhans › 性別之分性别之分 维基百科，自由的百科全书.. 有性生殖在十亿年前就已出现在单细胞的 真核生物 7。性别演化的原因，以及为何性别会一直延续到现在，仍然是在争论中的议题。其中有许多可能的原因，包括：性可以创造子代中的变化，性有助于有利性状的散播，可以消除不利的性状，以及促进种系dna的修复。 有性生殖是 真核生物 （细胞中.. Top tweets for 性别者 twitter hashtag..

칸도 뜻

跨性别者的法律性别变更可行，但须完成全套性别肯定手术 註 47。 截至2019年中国社会对lgbt人士仍有一定的歧视性观念，针对lgbt人士的民间 扭转 依然存在 89。, Na_an722912s tweet photo, Datight01s profile image, @padmanaban_96 @bjtnp3 傻逼男可以去死了吗？人家做这行了还被偷拍，人家服务完了还要退钱没钱的男人最tm事妈一样恶心死了. ⚧ 符号由代表男性的♂、女性的♀与中央结合的圆环组成 ，形成跨越传统性别二元框架的视觉意象。在简体中文语境中，它主要象征跨性别、非二元性别等多元性别认同，常见于lgbtq+相关讨论与平权倡导。其核心意义在于突破性别分类的界限，传递对多元身份的尊重与接纳。近年来也延伸为性别. 你无非是反跨，打着lgbt旗号反lgbtqi 冷知识：性别认同自由是天赋人权trans 不是性别男 在民主国家不需要服二元性别下的所谓兵役，望周知.

性别多样性 twitter hashtag. 这是败灯邀请到白宫的跨性别活动家此前，她在拍摄一段tiktok视频后走红，视频中她与年幼的孩子交谈，问他们你知道爸爸有阴道吗？。 性别多样性st, 妮妮跨性别@jenneydaji twitter profile.

人权高专办还努力保护性少数群体避免因其性取向、性别认同与性别特征遭受暴力与歧视。 见 办事处活动完整清单 最新报告与出版物 高级专员提交人权理事会的关于体育运动中种族歧视和性别歧视交叉情况的报告 ahrc4426 《2019冠状病毒病与性少数群体的人权, 當中，我被展區的厭女言論氣到，寫下反駁拜金、公主病、蕩婦等女性污名的言論，並且敘述我對跨性別、男同性戀、愛滋病患者的一些觀點和立場。 全文大約7000多字。read more. 社会性别是近代的概念 27。在20世纪中期，人文社会科学界才开始著力探讨之 27。现时意指社会性别的英语gender在此之前一直只跟文法有关 28。 英语圈在用字上尝试 区分生物性别和性别角色 之前，gender一般只用在 文法分类 上 2930。比如一本有关婚姻家庭的书籍虽列出12,000多条1900年.

當中，我被展區的厭女言論氣到，寫下反駁拜金、公主病、蕩婦等女性污名的言論，並且敘述我對跨性別、男同性戀、愛滋病患者的一些觀點和立場。 全文大約7000多字。read more, 《黑貓急一個》 930早上十點半在北車尋求可以被將近20公分大屌幹的0號如果也願意幹女變男跨性別最好幹著鮑魚又被大屌幹做三明治也不錯有興趣請私訊報名喔！ 女變男跨 read more. 包容性：通过寻找代词标识或根据名字预测性别，考虑到性别多元化的存在。 易用性：简单的命令行界面和可配置的web服务器，使得数据分析变得直观且易于操作。 社区驱动：作为一个开放源代码项目，持续改进和更新，用户可以通过贡献来增强功能。, Net › gitblog_00100 › article探索twitter社交圈的性别分布：`genderdistribution`工具csdn博客.

치라시 덮밥 가마쿠라

Lgbt，近年來也常擴稱 lgbtq 或 lgbtq+，通常被认为指所有 性取向 少数或 性别 少数群体。 其中lgbtq是 女同性戀者 （lesbian）、 男同性戀者 （gay）、 雙性戀者 （bisexual）、 跨性別者 （transgender）与 酷儿 （queer）的英文 首字母縮略字， + 則代表其他性少数, 性别演化的原因，以及为何性别会一直延续到现在，仍然是在争论中的议题。 其中有许多可能的原因，包括：性可以创造子代中的变化，性有助于有利性状的散播，可以消除不利的性状，以及促进种系dna的修复。. 我是你第一個跨性女友分手時，對我說不適合談感情三個月後說前陣子跟一個跨性別女交往跨性別女 跨性别. Org › wiki › 社會性別社會性別 维基百科，自由的百科全书. 在日常語言中，性別通常可以代指「生理性別」和「社會性別」，但在當代學術文獻中，這些術語通常具有不同的含義，尤其是在指涉人類時。 12 「生理性別」一般指生物學上的性別，而「社會性別」通常指與某人性別相關的社會角色（性別角色）或基於個人自我認知的 性別認同。 3456.

친구 자지 sotwe 我们的目标是通过考虑新浪微博上的中文来扩大这项研究的范围。 我们提出了第一个中文性别歧视数据集——新浪微博性别歧视评论（swsr）数据集——以及一个由辱骂性和性别相关术语组成的大型中文词典 sexhatelex。. 不知性別小可愛@yongxin0000 twitter profile. 经历性别 experienced gender是一个罕见的术语 45，指的是个人实际感知和经历到的性别。它考虑了个体对自己的性别身份和经验的认知。社会性别和虽然相关，但并非完全等同。社会性别指的是社会对个体所赋予的性别身份及社会对此的性别角色的期待，而经历性别更强调个体在生活中所感知和体验. 最初的两个性别符号来自于 天文符号。1751年， 卡尔林奈 最早使用它们来表示植物的性别。 1. 经历性别 experienced gender是一个罕见的术语 45，指的是个人实际感知和经历到的性别。它考虑了个体对自己的性别身份和经验的认知。社会性别和虽然相关，但并非完全等同。社会性别指的是社会对个体所赋予的性别身份及社会对此的性别角色的期待，而经历性别更强调个体在生活中所感知和体验. 캐치티니핑 메리루

케이온 히토미 性别男爱好女@bai150521 twitter profile. See top tweets, photos and videos tagged as 性别. 最初的两个性别符号来自于 天文符号。1751年， 卡尔林奈 最早使用它们来表示植物的性别。 1. Org › wiki › 性别符号性别符号 维基百科，自由的百科全书. 包容性：通过寻找代词标识或根据名字预测性别，考虑到性别多元化的存在。 易用性：简单的命令行界面和可配置的web服务器，使得数据分析变得直观且易于操作。 社区驱动：作为一个开放源代码项目，持续改进和更新，用户可以通过贡献来增强功能。. 카호 이마이

캐릭터 방귀소설 Lgbt，近年來也常擴稱 lgbtq 或 lgbtq+，通常被认为指所有 性取向 少数或 性别 少数群体。 其中lgbtq是 女同性戀者 （lesbian）、 男同性戀者 （gay）、 雙性戀者 （bisexual）、 跨性別者 （transgender）与 酷儿 （queer）的英文 首字母縮略字， + 則代表其他性少数. swsr数据集是首个针对中文的性别歧视数据集，由伦敦玛丽女王大学创建。该数据集包含10496条新浪微博内容，包括微博及其评论，旨在识别和分析中文网络环境中的性别歧视言论。数据集通过关键词搜索收集，涵盖多种性别歧视类型，如外貌、文化背景、微侵犯和性侵犯。此外，数据集还提供用户. 當照片成為照騙，有沒有騙過別人不確定，但至少是騙過自己了；看著圖像裡那個有點像又不太像我的人，作為一個自欺者，好像只有這樣才能多認同自己一些。read more. 在20世纪70年代，人们对于这些关于性别的用词方式还不能够达成一致。 1974年出版的《masculinefeminine or human》中，其作者使用了内在的性别（英文： innate gender）和习得的性别角色（英文： learned sex role）这两个词，然而到了1978年的版本中， sex 和. 我们的目标是通过考虑新浪微博上的中文来扩大这项研究的范围。 我们提出了第一个中文性别歧视数据集——新浪微博性别歧视评论（swsr）数据集——以及一个由辱骂性和性别相关术语组成的大型中文词典 sexhatelex。. 카메탄 도쿄

카카파 카운터 Org › wiki › 性別認同性別認同 维基百科，自由的百科全书. 當中，我被展區的厭女言論氣到，寫下反駁拜金、公主病、蕩婦等女性污名的言論，並且敘述我對跨性別、男同性戀、愛滋病患者的一些觀點和立場。 全文大約7000多字。read more. 16846 牡羊座 ‍♀️ 24y 雙北 ⭐️私訊附臉照⭐ 沒回沒興趣三性 跨性別transgender誤認親 戀愛感 特愛親親抱抱. Org › 知识库 › transgender2025 中国大陆及港澳台跨性别社群生存现状简报 多元性别中文数字图. 當照片成為照騙，有沒有騙過別人不確定，但至少是騙過自己了；看著圖像裡那個有點像又不太像我的人，作為一個自欺者，好像只有這樣才能多認同自己一些。read more.

커걸트 泰國的 變性人 早期就性取向進行書寫的著者一般會把之跟性別掛勾。比方說，他們會假定若身體為女性者認為其他身為女性者具吸引力，那麼前者就一定具男性氣質，反之亦然 35。很多19世紀中至20世紀早葉的理論家都這樣認為——這包括 卡尔亨利希乌尔利克斯 、 理查德克拉夫特埃賓 、 马. See top tweets, photos and videos tagged as 性别. Net › gitblog_00100 › article探索twitter社交圈的性别分布：`genderdistribution`工具csdn博客. 在英国入侵之前，巴基斯坦人认为性别模糊和跨性别身份是一種常態，反lgbt+的法律是由英国人实施的，与他们在英国的法律相一致。根据历史记录，印度教、穆斯林、锡克教徒和其他宗教少数民族对同性恋者没有强烈的仇恨。在许多方面，制定支持lgbt社区的法律可以被视为 去殖民化 行为。 2009年. @fouryn_astar 到底如何屏蔽这些跨性别 性别者.

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.