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.

녹내장의증이라 1년마다 주기적으로 검사받으라 했는데 진짜 꼬박꼬박 받아야겠다. 녹내장 수술 받은 게이다 안구 갤러리. 녹내장은 검사만으로는 정확한 진단이 어렵다고 합니다. → 단순 검사만 원한다면, 동네 안과 의원에서 58만 원 내외로 해결 가능해요.

엘레트라 로셀리니 비데만

조절마비굴절검사의 경우, 2019년 3월 기준 의원급은 4,300원, 병원급은 5,200원, 종합병원은 6,500원, 상급종합병원은 7,800원입니다. 녹내장은 시신경이 손상되면서 시야가 점차 좁아지는 만성 질환입니다. 녹내장인지 궁금하니까 종합적으로 검사받고싶다.

양아지 Nude

기타 뇌종양, 축농증, 녹내장에 의해 발생하는 두통은 이차성 두통이라고 합니다.. 조절마비굴절검사의 경우, 2019년 3월 기준 의원급은 4,300원, 병원급은 5,200원, 종합병원은 6,500원, 상급종합병원은 7,800원입니다.. 수술을 알아보시는 분들은 끝까지 읽어보시면 도움 되실 겁니다.. 서울대병원 안과 김영국 교수가 자세히 알려드립니다..

하지만 이는 평균적인 가격으로, 개별 환자의 상태에 따라 필요한 검사 항목이나 추가 검진의 필요성에 따라 비용이 달라질 수 있습니다. 동네병원에서 녹내장 판정 받았다 ㅠ 안구 갤러리. 녹내장인지 궁금하니까 종합적으로 검사받고싶다.

야시장 주기

3년안에 부작용나면 고소당할까봐 ㅇㅇ 라섹후 부작용으로 녹내장 되거나 하면 원래, 고도근시는 녹내장 주변부부터 시야가 결손되요. 조기 진단과 관리가 중요하며, 이를 위해 정기적인 안과 검진이 필수적입니다. 녹내장 검사 비용은 시신경 손상을 조기에 발견하고 치료할 수 있는 중요한 절차입니다. 많은 분들이 궁금해하시는 대학병원 녹내장 검사 비용, 시간, 보험, 후기 등에 대해서 자세히 알아보려고 해요, 검사비용은 어느 병원에 가서 검사를 했는지에 따라 차이가 큰 것 같아요.

더 많은 검사가 있지만 그이상은 굳이 할필요 없다고 짤라말함, 조기 진단과 관리가 중요하며, 이를 위해 정기적인 안과 검진이 필수적입니다, 녹내장은 조기 발견과 치료가 매우 중요한 질환입니다. Com › vwishoyt75 › 224056747804녹내장검사비용 실비청구 가능여부 미리 확인하기 네이버 블로그. 뭔 비급여 항목이 2개나 들어가고 토탈 50만원이 나오냐 시부레.

Com › pollar_611g › 224129207171녹내장 수술 검사 비용부터 치료 방법 총정리 경험담 네이버 블로, 녹내장의증이라 1년마다 주기적으로 검사받으라 했는데 진짜 꼬박꼬박 받아야겠다, Com › tlogcorp › 223905099162최신 녹내장 검사비용 안내. 녹내장은 조기 발견과 치료가 매우 중요한 질환입니다.

검사에는 각막같이 보이는 눈 앞쪽 구조물들을 검사와.. Com › 녹내장검사비용녹내장 검사비용, 실비보험 청구와 검사과정 꿀팁 건강 뉴스.. 덕분에 녹내장 검사비용에 대한 부담이 크게 줄었죠.. 안구통증,어지럼증은 흔한 안구질환이라..

녹내장 진단을 이미 받으신 분들부터 녹내장이 걱정되시는 분들까지 많은 분들께서 대학 병원에 방문 진료를 받기 위해 시간과 노력을 많이 하고 계실. Com › entry › 녹내장검사녹내장 검사비용 알아보시죠, 실비보험 적용받고 싶으면 안구가 가끔 아픈데. 녹내장 검사 비용, 종류, 방법 및 주의사항 소중한 시력을 지키는 첫걸음녹내장. 녹내장은 검사만으로는 정확한 진단이 어렵다고 합니다.

에로 설화 실비보험 적용받고 싶으면 안구가 가끔 아픈데. 124 비용도 대학병원 검사인지 걍 시력교정전문 일반 검안인지 뭐 확실히 카테고리를 해서 물어봐야 알면 알려주고 모르면 모른다고 하지ㅠ 진짜 옆에 있었으면 등짝 8비트로 쪼개서 쌔렸음 2021. 기타 뇌종양, 축농증, 녹내장에 의해 발생하는 두통은 이차성 두통이라고 합니다. 정기적인 검사를 통해 자신의 눈 건강을 체크하고, 이상이 발견될 경우 즉시 전문가와 상담하는 것이 필요합니다. 보통 안압이 높아질 때 잘 생기지만, 안압이 정상이더라도 여러 요인으로 인해 발생할 수 있어요. 엪멜ㅋ와ㅣ

에스데스 야짤 어떤 검사 항목 포함될까 네이버 블로. 의심간다고 검사받았는데 8만8천원인가 하고 이상은 없었음 홍채에 점있는정도. 녹내장 수술 전후 알아본 내용을 바탕으로 솔직한 글을 작성하였습니다. Com › namebook_ › 224068523951녹내장 치료비용 검사약값수술 한눈에 비교 정리 네이버 블로그. 라섹하기전 대학병원 눈 oct,시야검사 꼭해라 안구 갤러리. 어나레

어나덴챈 정기적인 검사를 통해 자신의 눈 건강을 체크하고, 이상이 발견될 경우 즉시 전문가와 상담하는 것이 필요합니다. 녹내장 수술 받은 게이다 안구 갤러리. 정기적인 검사를 통해 자신의 눈 건강을 체크하고, 이상이 발견될 경우 즉시 전문가와 상담하는 것이 필요합니다. 녹내장 결막이완증 안종합검진 상담&예약 카카오톡 상담 전화상담 신청 비용문의 신청 온라인 상담 제휴혜택 이벤트 카카오 실시간 톡 실시간 톡. → 단순 검사만 원한다면, 동네 안과 의원에서 58만 원 내외로 해결 가능해요. 얼굴 가슴

얼항자 사진 녹내장은 검사만으로는 정확한 진단이 어렵다고 합니다. 그래서 ‘조용한 시력 도둑’이라는 별칭이 따라붙는 거죠. 수술을 알아보시는 분들은 끝까지 읽어보시면 도움 되실 겁니다. 일반적으로 기본적인 녹내장 검사는 5만 원에서 15만 원 정도이며, 정밀 검사는 10만 원에서 30 만원 이상이 될 수 있습니다. 더 많은 검사가 있지만 그이상은 굳이 할필요 없다고 짤라말함.

양아치 갸루에게 최면 어플로 복수하는 이야기 오늘 녹내장 치료비용에 대해 쭉 훑어봤는데, 막연했던 불안감이 조금은 가벼워지셨을까요. 안녕하세요, 빛과소리 하성한의원입니다. 녹내장 수술 받은 게이다 안구 갤러리. 이상으로 녹내장 테스크, 검사비용, 치료법에 대하여 알아보았습니다. 이상으로 녹내장 테스크, 검사비용, 치료법에 대하여 알아보았습니다.

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.