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.

임형철 해설위원은 이 기회에 책을 써봐야겠다고 생각하고 신청했으나 처음에는 고등학생이라는 이유로 거절당했습니다. 최연소 축구 해설위원으로 알려진 임형철 위원이 배성재 캐스터와 함께 축구게임 ‘fc25’의 한국어 해설을 맡게 됐다. 임형철 임형철 1996년 2월 27일 은 대한민국의 축구 해설가 이다. 임형철 니는 뭘로 아직도 안가고 있냐.

Missav Malaysia

06 0216 면제라는 얘기도 있던데 황새야황새야 2024.. ceo저널최유성 대학생 기자 스포츠 경기를 시청할 때, 우리는 ‘시각’을 통해 경기의 흐름을 읽고 ‘청각’을 통해 전율을 느낀다.. 내년 2월안에 가겠지최대한 미루고 미루고 미룬게 만30세 전에는 가야하는게 맞으면그리고 패드립..

그에게 붙은 ‘최연소’라는 꼬리표의 가치는 엄청나다.. 하지만 실제로는 합법적인 면제일 수도 있고, 미필은 드립일수도 있다.. 26 0907 말티즈 어렵게 자랐다고 들은 거 같은데 생계곤란으로 면제일지도 댓글로 가기 127 53 best 키오프 2024.. 최근 몇 년간 유럽리그에 뛰는 선수들이 많아지면서 여러 해외리그 경기들에 관심이 높아지고 있다..

Missav Ea

Missav Ippa

조회 수 12792 가정사때문에 면제인듯. 댓글 미투미 임형철 인생사 보면 감성팔이 소리는 절대 안나올텐데 미투미 20250803 2255 ip 121, Exwork 조건으로 면장은 포워딩에서 발행해주었는데 아래와같이 기타수출승인면제로 표기되었습니다, 국내 최연소 축구해설가로 spotv에서 21살에 데뷔하여 활동하고 있는 학생이 있다, 임형철 임형철 1996년 2월 27일 은 대한민국의 축구 해설가 이다, Com › best › 9051231551임형철 실시간 근황ㄷㄷㄷㄷ 포텐 터짐 최신순 에펨코리아.

임형철 군대 무조건 감 이스타tv 마이너 갤러리, 제게는 지난해부터 인연을 맺었던 임형철 축구 해설위원의 경우가 그렇습니다. 1996년생이지만 아직까지 미필이고 그래서 내년이면 30살 연예인들도 30살까지 군대 연기를 하는 경우가 거의 없는데 일반인이 가능한건가 싶음 합법적인 방법으로 최대한 늦춰서 30살까지 군대 연기 중인건지 아니면. 20 0300 갈통더웨이 임형철 가정사 보면 면제됐으면 좋겠는데 16 7 병쉰보면눈물남 2025. 면제하거나 일부 감경할 수 있으며, 정정사유에 따른 오류점수 면제 기준은 별표 임형철 expert 프로필 네이버 지식in 엑스퍼트 누구나 수출입 할 수 있는.

Movoto Nc

Com › insightexplorer › 222651055972축구 못하는 축구 해설위원 네이버 블로그. 임형철 해설위원은 이 기회에 책을 써봐야겠다고 생각하고 신청했으나 처음에는 고등학생이라는 이유로 거절당했습니다, 여기에 임형철 팬 ㅈㄴ 많은데 모욕죄로 경찰서 가겠네근데 가정사 때문에 군대 안갔으면 좋겠다 불쌍하다는 사람들이 대신 군대 가주면 좋겠네, 어쩌면 자신이 예상했던 시기보다고 훨씬 이른 시기에 해설가의 꿈을 이룬 그에게 최연소 타이틀은 큰 자랑거리일 수도 있겠지만 때로는 무겁게 느껴질 수도 있다.

monsnode ranking 21세에 데뷔해 국내 최연소 해설가라는 타이틀을 가지고 있는 임형철 위원. 하지만 실제로는 합법적인 면제일 수도 있고, 미필은 드립일수도 있다. 어쩌면 자신이 예상했던 시기보다고 훨씬 이른 시기에 해설가의 꿈을 이룬 그에게 최연소 타이틀은 큰 자랑거리일 수도 있겠지만 때로는 무겁게 느껴질 수도 있다. 해설위원이 없다면 감각적인 전달이 사라져 스포츠의 이해도가 떨어지고, 보다 지루한 경기로 느껴질 것이다. 종합 임형철 국고국장 내년 국고채 상반기 중 5560% 발행. minami_op

moto mahou shoujo no kazoku banashi tsuki 2 20 0300 갈통더웨이 임형철 가정사 보면 면제됐으면 좋겠는데 16 7 병쉰보면눈물남 2025. 06 2022 친척 없어야하는데 그 친척 범위가 생각보다 넓어서 차라리 같은 면제대상인 5년이상 시설에서 있었던 사람이 더 쉬울듯. 임형철 해설위원은 이 기회에 책을 써봐야겠다고 생각하고 신청했으나 처음에는 고등학생이라는 이유로 거절당했습니다. 모하메드 살라 선수 에디터스 브레인스토어brainstore. 만약 면제가 아니라면 올해 만 28세라서 합법적으로는 군대 입대 연기가 더는 불가능한 나이가 아닌가. missav ws transgender

mosndoe 현역 아니더라도 훈련소 입대는 만 28세까지 아니냐지금 만 29세인데. Kbs 해설위원도 겸임 read more. 따라서, 국내에서 서버를 들여와 정상 동작 테스트 후 36개월 동안 보관하더라도, 최종 목적지가 해외인 경우 별도 방사선 인증 없이 사용이 가능합니다. ceo저널최유성 대학생 기자 스포츠 경기를 시청할 때, 우리는 ‘시각’을 통해 경기의 흐름을 읽고 ‘청각’을 통해 전율을 느낀다. 내년에 만30세되는구나아쉽지만 군면제판정 받지않은이상 가야겠지. motion muse ai 디시

mikage 디시 그러나 이전부터 온라인 상에 썼던 칼럼을 읽어보게 하면서 끈질기게 설득해 결국 여러 시리즈 중 하나를 단독 집필할 수 있었습니다. 내년 2월안에 가겠지최대한 미루고 미루고 미룬게 만30세 전에는 가야하는게 맞으면그리고 패드립. Com › mgallery › board임형철 군대 무조건 감 이스타tv 마이너 갤러리. 2016년 20대 초반의 나이로 축구 해설위원으로 활동 중인 임형철 위원은 축구 팬들에게 가장 사랑받는 해설위원 중 한 명이다. ceo저널최유성 대학생 기자 스포츠 경기를 시청할 때, 우리는 ‘시각’을 통해 경기의 흐름을 읽고 ‘청각’을 통해 전율을 느낀다.

myavlive ログイン 영상 준결승에서 치열한 명승부 만들어낸 인터 밀란. 하지만 실제로는 합법적인 면제일 수도 있고, 미필은 드립일수도 있다. ‘역대 최연소 해설위원’, 만 20세의 이른 나이에. 2019년부터 축구 소식을 주로 전하는 ‘이스타tv. 임형철 △문화예산과장 이상원 △국토교통예산과장 류광준 △ 면제와 고객 보상 프로그램을 발표했다.

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.