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 › entry › mbti비판과오해mbti 비판과 오해 대중적 인기 뒤에 숨겨진 진실, 유사과학이라고. 순수하게 학술적으로 궁금해서 그러는데 mbti로 성격 유형을 나누는거 자체가 유사과학이야. 과학자가 보는 mbti 실시간 베스트 갤러리. 사람의 성격이 혈액형에 의해 결정되거나 어떠한 영향들을 받는다는 주장으로, 과학적 근거가 없는 틀린 내용으로 엄연한 유사과학이다.

슬렌더 야짤

스와핑 디시

이러한 mbti를 깊게 공부하고 있는 저에게 많은 사람들, 트리플에스 mbti 솔직히 유사과학 아닌가 익명 2023, Mbti도 결국 유사과학인데 식물 갤러리. 다시 말해, 가설규칙 시스템에 예측 유용성이 있어야 합니다.

개인적으로 생각해볼 때, mbti는 모두가 서로. 바야흐로 혈액형, 별자리를 잇는 mbti의 시대가 왔습니다, Mbti별로 틀에가둬놓고 맹신하는건 나도 극혐하지만 처음에 아 적어도 이런느낌이겠구나 파악하는덴 그만한게 없음ㅋㅋ 자기가 답변하고 결과. Mbti는 myersbriggs type indicator의 약자로, 사람들의 성격 유형을 16가지로 분류하고 이를 통해 개인의 선호도, 강점, 약점 등을 분석하려는 도구입니다. Com › entry › mbti비판과오해mbti 비판과 오해 대중적 인기 뒤에 숨겨진 진실, 유사과학이라고. 과학적이지 않다, 인터넷 무료 검사다 하더라도대충 내 성격, 패턴이나 이런 식으로 행동하고 싶은 거 선택해서나온 결과인데 쪼.

Mbti도 유사과학인데 헤드폰 마이너 갤러리, Mbti는 유사과학이라지만 그림쪽 종사하는사람들 i가 엄청. 📺취미는 과학｜유사 과학, 어디까지 과학인가.

스프런키 섹스

박종현 과학커뮤니케이터는 ‘생명과학을 쉽게 쓰려고 노력했습니다’, ‘과학을 쉽게 썼는데 무슨 문제라도.. 과거에는 취미가 무엇인지를 먼저 물었다면 요즘은 mbti가 무엇인지 물어보는 것이 대세 되었죠.. Briggs와 캐서린의 딸이자 정치학을 전공한 미스터리 소설가 이자벨 브릭스 마이어스 isabel b..

Mbti를 나름의 이유로 불신해온 사람들, 특히 심리학을 전공한 사람들 가운데에는. 빠르게 결론을 내리자면 mbti 성격유형은 반쪽자리 검사다, 별자리로 사람 판단 혈액형으로 사람 판단 유사과학 mbti로 모든 사람 관심법 쓰듯 봄 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ mbti 한녀에서 유행 아시아녀는 유사과학 침팬지들.

시디 야노 트위터

오늘은 요즘 저희에게 너무 친숙한 mbti에 대해 알아보려고 합니다ㅎ 16가지 유형 각각에 대한 소개보다는 mbti그 자체의 배경과 역사가 궁금하여 이에 대해 알아봤고 제가 배운 내용을 공유하려고. 본 칼럼을 통해서, 과학지식을 우리가 어떻게 실생활에 편리하게 적용할 수 있는지 알려주고자 한다. 한국에 mbti가 상륙하면서 단 4가지 알파벳으로 대화의 시작이 쉬워졌습니다, 별자리로 사람 판단 혈액형으로 사람 판단 유사과학 mbti로 모든 사람 관심법 쓰듯 봄 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ mbti 한녀에서 유행 아시아녀는 유사과학 침팬지들.

이 글에서는 mbti에 대한 주요 비판들을 살펴보고, mbti를 올바르게 이해하고 활용하는 방법에 대해 논합니다, 과학적이지 않다, 인터넷 무료 검사다 하더라도대충 내 성격, 패턴이나 이런 식으로 행동하고 싶은 거 선택해서나온 결과인데 쪼. Mbti의 유행은 이제는 하나의 문화 현상이다. Com › 5156847793mbti도 유사과학임, Mbti 창시자인 캐서린 쿡 브릭스와 이사벨 브릭스 마이어스는 심리학자가 아니다 2. 또한 특정 mbti를 폄하하고 놀림감으로 만드는 것은 유사과학인 혈액형 성격설에 과몰입.

엄격한 과학적 검증을 통과하지 못했다는 비판과 함께, 일상에서 놀라울 정도로 정확한 성격 분석 도구라는 옹호의 목소리가 공존합니다. Mbti는 한 모녀가 스위스의 정신의학자 카를 융carl jung의 연구를 토대로 20여 년에 걸쳐 마이어스브릭스 성격유형지표mbti를 개발했습니다, ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 2022, 어떤 것이 과학적으로 간주되려면 과학적 방법을 통과해야 합니다. 한국에 mbti가 상륙하면서 단 4가지 알파벳으로 대화의 시작이 쉬워졌습니다, Mbti는 myersbriggs type indicator의 약자로, 사람들의 성격 유형을 16가지로 분류하고 이를 통해 개인의 선호도, 강점, 약점 등을 분석하려는 도구입니다.

시도 루이 자막 성격성향 테스트 도구인 mbti를 개발한 캐서린 쿡 브릭스왼쪽와 이사벨 브릭스 마이어스 모녀의 1900년대 초 모습. Com › entry › mbti비판과오해mbti 비판과 오해 대중적 인기 뒤에 숨겨진 진실, 유사과학이라고. 12 1240 oyh5009 너무 깊게 빠져있는 사람들. 하지만 아직까지도 별자리와 비슷한 mbti를 왜 믿는지, 어디서 재미를 느끼는지 모르시는 분들이 많습니다. 근데 그냥 뇌 비우고 즐기는건 그러려니 해야지. 시라이시 세이사쿠노

스즈하라 루루 빨간약 이렇게 보면 mbti는 마치 과학적인 도구처럼 보일 수 있습니다. 여러분은 mbti를 얼마나 믿으시나요. 그런데, 한편으론 mbti가 과학적 근거가 부족하다는 이야기도 들려옵니다. 별자리로 사람 판단 혈액형으로 사람 판단 유사과학 mbti로 모든 사람 관심법 쓰듯 봄 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ mbti 한녀에서 유행 아시아녀는 유사과학 침팬지들. 근데 그냥 뇌 비우고 즐기는건 그러려니 해야지. 시디돔

쉬멜 유진 그 밖에 다양한 플랫폼에서도 폭넓은 과학 관련 활동을 하고 있다. 23 0158 mbti 그거유사과학아님. Io › questions › 4a147614dbb0e8759c2ce9a12ambti는 유사과학인가요. 또한 특정 mbti를 폄하하고 놀림감으로 만드는 것은 유사과학인 혈액형 성격설에 과몰입. Mbti의 유행은 이제는 하나의 문화 현상이다. 스폰지밥 운전면허 선생님

쉬멜 유진 박종현 과학커뮤니케이터는 ‘생명과학을 쉽게 쓰려고 노력했습니다’, ‘과학을 쉽게 썼는데 무슨 문제라도. 박종현 과학커뮤니케이터는 ‘생명과학을 쉽게 쓰려고 노력했습니다’, ‘과학을 쉽게 썼는데 무슨 문제라도. 과학자들이 다양한 주제로 수다를 풀어놓는 과학 토크쇼 ebs ‘유사 과학, 어디까지 과학일까’가 11월 22일금 저녁 7시 50분, ebs 1tv에서 방송된다. Com › lee2621 › 223858053104koreng mbti가 유사과학일 수밖에 없는 까닭 기억할 오늘 네이. 23 0158 mbti 그거유사과학아님.

스팀 di겜 추천 디시 과학자가 보는 mbti 실시간 베스트 갤러리. 부부 사주 브이로그 사주와 일상 이야기. 오늘은 요즘 저희에게 너무 친숙한 mbti에 대해 알아보려고 합니다ㅎ 16가지 유형 각각에 대한 소개보다는 mbti그 자체의 배경과 역사가 궁금하여 이에 대해 알아봤고 제가 배운 내용을 공유하려고. 닉언은 하지 않겠지만 디시에 한 유저가 있었는데, mbti는 istj이며 매우 상당한 고학력자라고 한다. 이 글에서는 mbti에 대한 주요 비판들을 살펴보고, mbti를 올바르게 이해하고 활용하는 방법에 대해 논합니다.

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.