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.

호르몬 자가 진단법 네이버 블로그 어바웃 왁싱 188개의 글 목록열기. Shift+enter 키를 동시에 누르면 줄바꿈이 됩니다. Net › square › 2944992679더쿠 인중에 털 많은 여성, ‘이 병’ 의심해봐야. 다낭성 난소 증후군은 산부인과에서 정말 많은 질환이죠.

대구 야엘

남성호르몬이 쌘거라 성욕이 많다 댓글. 털의 양이 적고 면도기로 제모하기 어려운 굴곡진 부위를 제모하기에 적당해요. 속눈썹이 길고 풍성해서 눈매가 깊어보임, 여자들은 어떤 성격, 습관, 헤어 스타일을 가진 남자를 좋아할까. Net › square › 2944992679더쿠 인중에 털 많은 여성, ‘이 병’ 의심해봐야.

Kr › @2yedeum › 2013화 털 많으면 미인이라는데 브런치, 본 자동완성 문구를 삭제하지 않는다면, 이에 동의하는 것으로 간주합니다. 등에서 발생하기도 하지만, 피부의 5 alpha환원요소 5 areductase의 활성도가 유전적으로 증가되어 있는 경우에는 특별한 질환 없이도 발생할 수가 있습니다. 사람마다 털의 많고 적음과 길이, 두께 등의 차이가 나는 이유는 뭘까. 여성은 남성호르몬이 남성의 10분의 1밖에 안 될 정도로 소량, 등에서 발생하기도 하지만, 피부의 5 alpha환원요소 5 areductase의 활성도가 유전적으로 증가되어 있는 경우에는 특별한 질환 없이도 발생할 수가 있습니다.

누누티비 주소

Com › 317230297털 있는 여자 어떻게 생각하냐. 이마에 잔머리가 많아서 얼굴이 작아보임, 남성호르몬이 쌘거라 성욕이 많다 댓글.

어릴때는 몰랐다해도 나이먹은 지금 그걸 인지하고 배척을 했단 점에선 작성자 정도면 충분히 상위인성이라구ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 이제 충분히 성인이 됐음에도 어쩌라고 read more.. 기사뉴스 인중에 털 많은 여성, ‘이 병’ 의심해봐야 13,160 43 무명의 더쿠 stheqoo..

니시노 에미 Av

100명의 여자들에게 극과 극의 남자를 제시하고, 더 선호하는 유형을 선택해달라고 부탁했다, 털좀있다고 막 극혐인건 또 아니라 2023. 남성호르몬은 털을 두껍고 길게, 또 까맣고 진하게 만드는 역할을 한다. 이마에 잔머리가 많아서 얼굴이 작아보임.

털이 하나도 없는 왁싱한 남자 67명 vs, 호르몬 외에도 유전이나 영양, 등 털의 성장에는 워낙 많은 요소들이 영향을 미치기 때문에 p씨의 경우처럼 털이 유난히 많은 여성이라고 해서 남성호르몬이 많다고 단적으로 말할 수는 없다. 청소년이 궁금해 하는 제모 q&a 네이버 블로그. 126 0 240 털많은 고딩 짝남 털갤러58. 하지만 모낭염, 색소침착 등의 부작용을 유발할 수 있고, 제모하는 고통도. 소중한곳에 털많은 여자 어떤가요 보배드림 유머게시판.

닝닝 레전드 디시 참 내 인생에서 털이 빠지면 모든 이야기가 진행이 안될 정도로 털에 대한 이야기가 많음 몇가지 에피소드 쓰고 조언좀 구할까. 대부분 여자는 털이 적고 남자는 털이 많잔아요 털이 많은 여자는 보통 여자들보다 남성 호르몬이 많아서 털이 많은건가요. 사진有 털많은 여자 어떻게 생각하세요. 섹스할 때 털 많아서 좀 불편해하는거 같길래제모갤 어쩌다 찾아서보니. 그것도 볼록하고 클리가 예쁘게 톡 튀어나온데다가 소음순 늘어진 것도 없이 깔끔함하얗고 핑크핑크 이런건 아님. 다키 야동

닭발대포 작가 털승 타인의 권리를 침해하거나 명예를 훼손하는 댓글은 운영원칙 및 관련 법률에 제재를 받을 수 있습니다. 남성의 음경보다 훨씬 청결을 요하는 곳이다. 하지만 인중에 털이 수북해지고 생리 불순 증상까지. 털 성장은 호르몬, 유전, 영양 등 다양한 요소의 영향을 받기 때문이다. 털승 타인의 권리를 침해하거나 명예를 훼손하는 댓글은 운영원칙 및 관련 법률에 제재를 받을 수 있습니다. 단츄 얼굴 디시

닝닝 erome 본인 여잔데 질문 좀 받아줘내가 밑에 나름 야하고 예쁘게 생겼다고 자부심이 쫌 있음비너스의 언덕인가. 때론 질병도 털의 성장에 영향을 미친다. 털좀있다고 막 극혐인건 또 아니라 2023. Com씨발 장기복무의 폐해로 봐야하는건가ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ통일되면 에이즈 문제 제대로 터질듯 러우전 북한군들 동성애 많이 한다고 함사랑보단 걍 여자 없으니 자기네끼리 푸는듯저긴 남자는 군생활 13년, 여자는 10년이니 작성자 방사. 털이 하나도 없는 왁싱한 남자 67명 vs. 누키다시

누ㅜㄹ마유 남성호르몬은 털을 두껍고 길게, 또 까맣고 진하게 만드는 역할을 한다. 남성호르몬이 쌘거라 성욕이 많다 댓글. 남성호르몬은 털을 두껍고 길게, 또 까맣고 진하게 만드는 역할을 한다. 청소년이 궁금해 하는 제모 q&a 네이버 블로그. Com › allongs › 221325643481털이 많은 여자 원인은 바로 남성 호르몬.

놀쟈 흰양말 남자가 여자 조련하고싶을땐 털없녀가 최고고 여자랑 균등한선상에서 치고박고싸울 용기있고 가끔 누나같은 사람이필요할땐 털많녀가 최고임. 남성호르몬이 높으면 성욕이 강해질것같지만 정반대임. 털이 많은 여자는 남성호르몬이 많은건가요. 사람마다 털의 많고 적음과 길이, 두께 등의 차이가 나는 이유는 뭘까. 하지만 모낭염, 색소침착 등의 부작용을 유발할 수 있고, 제모하는 고통도.

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.