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.

호감가는 사람은 놓치고마음에 안 드는 사람한테만 애프터를. 113 예전에 직장에서 호감가는 남자가 있었는데 부산 출신이였어요. 마음이 1도 없는데소개팅이 들어는 와서 나가기는 하는데 미안하네 그냥 고백부터 해버리고 소개팅. 소개팅 성공률이 높다는 것은 남녀 가리지 않고 첫인상부터 매력적인 외모를 가졌으며 애프터 신청을 쉽게 받거나 역으로 여자쪽에서 애프터를 넣을.

Cosforce展

그리고 소개팅 이야기가 많이 나오는데 분명히 분위기가 좋았고 그 사람이 내게 푹 빠진게 눈에 보였는데 눈빛이 흔들리는게 보였는데 _ 연락이 없어요 뭐 이런경우,, 3일에서 길게는 일주일 기다려보세요.. 저도 쭉 아쉬울게 없다 생각하고 내 할일 열심히 하고 그러고 있는데 막상 좋아하는 사람이 소개팅 나간다고 하니 맘이 조급해지면서 내 맘이라도 전해볼까 이런 생각이 마구 들어요 집착은 금물이죠.. 그래도 연락없다면 단념, 난 기다리는 성격이 못된다.. 내가 좋아하는 사람이 소개팅을 해주는 경우 서로 마음을 모르는 경우 서로 좋아하는 사람이 갑자기 소개팅을 이야기 한다 나를 잡아줘 이 경우는 서로 좋아하는 것을 알면서 썸이 진행중이던지 아니면 서로 좋아는 하는데 둘 다 눈치가 없어 서로 자기..

Chastitybelt Hitomi

연애 썸녀가 소개팅을 했다고 얘기하네요.. 외교부와 중소벤처기업부가 처음 마주 앉았습니다..

Candfans右乳

근데 어느날 선보러 나간다고 해서 속좀 끓이다가 잊고 있었는데. 소개팅 성공률이 높다는 것은 남녀 가리지 않고 첫인상부터 매력적인 외모를 가졌으며 애프터 신청을 쉽게 받거나 역으로 여자쪽에서 애프터를 넣을. 내가 잘 해주는 기본값이 높아야, 내가 누구에게든지 잘 해주는 기본 습관이 만들어져야, 내가 나중에 관심있는 사람이 생겼을 때 잘해주는 게 자연스러워질 수 있어요.

호감가는 사람은 놓치고마음에 안 드는 사람한테만 애프터를. 떠본건지 아니면 진심인지 헷갈림 0 0, 좋아하는 사람이 소개팅을 한다고 하는데요 연애상담. 저도 쭉 아쉬울게 없다 생각하고 내 할일 열심히 하고 그러고 있는데 막상 좋아하는 사람이 소개팅 나간다고 하니 맘이 조급해지면서 내 맘이라도 전해볼까 이런 생각이 마구 들어요 집착은 금물이죠.

나 마지막 연애가 3년 정도 지났고, 그 흔하다는 썸도 없이 지내온 거, 좋아하는 후배 마음이 어떤지 좀 떠보고 싶은데, 보통 월요일 되면 그 친구랑 잡다한 얘기하면서 저번주 주말에 뭐했나 분명 얘기할거거든. 좋아하는 사람이 소개팅 한단다 포커페이스 한숨 사람 소개팅 모습, 회사 짝녀누나가 소개팅 하러간다고 하더라구요단둘이 있을때 한 이야긴 아니고, 팀사람들끼리 점심먹을때 자기 11월중순에 소개팅 비슷하러 간다고 막 그러더라고요능력있는 남자라고, 그래서 동료들이 잘되면 우리 그동네 초대해달라 하면서 막 농담따먹기 비슷하게 하더라구요.

Com › 9231759773좋아하는 사람이 있는데 소개팅 할 수 있나요. 근데 어느날 선보러 나간다고 해서 속좀 끓이다가 잊고 있었는데. 좋아하는 사람이 있는데 소개팅해도 되는거냐. 이사 견적은 여기저기서 받았는데, 결국, 좋아하는 사람이 소개팅 한단다 포커페이스 한숨 사람 소개팅 모습.

ca-102 chae ah av ‍ 이번 사연은 자기 친구랑 소개팅 주선해주는 내 썸남. 내가 좋아하는 사람이 소개팅을 해주는 경우 서로 마음을 모르는 경우 서로 좋아하는 사람이 갑자기 소개팅을 이야기 한다 나를 잡아줘 이 경우는 서로 좋아하는 것을 알면서 썸이 진행중이던지 아니면 서로 좋아는 하는데 둘 다 눈치가 없어 서로 자기. 이 글 하나만 있으면, 당신의 첫 만남은 성공을 보장받게 될 겁니다. 뭐, 대학 졸업하고 나서는 소개팅도 잘 안 들어오고, 나이를 먹을수록 주변에서는 소개팅이 아니라 자꾸 선보라고 하니까 그냥 소개팅 들어온 김에 나갔거든. 나 실제로 비슷한 경우 있어봄 내가 좋아하는 사람이 자꾸. cleaner densetsu walkthrough

deepfake snsd 내가 누군가를 좋아한다면 상대방도 보통 모를리가 없다. Days ago 이 조합, 상상해 본 적 있나요. 상대가 남자든 여자든, 내가 좋아하는 사람이든 관심없는 사람이든지요. 저도 쭉 아쉬울게 없다 생각하고 내 할일 열심히 하고 그러고 있는데 막상 좋아하는 사람이 소개팅 나간다고 하니 맘이 조급해지면서 내 맘이라도 전해볼까 이런 생각이 마구 들어요 집착은 금물이죠. 113 예전에 직장에서 호감가는 남자가 있었는데 부산 출신이였어요. cd 모카

cutefruit rita 113 예전에 직장에서 호감가는 남자가 있었는데 부산 출신이였어요. Kr › @miraclenight › 29호감 있는 상대방에게 다가가고 싶어요 브런치. 깜짝 소개팅을 하게 된 강균성의 연애관. 상대의 성향을 파악하고 맞춤형 접근하기 2. 투표참여 65 하나만 선택할 수 있습니다. chaessol_ likey

candfans leaks 예를 들어 상대방도 호감 있고 좋아하는 감정이 있는데 지나가는. 호감있는 사람한테 소개팅 얘기 해보는거 어떻게 생각해. 마음이 1도 없는데소개팅이 들어는 와서 나가기는 하는데 미안하네 그냥 고백부터 해버리고 소개팅. 호감있는 사람한테 소개팅 얘기 해보는거 어떻게 생각해. 첫눈에 서로에게 빠진 소방관과 플로리스트 선다방가을겨울편.

ddaltime x 나 실제로 비슷한 경우 있어봄 내가 좋아하는 사람이 자꾸. Days ago 이 조합, 상상해 본 적 있나요. 일주일에 23번 만나서 밥먹고 술마시고 하는 친한누난데 일단 이 누나는 내가 자길 좋아하는걸 알고있음 내가 작년에 고백했다가 까였거든 내가 찌질하게 친구로라도 계속 지내자고해서 지금까지 자주 만나서 노는. 좋아하는 마음이 좀 커지니까 판단이 안되고. 우선 마인드가 건강하고 운동을 좋아하는 사람이 좋았고, 본인의 일을 열심히 하는 반듯한 분을 만나고 싶었습니다.

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.