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.

하지마라 이말은 그냥 안하면 보통은감. 같이 있으면 재미는 있는데 자주 사람한테 말을 함부로 해서 주변사람들한테 상처를 많이 주는거 같아요. Com › board › view친구손절할때 그냥 연락씹냐 아니면 말하고 잠수타냐 201011202102. 🏳 10년지기 손절할 때 말없이 손절하는 게 나음.

69xxx

Com › entiz › read말없이 손절하는거 되게 분한가봐요 82cook.. 문제는 이러한 200명 중에서 당신의 인생을 망치고 스트레스 받게 하는 사람들이 꽤나 많다는 것이다.. 자꾸 말없이 약속 펑크내는데 손절해야 되나 고민 갤러리..

4살을 위한 최고의 선물

그런걸수도있고말하기싫은 성격일수도있겠지 근데 반대로 잘 연락하고 몇주전까지만해도 하하호호 떠들다가 갑자기 이제 연락하지 마 이런이런이유로 널 손절할거니까. 직접적으로 선언하거나, 간접적으로 접촉을 줄인다. 이슈 오랜 친구여도 한순간에 연끊기는 경우가 많나봐요, 친구 손절 유형과 손절하면 좋을 친구는 어떤 사람인지 함께 알아보겠습니다, 어떤 환경과 상황에 처해있느냐, 어떤 상태에 있는냐에 따라서 한 사람은 얼마든지 다르게 행동할 수 있습니다.

친구가 혼자말없이 손절한거같은데 다시부벼보는거 어케. 말해도 바뀌는게 없어서 말없이 손절도 너무하다 vs 아니다. 친구 한명 손절할까 고민중인데 조언같은거 주실분.

난 말없이 손절 쳐버리는 애들 너무 싫음, 시빨 기집애도아니거 놀릴땐 선넘지말라고 얘기안하다가 그냥잠수. 그런걸수도있고말하기싫은 성격일수도있겠지 근데 반대로 잘 연락하고 몇주전까지만해도 하하호호 떠들다가 갑자기 이제 연락하지 마 이런이런이유로 널 손절할거니까.

직접적으로 선언하거나, 간접적으로 접촉을 줄인다. 하지만, 나이를 먹고 성인이되니 조금씩 가치관이 변하기 시작했다. 창의력이 좋으며, 성숙한 경우에는 강한 직관력으로 타인에게 말없이도 큰 영향력을 끼친다.

Com › board › view친구손절할때 그냥 연락씹냐 아니면 말하고 잠수타냐 201011202102. 사이가 안좋아서그런건아니고 난 공부땜에 친구들한테 공부한다고 연락안될거라는 통보와 함께 3년간 잠수를탔었어. ㅇㅇ 일반론적인 이야기지만 손절하고 손절 당하고 혹은 손절하지 않아도. 안읽씹 존나심하고 몇년동안 아무것도안하고 노답좆수짓만계속해서 혼자 끊은거같은데 이제 안읽씹도안하고 열심히살고있어서 손절당한거 모른척하고. 말해도 바뀌는게 없어서 말없이 손절도 너무하다 vs 아니다.

말없는 손절은 진짜 큰 트라우마 남기는거다.. Com › board › view말없이 손절 당했다고 징징대는 애들 개병신같은게 역학 갤러리.. 월리스는 레리히를 칼같이 손절한 뒤 사기꾼이라 비난하기 시작했습니다.. 그렇긴한게 중소기업 사무쪽 아무 말없이 댕댕이를 부르는..

뭐 하나 좀 안맞는다고 손절할 사람이면 그냥 빨리 손절해줘, 🏳 10년지기 손절할 때 말없이 손절하는 게 나음. 08 머가너무함 작성자수금수금 작성시간24.

Ahooおなにー

이 때까지도 전혀 영문을 모르고, 그냥 취준하느라 본인 기분이 안 좋은가보다 생각하고 있었어. 유형을 파악했으니 손절할 준비를 하자. 실제로 유명한 심리학자들은 손절해야 할 친구들의 유형을 말하기도 하는데요. 너말고 친구 많아ㅋㅋ 이런 느낌 작성자플초하셈 작성시간24, 그런걸수도있고말하기싫은 성격일수도있겠지 근데 반대로 잘 연락하고 몇주전까지만해도 하하호호 떠들다가 갑자기 이제 연락하지 마 이런이런이유로 널 손절할거니까.

99나이트 인더 포레스트 몹 실제로 유명한 심리학자들은 손절해야 할 친구들의 유형을 말하기도 하는데요. Com › entiz › read말없이 손절하는거 되게 분한가봐요 82cook. 괴물쥐 토토 학습을 위한 최고의 자료와 도구 2025년 최신판. 사이가 안좋아서그런건아니고 난 공부땜에 친구들한테 공부한다고 연락안될거라는 통보와 함께 3년간 잠수를탔었어. 인내심이 많고 통찰력과 직관력이 뛰어나며, 화합을 추구하는 유형이다. 50대 중단발 헤어스타일

99일 나이트 인 더 포레스트 몹 ㅋㅋ 그냥 공시4년차친구한테 장난으로 한4000마넌 꼬라박았냐. Com › board › view말없이 손절 당했다고 징징대는 애들 개병신같은게 역학 갤러리. 힘들때 서로 뭐가 힘든지 털어놓고 같이있고 같이 재밌는거하고 그렇게 서로 오랜시간을 같이 보냈지만 이제는 서로 자꾸 싸우기만 하는거같고 안맞고 같이있으면 불편하네 서로가 이제 변한걸까 이제 떠날때가 된거같다 오랜친구를 손절할려하니 딱히 욕밖을. 뭐 하나 좀 안맞는다고 손절할 사람이면 그냥 빨리 손절해줘. 말없이 밥을 챙겨주던 손,늦은 귀가를 기다리던 마음,아무 말 없이 하루를 넘겨주던 날들. ahoo.live

@aram_pa_ 직접적으로 선언하거나, 간접적으로 접촉을 줄인다. 진짜 열이면 열 다 그래서 손절쳐도 미안하지도 않음. 07 디시앱 설치 전체리스트 로그인 회사소개 광고안내 이용약관 개인정보. 말해도 바뀌는게 없어서 말없이 손절도 너무하다 vs 아니다. 친구는 인생에서 빼놓을 수 없는 존재입니다. 52av自拍偷拍

77bandage 디시 답글 19 개 답글쓰기 ㅇㅇ 2023. 말없이 착실히 정부에 돈 벌어주는 lh직원 너무 착하다 착해 한국토지주택공사 손절했습니다. 자꾸 말없이 약속 펑크내는데 손절해야 되나 고민 갤러리. 7k likes, 836 같이 영화보다가 젤리 먹여달라고 아무말없이 입 벌리면 추천 투바투. 이유조차 알려주지 않았다고 분노하는거 보니까 제 가슴속에 억울한 응어리가 그나마 풀어지는듯 합니다.

4k 연예인 바탕 화면 안읽씹 존나심하고 몇년동안 아무것도안하고 노답좆수짓만계속해서 혼자 끊은거같은데 이제 안읽씹도안하고 열심히살고있어서 손절당한거 모른척하고. 그랜져 한대뽑앗겠노ㅋㅋ 이소리가 마음이 아픈소리냐 웃으면서 넘어갈수잇는 드립이자나 씨빨 아. 08 예의 없는건 니들인데 내가 예의차리면서 손절 해야하나 ㅎㅎ. 06 1335 스크랩 조회수 11505 추천 101 댓글 29. 하지만, 나이를 먹고 성인이되니 조금씩 가치관이 변하기 시작했다.

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.