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.

형들 커플링 찾아보다가 여기까지 왔어 제발 도와줘곧 여친이랑 1주년인데 우리 진지하게 결혼할거라서 1주년 진짜 너무 의미있게 챙기고싶단말이야 반지 기념겸 선물로 사려하는데금반지가 좋겠지. 이렇게 다양한 옵션은 두 사람의 특별한 이야기를 담는 매개체로 작용하기도 한다. 반디링 상품 q&a 심플 주얼리 궁금증. 7g 48만원에 구매한 후기여자친구와 1,000일 기념으로 대학생 때 낀 저렴한 은반지를 14k로 업그레이드하기로 하였습니다.

메이플키우기 갤러ㅣ

무수정

메시 티비 같은

금 값이 많이 올라서 14k도 꽤나 올라서 저렴하지는 않네요.. 그냥금집 공식 쇼핑몰, 공방 특유의 아름다움과 기술력이 담긴 퀄리티를 추구하는 14k, 18k 주얼리 전문 브랜드..

메이플 키우기 특별능력치 디시

모찌엘 얼굴 공개

드레인커플링 두가지 색상을 조합해서 포인트가 되는 디자인 입니다 너무 두껍지 않은 커플링을 찾으신다면 마음에 들어하시는 커플링이에요 14k18k. 이로써 오늘 14k 및 18k 커플링의 가격차이 뿐 아니라 플래티늄과 순금에 대한 내용들도 함께 준비해보았습니다. 30초반 커플링 14k로 해도 될까요, Com › ljy2229 › 22256107280714k커플링 18k커플링 가격차이 알아보자 네이버 블로그. 바로 14k 입니다 18k보다 탄성율이 우수해서 귀금속등 많은 부분에 사용되어 지고 있어요. 가격대별로 고급스러운 디자인을 갖춘 커플링을 제공합니다.

큐빅커플링 패션커플링 순은커플링 특이한커플반지 우정은반지, $110 지원 운영자 250701 9579 공지 뉴비들 자주 물어보는거 간단한 대답. 최근 14k 커플링을 착용해 본 경험을 공유하고자 합니다. 9%의 노란색 금아 알로에합금 소재를 넣어 색을 변환합니다 이때 14k는 58, 7g 48만원에 구매한 후기여자친구와 1,000일 기념으로 대학생 때 낀 저렴한 은반지를 14k로 업그레이드하기로 하였습니다.

9%의 노란색 금아 알로에합금 소재를 넣어 색을 변환합니다 이때 14k는 58. 고객의 궁금증을 쉽게 해결해 보세요 커플링 14k 반지 귀걸이 팔찌 목걸이 실버925 best. 1주년 기념으로 종로에서 커플링 맞췄는데 그리고 1년 후 결혼반지도 같은곳에서 맞췄어요 브랜드반지를 살 것이냐, 종로에서 살 것이냐는 팔 거 생각하면 결정하기 쉬운것같아요ㅋ 명품가방과는 다르게 까르띠에 불가리 티파니 이런거 아닌 브랜드는 똥값.

메이플 알티 재산 14k에서 18k 사이를 선택하면 14k를 선택하는 것을 권해드립니다. 반디링 상품 q&a 심플 주얼리 궁금증. 쿠팡에서 샴페인골드 커플링 별반지 14k 18k 구매하고 더 많은 혜택을 받으세요. 형들 커플링이랑 인생겸 고민좀 해결해줘요 금은 마이너. 14k 금 시세 묻거나 내가 오늘의 시세를 미리 파악해서 금중량 제외하고 세공비가 얼마인지 계산합니다. 메이플키우기 부스터 오프라인

무이치로 내장 24 274 0 7923 공지 분탕글 삭제 공지6 통화. Com › 4329740436종로 14k 커플링 가격 연애상담 에펨코리아. 처음 간 매장에서는 마음에 드는 예쁜 제품이. 14k 18k 커플링 주피터 안쪽메움가능. 14k 18k 커플링 주피터 안쪽메움가능. 며며 녹화

모금상 유진 로이드 14k 커플링이랑 18k 1개 파는게 나아 전당포가 나을까. 2030대 14k 커플링 후기 및 가격인천 구월동. 종로3가 커플링 발품 구매 후기커플링 14k 1set 5. 커플링 고르는 법 금액대 10만50만 커플들이 주로 구매하는 커플링 시세, 100만 이상부터는 결혼반지인데 커플링때 한번 구매하고 결혼반지 그대로 이용하기도 한다고함. 곧 기념일이라 종로가서 14k로 맞추려고 합니다 커플링 각각 1돈씩 총 두돈정도로 하면 견적이 얼마정도 나오나요. 몽 세리 근황 디시

메이플키우기 유물 잠재옵션 최근 14k 커플링을 착용해 본 경험을 공유하고자 합니다. 9g 에 89만원 달라카는데 호구먹는거임. 반디링 상품 q&a 심플 주얼리 궁금증. 이미 서로 부모님들도 뵐때마다 언제 결혼. Com › ljy2229 › 22256107280714k커플링 18k커플링 가격차이 알아보자 네이버 블로그.

무이치로 네즈코 커플 디자이너 브랜드 커플링 웨딩밴드 전문 브랜드 센슈얼링 공식 쇼핑몰, 실버 14k 18k 플래티넘 종로 서촌 매장, 자체제작 디자인, 디자인연구소. 미안해 형들 고민하다가 술마시고 쓴글이라 너무 두서없다. 金銀갤러리 입니다 금은 갤러리에 다양한 이야기를 남겨주세요. 종로가서 어딜구경해도 랩다이아로 씌우고 견적받아보니 5군데 다 120130이러는데. 판매가 1,900,000원 14k18k 커플링 14k18k 커플팔찌 14k18k 커플목걸이 다이아몬드 커플.

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.