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.

갈라치기 세력에게 작업 당해가지고 여자를 적으로 규정했으니 어디가서 여자를 만날 것이며 집구석에서 read more. 20 2247 ㅇㅎ ㅅㅅ 100배 한 영포티 분홍돌고래 조회 수 709251 추천 수 973 댓글 185 s. 영포티는 어떻게 멸칭이 됐나 연합뉴스. 영포티, 2025년 가장 화제의 키워드가 된 이유 영포티young forty라는 단어를 들어보셨나요.

흑수 기고한 성녀는

환연 윤녕 인스타

후타나리 애니

히토미 배꼽

이 과정에서 ‘영포티’는 반어적 멸칭으로 소비되기 시작했습니다.. Kr › article › 202511030600001조롱을 넘어 멸칭으로2030은 왜 영포티를 긁나.. 영포티young forty는 젊음을 유지하고 싶은 40대 세대를 지칭하는 신조어입니다..

나도 40대초지만 초딩보다 못한색기 벼는 익을수록 고개숙인다고 하는데 나이 쳐먹었으면 겸손해줘야지 어린친구들 따라 긁 ㅇㅈㄹ하고 있네 ㅋ. 아재 개그에 웃어주는 고마운 친구들 영포티 안물안궁안군 배네타 안영포티 오라제주 facebook 󱡘 오라제주 1d󰞋󱘺daniel󰞋󱟠 󳄫 아재 개그에 웃어주는 고마운 친구들 영포티 안물안궁안군 배네타 안영포티, 21 1540 잭스 100배 영포티 형님 학력 뭅뭅moob 조회 수 335139 추천 수 1230 댓글 444 s. 한때 젊은 감각을 유지하며 소비와 문화를 주도하는 40대를 뜻했던 신조어가 최근 온라인 공간에서. 누군가는 멋있다고 하고, 누군가는 ‘젊은 척’이라고 비웃고 조롱조로 이야기 니다.

히콩 꼭지 영포티들은 그들만의 사고방식 가지고 있잖아. 여직원들에게 불편하게 찝쩍거리고, 어울리지 않는데 주말에 꼭 스냅백 쓰고, 트렌드를 이해하지 못한 채 트렌드를 즐기던 사람들. 앞으로 할 젝스도 없잖아 내가 영포티인데 돈 쥐뿔도 없는 나도 지겹게해서 이젠 하기싫어서. 앞으로 할 젝스도 없잖아 내가 영포티인데 돈 쥐뿔도 없는 나도 지겹게해서 이젠 하기싫어서. 청주대 신방과를 나오셨으나, 제대로 공부했으면 서울대 가고도 남았다고 하심ㅠㅠ. 황섹투

회초리 소설 디시 포텐 터짐 최신순 유머움짤이슈 유머 2025. 요즘 온라인에서 자주 보이는 신조어가 있어요 바로 ‘영포티 youngforty’와 ‘스윗영포티. 영포티들은 그들만의 사고방식 가지고 있잖아. Com › aanjuhyun › videos아재 개그에 웃어주는 고마운 친구들 영포티 안물안궁안군 배네. 영포티young forty는 젊음을 유지하고 싶은 40대 세대를 지칭하는 신조어입니다. 히토미 뱀

홤연4갤 요즘 온라인에서 자주 보이는 신조어가 있어요 바로 ‘영포티 youngforty’와 ‘스윗영포티. 당시에는 젊은 감각을 유지하며 자기 관리에 적극적인 40대를 긍정적으로 표현하는 말이었다. 영포티 안물안궁안군 배네타 안영포티 오라제주 facebook 󱡘 오라제주 1h󰞋󱘺young drug󰞋󱟠 󳄫 이 문제가 어렵나요. 그리고 무엇보다 영포티가 혐오 용어로 변질된 가장 큰 원인은 2030 남성과 4050 남성의 정치적 성향이 서로 다르다는 데 있었다. 영포티는 young과 forty를 합친 신조어로, 2015년 11월쯤 마케팅 업계에서 처음 등장했다. 후아반

히카리의 실황방송 100배 영포티형님 포텐 터짐 화제순 에펨코리아펨코에 긁혀버린 섹스 100배 영포티형님 포텐 터짐 화제순. 세대 갈등 심화 40대는 상대적으로 진보 성향이 강한 세대이며, 보수 성향이 강한 20대 남성과 정치적으로 크게 대립하게 되었습니다. 이 용어는 2015년 무렵 국내 마케팅 업계에서 처음 주목받기 시작했습니다. Kr › view › akr20250916158800004586과 mz에 낀 피터팬. 팩트 저인간은 영포티가 아니고 영피프티다.

히요밍 porn 젊은 40대’라는 뜻으로 시작했지만, 지금은 단순한 라이프스타일을 넘어 세대 갈등의 상징으로 번지고 있죠. 여러분, young forty의 공식 채널에 오신 것을 환영합니다. 그리고 무엇보다 영포티가 혐오 용어로 변질된 가장 큰 원인은 2030 남성과 4050 남성의 정치적 성향이 서로 다르다는 데 있었다. 봐봐 처음에는 20대 어린여성 꼬시는게 영포티라더만 이제는 그냥 무작정 아무거나 지들 기분 나쁘면 영포티임 다른 세대는 저런 행동 안하니. 갈라치기 세력에게 작업 당해가지고 여자를 적으로 규정했으니 어디가서 여자를 만날 것이며 집구석에서 read more.

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.