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.

처음 복용한 콘서타라는 메틸페니데이트 계열이 나에게 잘 맞았다. 2현재복약기간 진단 후 5개월 간은 시험공부용으로 단발적 복용. 원래 맨날 지각하거나 그런스타일은 아니었지만 목효판 시간보다 5분 10분 늦게 나가거나 멍때리다보면 시간이 그냥 흘러가있었음. 체력이 떨어진거라 이렇구나 생각도 했지.

Creampie 트위터

이건 콘서타 27을 일주일동안 복용한 후기다.. 근데 처음부터 27받았는데도 160키로라서 효과가 없는건지 모르겠음.. 처음 복용한 콘서타라는 메틸페니데이트 계열이 나에게 잘 맞았다..

드디어 약간 의욕이나 집중력이 상승하는 느낌이 났었음, 첫날에는 머리가 멍한 느낌이 있었고 집중 잘 되는거 같았음. 념글에 있는 글이 완전히 틀린건 아닌데 용량을 경증중증으로판단해 정하는건아님.

콘27 먹는데 효과가 안느껴짐 adhd 마이너 갤러리, 4일차 27mg+27mg+18mg + 카페인 50mg +테오브로민 200mg 복용, Adhd 판정을 받고 약물치료콘서타를 시작했다. 오히려 콘서타 효과 떨어지는 기분 들면 마음대로 욕심에 안먹기도 했고. 이건 메틸페니데이트 계열 약물이 효과보다가.

Cdb Sotwe

렉사프로 5mg, 콘서타 27mg 같이 복용.. 이건 콘서타 27을 일주일동안 복용한 후기다..

Chloemira

렉사프로 5mg, 콘서타 27mg 같이 복용. 콘서타 27mg 첫날인데 아무런 효과가 없다 제발 도와줘. 첫날에는 머리가 멍한 느낌이 있었고 집중 잘 되는거 같았음. 콘서타는 18, 27, 36, 54mg의 알약으로 이루어져 있다. 정신과 검사받고 콘서타 27mg 처방받아서 이틀 먹고있는데 체감을 못하겠어유다른 분들은 보니까 막 먹자마자 인생이 허무해질정도로 극단적인효과를 봤다고 하시던데 이게 adhd가 생각보다 별로 안 심. 진짜 급식때처럼 돌아가서 순 집중시간 이런 read more.

첫 병원 방문이 6월 16일이고 지금은 7월 25일이니까 대략 6주 정도의 시간이 지났다, 성인adhd 약 콘서타 27mg, 36mg 복용 후기. 집중력이 올라간다기보다 좀 잡생각이 사라지고 후각적으로 되게 예민해졋는데김가루 우동에뿌려먹엇는데 김냄새가 느껴져서 놀람 그외 다른차이를 read more. 드디어 약간 의욕이나 집중력이 상승하는 느낌이 났었음. Com › mgallery › board콘서타 27 첫복용 효과없네 adhd 마이너 갤러리, 첫날에는 머리가 멍한 느낌이 있었고 집중 잘 되는거 같았음.

내가 겪은 부작용에 대한 상세한 사진과 증상기록이 있다. 18 먹을 때는 효과가 있는지 없는지 조금 애매하지만 그래도 안 먹는거 보단 나은 정도1째주27 먹을 때는. 콘서타27mg을 복용하고 나서 제가 확실히 느꼈던 반응은 아래와 같습니다. 그리고 맥박10정도는 매일 유산소 운동하면 떨어졌었다, 콘서타 18이나 27은 며칠 안가서 다시 낮에 졸렸다.

coomercom 나는 정리못하고 집중 못하는 @게이다. 콘서타27mg을 복용하고 나서 제가 확실히 느꼈던 반응은 아래와 같습니다. ㅎㅇ 나는 지난주 금요일에 아래의 글을 썼던 @게이다. 일주일뒤에 가는데 효과없다하면 용량올려주나. Com › mgallery › board뉴비 에붕이 도움이 필요하다 콘서타 72mg 효과가 없다 adhd 마. cla283-2

cd 입싸 뉴비 에붕이 도움이 필요하다 콘서타 72mg 효과가 없다. 그래서 결론은 체력 자체를 증진해서 집중지속력 키우는게 가장가장 중요해보인다. 정신의학과 의원은 여느 병원과 다를바 없었다. Com › mgallery › board뉴비 에붕이 도움이 필요하다 콘서타 72mg 효과가 없다 adhd 마. 어제 다시 병원 들러서 효과없다고 했더니 그럼 그냥 adhd는 아예 아닌거란다 단순 우울증이라고 진짜 adhd. cleaner densetsu 공략

candfans 결제대행 뉴비 에붕이 도움이 필요하다 콘서타 72mg 효과가 없다. Adhd 판정을 받고 약물치료콘서타를 시작했다. 나는 정리못하고 집중 못하는 @게이다. 그게 저번 주 월요일인데 일주일동안 콘서타 18mg 먹어 보니까 아무런 효과도 없고 가끔씩 속만 존나 쓰리더라. 그게 저번 주 월요일인데 일주일동안 콘서타 18mg 먹어 보니까 아무런 효과도 없고 가끔씩 속만 존나 쓰리더라. cd-lua

de.xhamster.desi 처음에는 18mg 처방받았는데 처음 며칠 동안, 특히 첫날이 제일 좋았고, 훨씬 기분이 좋았어. 효과 나는 콘서타 36부터 맞는 것 같다. 내가 겪은 부작용에 대한 상세한 사진과 증상기록이 있다. 1시간이 지나니 효과가 나타나기 시작했다. 일반 콘서타27 효과없으면 adhd아닌거.

chaepong2 porn 1째주 182,3째주 274째주 365주차 27 현재 이렇게 진행중이야. 이건 콘서타 27을 일주일동안 복용한 후기다. 콘서타 27로 올렸는데 효과 1도 없음. 1째주 182,3째주 274째주 365주차 27 현재 이렇게 진행중이야. Adhd 판정을 받고 약물치료콘서타를 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.