Redirecting to sgall.

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.

김희영, 전 남편과의 불화 이유, 그리고 최태원과의 운명적 만남. 최태원 회장은 노소영 아트센터 나비관장과 이혼. 이번에 노소영이 이기지 않았으면 sk는 김희영꺼였어. 이혼 당시 김희영 이사장과 신랑 사이에는 2002년생 아들이 하나 있었습니다.

최태원 배우자호소인 자녀 관계 정리해준다 기타 국내.. 김희영 이사장은 1975년생으로 미국 국적을 가지고 있으며, 2008년에 전 남편과 이혼한 경력이 있습니다..

5 인데노소영네 3남매 다 합쳐야 3그해서 Sk는 희영이꺼였어.

역학 갤러리 김희영 젊었을땐 ㄹㅇ 이쁘긴하네.

현재 김희영은 최태원 sk회장의 동거인이지 부부는 아닙니다, 전남편과 결혼하여 2002년 아들을 출산하였고, 20062007년경부터 남편과 별거하다가 2008년 6월 뉴저지 주 패세익 카운티passaic county 가정법원, 옛날 싸이월드에서 봤는데 전남편 이승엽 닮았고 체격도 좋고 호감상이었음. 이혼 당시 김희영 이사장과 신랑 사이에는 2002년생 아들이 하나 있었습니다. 당시 6월 김희영 이사장은 전남편을 상대로 뉴저지 주 패세익 카운티 passaic county 가정법원에서 이혼소송을 제기한 바 있습니다. 이미 최태원과 노소영은 한참 전에 이혼만 안했을 뿐이지끝난 사이였어최태원과 김희영이 만나기 한참 전부터.

최태원 내연녀 김희영 사진 전남편 프로필 feat노소영 tmi 뉴스. 서울특별시 종로구 명륜동에서 태어났으며, 아버지는 함경도에서 태어났다가 월남한 후에 성공한 사업가였고, 어머니도 충청북도 청주에서 손꼽히는 read more. 235 이미지 노소영 김희영 둘다 끝이 영이네, Tiktokviral foryou korean. Sigj6opkale10vhx8b 자막뉴스 내연녀 김희영에 30억 원대 소송노소영이 쥔 카드에 주목 ytn지난달, Com › entry › 최태원내연녀최태원 내연녀 김희영 혼외자 고백부터 총정리.

위치상 더보여주고 노력해야하는지 아님 천성인지 제나이 40대 외가쪽에 할아버지가 4형제인데 막내인 저희 외할아버지빼고, 그리고 김희영은 왠지 한국인 같지 않고 홍콩스러운 이국적인 느낌 나는 미인, 탈북민 음주운전 사건 경찰의 기절초풍 이유.

5 인데노소영네 3남매 다 합쳐야 3그해서 sk는 희영이꺼였어. Com › entry › 최태원내연녀최태원 내연녀 김희영 혼외자 고백부터 총정리. 최태원 회장은 노소영 아트센터 나비관장과 이혼.

이혼 당시 김희영 이사장과 신랑 사이에는 2002년생 아들이 하나 있었습니다.

김희영 이사장은 1975년생으로 미국 국적을 가지고 있으며, 2008년에 전 남편과 이혼한 경력이 있습니다, Com › board › view김희영 이 분 솔직히 진짜 미녀긴해 역학 갤러리, 최태원 진짜 불륜녀의 전남편 아들한테 기업 준데. 김희영, 전 남편과의 불화 이유, 그리고 최태원과의 운명적 만남, 걔한테 잘해주고 친아들 제치고후계자처럼 대우해주니까전남편이 김씨엿나.

Kbsnewsofficial 김희영전남편 전남편과의 재회 다시보기, 김희영 전남편의 정체는 아직까지 공개되지 않았습니다. 최태원 회장은 노소영 아트센터 나비관장과 이혼. 이번에 노소영이 이기지 않았으면 sk는 김희영꺼였어.

김희영 전남편의 정체는 아직까지 공개되지 않았습니다. 신세계 정용진 알리바바 이커머스 사건사고, 최태원 내연녀 김희영 사진 전남편 프로필 feat노소영 tmi 뉴스.

spankbang.part 이혼 당시 김희영 이사장과 신랑 사이에는 2002년생 아들이 하나 있었습니다. Kbsnewsofficial 김희영전남편 전남편과의 재회 다시보기. 현재 김희영은 최태원 sk회장의 동거인이지 부부는 아닙니다. 최태원 회장은 노소영 아트센터 나비관장과 이혼. Com › entry › 최태원내연녀최태원 내연녀 김희영 혼외자 고백부터 총정리. sotwe minzee

sotwe 보는법 김희영 본인도 현재 입지상 대외적 활동을 많이 하지 않다보니 의도하지 않은 신비주의처럼 비춰지고 있기에 루머가 더욱 확산되기도 했다. 삼형제모두 첩을 두고 살았어요 워낙 그동네에서 땅부자에 살림도많고 머슴도 6명넘게 부리던 부자집이라 한집에 대식구가 모여살았는데그당시 배가지고 쌀장사도 하셨고. 두 사람은 결혼해 지난 2002년 아들을 출산했고, 2007년부터 동거에 들어가 이듬해인 2008년 이혼한 것으로 알려졌습니다. 걔한테 잘해주고 친아들 제치고후계자처럼 대우해주니까전남편이 김씨엿나. 옛날 싸이월드에서 봤는데 전남편 이승엽 닮았고 체격도 좋고 호감상이었음. sotwe sheri

snos-016 서울특별시 종로구 명륜동에서 태어났으며, 아버지는 함경도에서 태어났다가 월남한 후에 성공한 사업가였고, 어머니도 충청북도 청주에서 손꼽히는 read more. 위치상 더보여주고 노력해야하는지 아님 천성인지 제나이 40대 외가쪽에 할아버지가 4형제인데 막내인 저희 외할아버지빼고. 전남편과 결혼하여 2002년 아들을 출산하였고, 20062007년경부터 남편과 별거하다가 2008년 6월 뉴저지 주 패세익 카운티passaic county 가정법원. 서울특별시 종로구 명륜동에서 태어났으며, 아버지는 함경도에서 태어났다가 월남한 후에 성공한 사업가였고, 어머니도 충청북도 청주에서 손꼽히는 read more. 김희영 이사장은 1975년생으로 미국 국적을 가지고 있으며, 2008년에 전 남편과 이혼한 경력이 있습니다. somsifot

soangbang 이미 최태원과 노소영은 한참 전에 이혼만 안했을 뿐이지끝난 사이였어최태원과 김희영이 만나기 한참 전부터. Sk 최태인 혼외자 낳은 동거인 김희영 전남편, 아들, 집안, 나이 총정리 +노소영, 내연녀 한국 전통 힐링과 스웨디시도 함께. Tiktokviral foryou korean. 김희영 전남편의 정체는 아직까지 공개되지 않았습니다. 김희영 전남편이 먼저 바람폇음 역학 갤러리.

sone-770 Com › jusikand › 223557020650김희영, 전 남편과의 불화 이유, 그리고 최태원과의 운명적 만남. 거기서 최씨로 바꿧다며 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ라이언. 그녀는 과거 인터뷰에서 개인적인 사생활을 공개하는 것을 꺼려했으며, 전남편에 대한 언급도 자제해왔습니다. 그리고 나서 김희영도 최태원 만나고 맞바람핌 김희영이 최태원 애 임신하고 전난편이 그거 알고 화나서 난리난리치다가 김희영이 전남편에게 전재산. Sk 최태인 혼외자 낳은 동거인 김희영 전남편, 아들, 집안, 나이 총정리 +노소영, 내연녀 한국 전통 힐링과 스웨디시도 함께.

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.