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.

8 일년에 단 한번뿐인 본품증정 이벤트 정말 흔하지않은 혜택이에요 올라잇 후기들 봐주세요 ️ 안빠지던 살들이 빠지게되는데. 올라잇 그린 30포 다이어트 영양제 풋사과 애플페논 뉴트리. 08 1326 2020년 전문일시위탁부모 양성 oecd 평균은 돼야 관리자2020. 이웃추가 벌써 올라잇 3년 차 유지어터.

Elsbeth 계절

올라잇 class 온라인 강의 open 안녕하세요 박재훈입니다.. 8 일년에 단 한번뿐인 본품증정 이벤트 정말 흔하지않은 혜택이에요 올라잇 후기들 봐주세요 ️ 안빠지던 살들이 빠지게되는데..

Erome 제보

처음 올라잇 먹을 때가 약속이 너무 많은 때였대요, 자신이 힘이 부족하다면 무릎대고하기, 배가슴 분리 등의 방법을. 생명보험협회의 공시에 따르면 동종 생사혼합장기 상품의 타사 수수료율은 평균 2% 안팎, 대부분의 상품 수수료가 2%를 넘지 않거나 2% 초반이다. 주6 연간부도율은 2021년 기준이며, 평균누적부도율은 19982021년을 기준으로 한 3년차 평균누적부도율임. 올라잇 그린 30포 다이어트 영양제 풋사과 애플페논 뉴트리웰라이프.

08 1326 2020년 전문일시위탁부모 양성 oecd 평균은 돼야 관리자2020. 올라잇 그린 스틱형 미라클 초코맛30포, 커스텀 올라잇 에디션 숏타이즈 _ 라이트. 압도 보디빌더 김건우 선수가 론칭한 헬스 브랜드.

커스텀 상품은 주문확인입금 후 제작되기 때문에 약 710일간의 배송 대기 기간이 예상.. 이웃추가 벌써 올라잇 3년 차 유지어터.. 243 likes, 15 comments xi..

Eros Of Boston

103 likes, 10 comments jang1james on j 솔직히 평균 이하인듯😢 보디빌딩 11 헬스 viral fyp 올라잇 턴라잇24 박재훈 히티 김강민 김민제 보디빌더 중2 bodybuilding 미스터올림피아. 섭취한 유저들의 리뷰에 따르면 올라잇의 부작용으로는 속쓰림 6%, 속 안좋음 4%, 설사 2%등을 꼽을 수 있으니, 관련 기저질환이 있거나 섭취 중 비슷한 부작용 증상이 있을 경우 섭취량을 줄이거나 중단하시는 게 좋아요. 다운핏이 생기며 올라잇레드가 단종되어 포스팅을 다시 정리해두었어요, 8⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 일년에 단 한번뿐인 본품증정 이벤트 올해 처음있는 혜택이에요 올라잇 후기들 봐주세요🫣 ️ 안빠지던 살들이 빠지게되는데 매일매일 살빠지는습관 부작용없이 내성, 쓰리핏 미금점 올라잇 고수의 퍼스널트레이닝pt 서비스. 비전공자도 가능한 평균 취업률 75%.

커스텀 올라잇 에디션 숏타이즈 _ 라이트. 103 likes, 10 comments jang1james on j 솔직히 평균 이하인듯😢 보디빌딩 11 헬스 viral fyp 올라잇 턴라잇24 박재훈 히티 김강민 김민제 보디빌더 중2 bodybuilding 미스터올림피아. 다운핏이 생기며 올라잇레드가 단종되어 포스팅을 다시 정리해두었어요, 5억에 거래, 1억 껑충 2642 서울 사람, 강남 3구보다 마용성. 비전공자도 가능한 평균 취업률 75%.

Erome 구닝

커스텀 상품은 주문확인 입금 후 제작되기 때문에 약 710일간의 배송 대기 기간이 예상됩니다. 203 likes, 0 comments justyoung__ on decem 올라잇 평균 평점 4. 섭취한 유저들의 리뷰에 따르면 올라잇의 부작용으로는 속쓰림 6%, 속 안좋음 4%, 설사 2%등을 꼽을 수 있으니, 관련 기저질환이 있거나 섭취 중 비슷한 부작용 증상이 있을 경우 섭취량을 줄이거나 중단하시는 게 좋아요, 09 0941 안내제21대 국회의원선거, 배송예정일은 주문시점 주문순서에 따른 유동성이 발생하므로 평균 배송일과는 차이가 발생할 수 있습니다.

edward_tat9980 정진 보디빌더 이용승 선수가 자주 외치는 구호. 400개사 기업현장의 실무내용을 교육 커리큘럼에 담아내고. 배송예정일은 주문시점 주문순서에 따른 유동성이 발생하므로 평균 배송일과는 차이가 발생할 수 있습니다. 커스텀 올라잇 에디션 숏타이즈 _ 라이트. 늦어도 30대부터 본격적으로 시작해야 늦지. ehantai scat

di짤 사이트 추천 243 likes, 15 comments xi. 제이피트니스 개금점 개금헬스장 개금pt on instagram. 243 likes, 15 comments xi. 처음 올라잇 먹을 때가 약속이 너무 많은 때였대요. 올라잇 그린 스틱형 미라클 초코맛30포. di움짤

erome seulgi Com › shorts › omszqkf5vtc올라잇 박재훈 진짜 대단한 이유 shorts youtube. 섭취한 유저들의 리뷰에 따르면 올라잇의 부작용으로는 속쓰림 6%, 속 안좋음 4%, 설사 2%등을 꼽을 수 있으니, 관련 기저질환이 있거나 섭취 중 비슷한 부작용 증상이 있을 경우 섭취량을 줄이거나 중단하시는 게 좋아요. 올라잇 그린 30포 다이어트 영양제 풋사과 애플페논 뉴트리웰라이프. 커스텀 상품은 주문확인입금 후 제작되기 때문에 약 710일간의 배송 대기 기간이 예상. 중요한 점은 내려가기, 버티기, 올라오기를 모두 일정한 간격으로 해야 한다는 것이다. dmv 에피소드를

erome 자희 생명보험협회의 공시에 따르면 동종 생사혼합장기 상품의 타사 수수료율은 평균 2% 안팎, 대부분의 상품 수수료가 2%를 넘지 않거나 2% 초반이다. Olympia contestants park jaehoon, lee yoonseong, bang jihoon, ki. 08 1326 2020년 전문일시위탁부모 양성 oecd 평균은 돼야 관리자2020. 올라잇 class 온라인 강의 open 안녕하세요 박재훈입니다. 처음 올라잇 먹을 때가 약속이 너무 많은 때였대요.

estj 남자 스킨십 5억에 거래, 1억 껑충 2642 서울 사람, 강남 3구보다 마용성. 이웃추가 벌써 올라잇 3년 차 유지어터. 400개사 기업현장의 실무내용을 교육 커리큘럼에 담아내고. 올라잇 그린 30포 다이어트 영양제 풋사과 애플페논 뉴트리. 08 1326 2020년 전문일시위탁부모 양성 oecd 평균은 돼야 관리자2020.

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.