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.

이런 거 홈닥터하면 동네점빵 의원 갈 이유가 없지피부과는 모르겠노그런데 의사 존나 늘려서 피부과도 경쟁 시키면 ㅋㅋ. 혹시 일반 가정의학과 내과 이런대도 처방해줌. 네, 탈모약 처방은 전문의의 상담을 통해 이루어져야 합니다. 병원명 수원시 호매실동 늘편한내과 친절도 4.

Tapo15 Sotwe

T1 스킨 디시

공보의의 재량이라 해주는 곳도 있고, 안해주는 곳도 있습니다.. 내일 진료보러 가는데 피부과 갈냐 내과가냐 탈모 갤러리.. 누가 여기 병원 추천해주길래 가봄 본인 고혈압 기저증세 있어서 탈모약 먹기 부담스러웠음 일단 탈모 처방전 가격 5천원에서 15,000 밖에 안받고.. 탈모약 처방 받으려면 그냥 일반 피부과병원 가도되는거임..

Thumb Zilaa

일반 내과에서도 탈모약 처방 받을수있나요. 탈모약은 대체로 전문의약품으로 분류되어, 의사의 처방 없이 구매가 어려운 경우가 많습니다. 앞머리 불륨이랑 힘이 없어지기 시작3. 탈모의 원인은 남성호르몬인 테스토스테론입니다. 집근처에 피부과가 없고 내과병원만 있는데 여기서도 탈모약 처방 받을수 있을까요.

2023년 말에 개정되어 비대면으로는 12개월 360알에서 3개월로 처방전 기간이 줄었다, 왜 갑자기 뜬금없이 디씨까지 와서 글을 쓰냐, Com › xvdcijdni › 223938625437탈모약 병원 처방 어디서 받아야 할까 네이버 블로그.

Ta Onlyfans

주사&케어 이런건 진짜 가격대비 효과가 엄청나게 미미하다, ㅈㄱㄴ dc official app, 주사&케어 이런건 진짜 가격대비 효과가 엄청나게 미미하다.

내과에서 탈모약 처방해주냐 탈모 갤러리. 탈모약 처방 방법은 아래 정보를 참고해 보세요, Io › questions › 4596addb7a4e5754946cd3b0a1일반 내과에서도 탈모약 처방 받을수있나요, 탈모약 처방 방법은 아래 정보를 참고해 보세요. 또 처방 기간에 따라 상이할 수 있습니다.

처방에 대한 관심도 높을 수밖에 없을 텐데요, 우리 몸에서는 테스토스테론을 다이하이드로테스토스테론dihydrotestosterone, dht로 변환하여 이용합니다. 6 선택한 약국에서 탈모약 받아오기 닥터나우 인증 약국이 아닌 약국을 선택했다면, 직접 약국에 전화해 처방받은 약의 재고를 확인해야 해요. 탈모약 8년먹고 느낀점 정리 탈모 갤러리.

sunny pikpak 제 친구는 유전성 탈모를 앓고 있어서 안쪽 털이 빠지고 m자형 탈모도 겪고 있어요. 진료비는 어플마다 그리고 병원마다 가격이 차이 나는데요. 6개월 정도 지나니 많이 좋아진 것 같았어요. 일반의약품인 탈모약 마이녹실, 로게인 등 바르는 탈모약은 경우 처방전 없이 약국에서 바로 구매 가능합니다. 형님들 약처방처음인데 내과가도 되나요. thisvid fd

tumbex porn 피부과에서 그 처방전 코드가 없을꺼임. 탈모 처방되는 약 리스트 자체가 없어서 아무 내과. 약값피나스테리드프로페시아 카피 개당 400원대,두타스테리드아보다트 카피 개당 500원대360알 기준피나 약 1415만원대두타. 동네 내과갔는데 내가먹는약 처방안해줄라고함 탈모 갤러리. 병원명 수원시 호매실동 늘편한내과 친절도 4. tobe2495445

sss 곤장 트위터 부평 탈모약 성지 1년 처방가능 탈모 갤러리. 부평 탈모약 성지 1년 처방가능 탈모 갤러리. 소화 안 돼서 가려는데 탈모약 3개월이나 6개월 해 달라고 하면 처방비 추가 되나. 2023년 말에 개정되어 비대면으로는 12개월 360알에서 3개월로 처방전 기간이 줄었다. 6개월 정도 지나니 많이 좋아진 것 같았어요. tgtube like

thisvid.vom 직접 병원에 가지 않고도 처방받을 수 있는 탈모약 비대면 처방 방법에 대해 아래에서 자세히 설명해 드릴게요. Com › 탈모약처방받는법약값탈모약 처방 받는법 3가지 ft. 또 처방 기간에 따라 상이할 수 있습니다. Io › healthlab › faq탈모약은 어떻게 처방받나요. Io › healthlab › faq탈모약은 어떻게 처방받나요.

tpr스 만화 이른바 탈모 성지는 1년 처방전이 1만원 이하인 의원, 약 1개당 500원 이하로 조제하는 약국을 말한다. 공보의의 재량이라 해주는 곳도 있고, 안해주는 곳도 있습니다. 235 맞음, 약국 마다 구비된 약이 다. Com › xvdcijdni › 223938625437탈모약 병원 처방 어디서 받아야 할까 네이버 블로그. 이런 거 홈닥터하면 동네점빵 의원 갈 이유가 없지피부과는 모르겠노그런데 의사 존나 늘려서 피부과도 경쟁 시키면 ㅋㅋ.

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.