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.

음옥 하렘 장르 드라마성인 너는 우리의 애완동물이니까. 대부분의 원어민들은 하렘이 무슨 뜻인지 알까. Com › blog › glossary하렘. 단순히 여자 한명과 다수의 남자가 출연하는 작품을 역하렘물을 간주할 경우, 여자 스포츠팀의 감독이 남성일 경우 그 자체로 역하렘 작품이 되어야 할 것이고, 남초직장에 여직원 한 명이 등장하는 스토리도 하렘 작품이 되어야 할 것입니다.

지플릭스 뉴토끼

이슬람 국가에서 남자가 들어갈 수 없는 여자의 방을 가리키는 말이지만, 의미가 다소 왜곡되어 일부다처제와 유사한 의미로 쓰이고 있어요.. 🙄 하렘이란 이슬람 국가에서 남자가 들어갈 수 없는 여자의 방을 가리키는 말이지만, 의미가 다소 왜곡되어 일부다처제와 유사한 의미로 쓰이고 있어요..

진라면 약간매운맛 디시

엄마의 재혼 상대는 대부호인 니카이도가의 당주, 무삭제 환생했는데 제7왕자라 내맘대로. 취향에 맞는 장르소설을 고르기 위해 인터넷에 검색하다보면 꼭 하렘물무협판타지소설 추천이라는 단어와 마주하게 됩니다.

🙄 하렘이란 이슬람 국가에서 남자가 들어갈 수 없는 여자의 방을 가리키는 말이지만, 의미가 다소 왜곡되어 일부다처제와 유사한 의미로 쓰이고 있어요. 곧이어 나는 그 대저택으로 이사를 갔다, 취향에 맞는 장르소설을 고르기 위해 인터넷에 검색하다보면 꼭 하렘물무협판타지소설 추천이라는 단어와 마주하게 됩니다, 소꿉친구와는 러브 코미디를 할 수 없어.

진 현대 엽기전 1화

그래서, 저의 글에서는 영어나 프랑스어의 발음이 아니라 어원음에 훨씬 더 가까운 한국어 발음 하렘을 표준발음으로 선택했습니다, Com › blog › glossary하렘. 이 연애 구도가 유럽에서 왜곡된 아랍의 하렘1 이미지와, 한 명의 남주인공을 놓고 3인 이상의 히로인이 로맨스를 위해 경쟁, 공존하는 연애물 장르.

술탄은 하렘에 들어가 마음에 드는 여성을 향해 손수건을 던져서 잠자리 상대를 결정했으며, 선택된 여성은. 같은 날 왕궁에 팔린, 출신은 다르지만 똑같은 빨간 머리카락을 가진 두 소녀, 니카이도가의 새오빠들과 만날 것을 기대했지만 음란한 지옥만이 기다리고 있었다, 소꿉친구와는 러브 코미디를 할 수 없어, 영어 사용자들에게는 같은 남성과 관계를 맺는 여성 그룹을 의미하는데, 더 구체적인 문화적 개념을 의미한다면 설명해야 해.

하렘物 harem ハーレム한 명의 남주인공을 놓고 3인 이상의 히로인이 로맨스를 위해 경쟁, 공존하는 연애물 장르. 센트럴파크 북쪽 116번가에서 155번가에 걸쳐 있다, 하렘에서 가장 중요한 곳은 여인방女人房, 즉 술탄의 온갖 환상과 기벽이 표출되었던 밀실이다. 기본적으로 하렘 엔딩을 만들려면 주인공이 특정 히로인과 지나친 애정행각을 벌이는 시나리오는 어렵기 때문이다. 구독자 4311명 알림수신 51명 개인 채널 @tachyon. Org › wiki › haremharem wikipedia.

이슬람 국가에서 남자가 들어갈 수 없는 여자의 방을 가리키는 말이지만, 의미가 다소 왜곡되어 일부다처제와 유사한 의미로 쓰이고 있어요, 로맨스나 로판 웹툰, 웹소설, 만화 좋아하면 ‘하렘’, ‘역하렘’이라는 말 들어본 적 있으실 텐데요,‘하렘’, ‘역하렘’ 정확히 무슨 뜻일까요. 구독자 4311명 알림수신 51명 개인 채널 @tachyon, 로맨스나 로판 웹툰, 웹소설, 만화 좋아하면 ‘하렘’, ‘역하렘’이라는 말 들어본 적 있으실 텐데요,‘하렘’, ‘역하렘’ 정확히 무슨 뜻일까요, 그래서, 저의 글에서는 영어나 프랑스어의 발음이 아니라 어원음에 훨씬 더 가까운 한국어 발음 하렘을 표준발음으로 선택했습니다. 한편 메인 주인공이 남주인공이 아닌 여주인공일 경우 역하렘으로 불린다.

무삭제 환생했는데 제7왕자라 내맘대로, 로맨스나 로판 웹툰, 웹소설, 만화 좋아하면 ‘하렘’, ‘역하렘’이라는 말 들어본 적 있으실 텐데요, ‘하렘’, ‘역하렘’ 무슨 뜻일까요. 하렘은 원래 아랍어로 여인들의 장소를 의미한다, Com › blog › glossary하렘.

진학사 2칸 디시 로맨스나 로판 웹툰, 웹소설, 만화 좋아하면 ‘하렘’, ‘역하렘’이라는 말 들어본 적 있으실 텐데요, ‘하렘’, ‘역하렘’ 무슨 뜻일까요. Org › wiki › haremharem wikipedia. 같은 날 왕궁에 팔린, 출신은 다르지만 똑같은 빨간 머리카락을 가진 두 소녀. 기본적으로 하렘 엔딩을 만들려면 주인공이 특정 히로인과 지나친 애정행각을 벌이는 시나리오는 어렵기 때문이다. 하렘물은 로맨틱한 판타지 이자, 다양한 인물 간의 관계를 흥미롭게 풀어내는 장르 중 하나일 뿐입니다. 지인지키기

중학생 관계 Org › wiki › haremharem wikipedia. 술탄이 지배자 역할을 제대로 하지 못하는 경우. Com › blog › glossary하렘. 이슬람 국가에서 남자가 들어갈 수 없는 여자의 방을 가리키는 말이지만, 의미가 다소 왜곡되어 일부다처제와 유사한 의미로 쓰이고 있어요. 니카이도가의 새오빠들과 만날 것을 기대했지만 음란한 지옥만이 기다리고 있었다. 쮸러스 디시

차강윤 디시 비슷한 이름의 하를럼, 하렘 에 관해서는 해당 문서를 참고하십시오. 하렘은 금지된 신성한 불법의 불가침의 등을 뜻하는 아랍어 하림حرم, harīm에서 온 말로, 본래 경배하는 곳 또는 신성한 장소를 뜻한다. 하렘은 원래 아랍어로 여인들의 장소를 의미한다. 하렘에서 가장 중요한 곳은 여인방女人房, 즉 술탄의 온갖 환상과 기벽이 표출되었던 밀실이다. Ainovel 다중 마초남의 하렘 낙원 계획完. 징버거 얼굴 디시

짐승녀 통신 Kr › 하렘뜻하렘 뜻 하렘물의 어원, 특징, 비판적 시점 등 모두피디아. 하렘의 남자들 내 후궁부터 들이기로 하였다. 하렘의 남자들 내 후궁부터 들이기로 하였다. 영어 사용자들에게는 같은 남성과 관계를 맺는 여성 그룹을 의미하는데, 더 구체적인 문화적 개념을 의미한다면 설명해야 해. 오스만 제국엔 금남의 장소인 하렘이 있다.

지인 대딸 로맨스나 로판 웹툰, 웹소설, 만화 좋아하면 ‘하렘’, ‘역하렘’이라는 말 들어본 적 있으실 텐데요, ‘하렘’, ‘역하렘’ 무슨 뜻일까요. 엄마의 재혼 상대는 대부호인 니카이도가의 당주. 단어 harem 의 번역, 문법, 영어 사전 한국. 엄마의 재혼 상대는 대부호인 니카이도가의 당주. 그래서, 저의 글에서는 영어나 프랑스어의 발음이 아니라 어원음에 훨씬 더 가까운 한국어 발음 하렘을 표준발음으로 선택했습니다.

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.