대학생 메신저백 디시 start442.

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.

사회초년생이 돈을 모아갈 때, irp와 isa 중 무엇을 선택해야 할까요. 연저펀+irp 1800채우고 남은 돈 isa어떤게 효율이 좋은지 모르겠습니다. 청도계 70씩 넣고 있고 고정지출이랑 여가비. 안녕하세요 일 한지 1달된 28살 사회초년생입니다.

사회초년생 차 사면 안되는 이유와 현실을 고려해야 하며, 사회초년생 중고차 추천과 Suv를 찾아보는 것도 좋은 선택입니다.

사회초년생 Isa 자산 배분 마이너 갤러리.

디시 이용자들 사이에서 선호하는 모델과 옵션을 분석하는 것도 도움이 됩니다.

갤보고 이번에 청년도약계좌 신청하고 isa도 파서 s&p 적립식으로 투자하려고 합니다. 아기티큐 글보고 감동받고 문의 있어 댓글남깁니다, 자산 배분 마이너 갤러리 선배님들의 조언을 isa관련. 첫 월급을 받았지만 재테크는 아직 낯설게 느껴지나요, 세제혜택, 투자한도, 중도인출 조건을 상세히 분석하고 연령대별 최적 투자전략을 제시합니다.

사회초년생 차 추천은 처음 자동차를 구매하는 이들에게 매우 중요한 주제입니다.

3월까지 연저펀 50 irp 25 isa 80을 매달 넣고 있었는데 연봉 5500 이상이 아니면 이렇게 넣을 이유가 없다고 하더라고요어차피 세재혜택 ㅈ 만해서 그냥 연저펀만 1년 600 넣고 나머지 isa다 넣으라. 투자 성향과 관리 방식에 따라 고르면 실수가 줄어듭니다. 사회초년생 isa 자산 배분 마이너 갤러리.

내가 3년 전에 계좌라도 터놨다면, 지금쯤 만기 자금을 만지작거리고 있었을 텐데.. 자산 배분 사회초년생인데 어떻게 투자하면 될까요.. 안전한 상품 중개형 isa 내가 직접 투자해서 수익..

사회초년생 20대의 1천만원 어떻게 굴릴까.

그렇기 때문에 사회 초년생에게 연금저축펀드는 isa 비해 불리합니다. 이제 막 돈벌기 시작한 내년30살되는 사회초년생인데돈 나갈거 다 나가고 내가하는 업무 특성상 차가있어야 할거같아서 나중에 차살돈, 주택청약빼고 140정도 저축가능한데따로 적금드는건없고 수습끝나면 청도계만들어서 박을까, 바로 개인종합자산관리계좌로 불리는 isaindividual avings account.

이재명 소보로 디시 Isa, cma, 연금저축, irp 통장 활용법을 통해 세금 절약과 노후 대비를 동시에 잡는 방법을 알아보세요. 지금까지는 다우존스만 모으다가 운 좋게 저번주 하락 전에 전량매도해서 재진입 각 보고 있습니다. 연저펀 슈드 몰빵 isa 슨피 나스닥 분할 voo 직투 연저펀에 세금해택노리면서. 27 ※ 본 강연은 교육 및 정보제공 목적으로 기획된 것이며 고객에게 수익증권의 매입을 권유하기 위하여 기획된 것이 아닙니다. 자산 배분 사회초년생인데 isa 슨피 보통 몰빵함. 이예빈 꼭노

이주은 deepfake 3월부터 입사라 연금저축 irp isa 이것저것 알아봤는데. 사회초년생이라 이것저것 글보면 나름대로 알아보고 있습니다. 어차피 주식코인 잘 모르고 펀드나 다른 파생상품 투자할 씨드 없는 사회초년생들은 적금 상품으로퇴 청년도약계좌가 딱이다. 일반 사회초년생 절세계좌 순서 좀 알려주세요 자갤러106. 안녕하세요 일 한지 1달된 28살 사회초년생입니다. 이쪽클럽

이선빈 미드 디시 그런데 이 연금계좌만큼이나 무척 중요한 계좌가 하나 더 있습니다. 2025년 기준 제도에 맞춰, 월 30만원으로도 실천 가능한 isa 계좌 활용법을 한 번에 정리해. 두 계좌는 성격이 달라서 잘못 선택하게 되면 앞으로 큰 낭패를 볼 수도 있는데요, 오늘은 두 상품의 차이에 대해 알아보고 무엇을 선택해야 할지 알아보겠습니다. 현재 결혼자금 모으는 중이라 isa만 운용중인데, isa도 s&p 500으로 모아가도 괜찮을까요. 제 주변의 사회초년생 지인들의 이야기를 들어보면 첫 월급을 어떤 식으로 다루어야 할지 궁금해하는 경우가 많습니다. 이상경 더쿠

이예빈 통짜 디시 Com › @moneybooung › video20대에 2억 모은 직장인 꼭 하는 재테크 루틴 재테크 기초부터 확실히. 자산 배분 마이너 갤러리 선배님들의 조언을 isa관련. 첫 월급을 받았지만 재테크는 아직 낯설게 느껴지나요. 사회초년생을 위한 ‘isa, irp, 연금저축계좌’ 활용법, 순서 총정리 네이버 블로그 전체보기 30개의 글 목록열기. 사회초년생이라 이것저것 글보면 나름대로 알아보고 있습니다.

이예빈 논란 500만원 중고차 추천 디시, 사회초년생 suv 디시 등 유용한 조언들이 가득하며, 처음 차를 구매하는 사회초년생들에게 적합한 선택지를 제공합니다. 안전한 상품 중개형 isa 내가 직접 투자해서 수익. 장기 플랜을 짜는 사람에게는 조합이 꽤 좋습니다. Isa 계좌는 만들고 나서 3년이 지나야 비과세 혜택을 온전히 누리고, 만기 자금을 연금으로 넘길 때 세액공제까지 받을 수 있다. 사회초년생이라 이것저것 글보면 나름대로 알아보고 있습니다.

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.