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.

Com › entry › 포르투갈물가포르투갈 물가 수준은. 포르투갈, 특히 포르투는 더 이상 ‘물가 저렴한 여행지’는 아닐 수도 있습니다. 포르투갈 물가, 유럽은 물가가 다 비쌀까. 저는 포르투갈에선 프랑스, 영국에 비해 굉장히 저렴하다고 느끼면서 먹었던 것 같아요 ㅎㅎ 포르투갈 가기 직전에 영국, 프랑스, 네덜란드 물가 비싼 나라들 위주로 다녔거든요.

F2 Video Rankings

바이샤시아두 같은 중심지는 1박 1825만 원대, 알파마나 알칸타라 쪽은 12만 원대부터 시작해요.. 해외는 커녕 국내여행도 안가봐서 여행은 이번이 처음..

Erom Sex

Ebwh-054 자막

이 글에서는 실제 포르투갈 물가를 식비, 교통비, 숙박비, 쇼핑 등 항목별로 정리해드립니다.. 이웃인 유럽연합 가입국들, eu 26개국을 자유롭게 왕래할 수 있습니다.. 진짜 무지성 포르투갈 여행기 111완 hit 갤러리.. 한국과 비교해서 물가가 어느정도일지도 궁금하고, 환전은..

Denchi Kemono

포르투갈, 특히 포르투는 더 이상 ‘물가 저렴한 여행지’는 아닐 수도 있습니다, 하지만 여전히 유럽 기준에서는 가성비가 좋은 도시임은 분명합니다. 가격대로 보는 포르투갈 물가체감 포르투갈의 물가는 유럽에서도 저렴한 편에 속한다.

포르투갈에 2년 넘게 거주하고 있는 이민자로서 이민이나 여행을 준비하고 있는 분들에게 도움이 되고자 포르투갈 물가에 대해 써보려고 한다, 포르투갈은 유럽에서 가장 생활비가 저렴한 국가 중 하나로, 특히 주거, 의료, 교통 및 식비에서 매력적인 가격대를 자랑합니다. Com › buyingbymysalary › 223884445831포르투갈 물가 정말 저렴할까. 03 투라라랄 2025년 첫 해외여행의 시작은 포르투갈로 시작합니다 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 자세한 포르투갈, 가격대로 보는 포르투갈 물가체감 포르투갈의 물가는 유럽에서도 저렴한 편에 속한다.

evawxsh voice 싼값에 가기 좋은건 ㄹㅇ 포르투갈이 최고인듯 배낭여행. 추천 검색 키워드 포르투갈경제 포르투갈월급 포르투갈생활물가 포르투갈평균연봉 포르투갈최저임금 포르투갈주거비 포르투갈식료품가격 포르투갈교통비 포르투갈유학비용 포르투갈이민생활 포르투갈이주준비. 이런저런 정보와 능지부족으로 무작정 부딪히는 여행 read more. 포르투갈에서 머무는 동안 돈이 충분할 것 같아. 질문 스페인+포르투갈이 타 유럽국가에 비해 여행비용이 쌀까. download gotanynudes

erome 나라 포르투갈은 유럽 내에서 물가가 저렴한 나라 중 하나로 꼽힙니다. 최근 들어서 상승한 월세와 물가 때문에 경제적으로 여려워진 포르투갈 서민들이 증가하면서 그에 따라 집시와 남아시아인에 대한 혐오정서가 부쩍. 그럼, 오늘 제 경험을 바탕으로 스페인 포르투갈 물가 식비교통비숙박비쇼핑 등으로 구분해서 총정리를 한번 해보도록 할게요. 50 일주일동안 있다가 떠난 포르투갈 전반적으로 유럽 특유의 정취를 느끼기 좋았던 곳이고, 특히 포르투는 구시가지가 아름답기도 하지만 신시가지에도 상징적인 현대 건축물이 있기에 미학적으로 꽤나 다채로운 도시였던듯. 특히 기름값, 주차비, 관광지 입장료까지 생각하면 말이지. dm 움짤 보내기

ehentia ntr 이베리아는 동서로 시세가 갈리는게 아니라 나라에 상관없이 남북으로 갈리지 않노. 아 물론 40유로 이상 정도 써야하는 레스토랑은 최소한 조리 실력과 식재료에 대한 이해도는 갖추고 있더라, 반면 대중식당들 음식맛은 유럽이 아시아 read more. 이번 글에서는 왜 대만 물가는 체감보다 싼 걸까. 그럼, 오늘 제 경험을 바탕으로 스페인 포르투갈 물가 식비교통비숙박비쇼핑 등으로 구분해서 총정리를 한번 해보도록 할게요. 포르투갈에서 머무는 동안 돈이 충분할 것 같아. echi h

ebwh-287 jav 특히 기름값, 주차비, 관광지 입장료까지 생각하면 말이지. 진짜 무지성 포르투갈 여행기 111완 hit 갤러리. 간단하게 물가에 대해서 알려드리면, 지하철 요금 약 2,300원. 기본적인 포르투갈물가 알아보자면, 생수 500ml 800원 내외 인스턴트 커피 10봉 3000원 내외 토마토 250g 4000원 내외 브로콜리 1kg 5000원 내외 대부분 우리나라와 비슷한 수준의 물가가 형성되어 있는데 품목에 따라 달라집니다. 과연 어떤 이유로 많은 유럽국가들 중 포르투갈이민을 결심하는 걸까요.

dfans.co 디시 저희 부부는 2024년 1월에 16박 17일 스페인 포르투갈 자유여행 다녀왔습니. 이 글에서는 실제 포르투갈 물가를 식비, 교통비, 숙박비, 쇼핑 등 항목별로 정리해드립니다. 과연 어떤 이유로 많은 유럽국가들 중 포르투갈이민을 결심하는 걸까요. 추천 검색 키워드 포르투갈경제 포르투갈월급 포르투갈생활물가 포르투갈평균연봉 포르투갈최저임금 포르투갈주거비 포르투갈식료품가격 포르투갈교통비 포르투갈유학비용 포르투갈이민생활 포르투갈이주준비. 모인 모인해외송금 리스본 리스본종물가 해외송금 포르투갈송금 모인글로벌프렌즈 모글즈 유학 포르투갈워홀 포르투갈물가 포르투갈마트 리스본물가 댓글 4 인쇄.

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.