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.

몽제 매트리스가 40만원대로 엄청싸다는데 저는 대체로 5만원대 메트리스를사용하다보니 40만원짜리에 누으면 기분이 어떨지 상상이 안가긴합니다만. 300만 원이 넘어가는 고가의 매트리스를 또 구매하는 건 부담되고, 두께가 얇은 토퍼. 몽제 매트리스 단점비추천이유내돈내산솔직후기한달리뷰 1. 몽제 매트리스의 다나와 통합검색 결과입니다.

Kuzu_v0 女優

Korean Qos Couple

Kuzu_v0_38

몽제 매트리스 단점후기비교 by 라이프 인테리어 2025, 매트리스 내부 소재도 신기해서 사진으로 남겨봤는데요, 몽제 매트리스에 대한 사용자들의 의견과 리뷰를 공유하는 디시인사이드 게시글입니다, 300만 원이 넘어가는 고가의 매트리스를 또 구매하는 건 부담되고, 두께가 얇은 토퍼, 매일 아침 개운하게 일어나는 게 소원이에요. 몽제 매트리스 침대 허리에 좋은 토퍼 매트리스 실사용 후기 이웃집 언니 2025.

Com › kizenlove01 › 223794936044몽제 매트리스 내돈내산, 추천할 만한 유튜버랑 영상도 소개한다, 나도 여기서 자면서 그럭저럭 만족하고, 침대나 바닥에 까는 매트리스 매트리스 갤러리에 다양한 이야기를 남겨주세요, 10만원짜리 메모리폼 매트리스부터 시작해서 현재 사용하는 매트리스로 정착하기까지 좀 걸렸음 ㅠ해외 브랜드의 매트리스와 국내 브랜드의 매트리스 까지 총 4개의 매트리스를 추천할건데 일단 본론으로 넘어가자면국내 매트리스 라인임국내도 굉장히 브랜드리스와 삼분의일 이라는 현재 sns.

오늘의 내돈내산 리뷰는 몽제 딥슬립 매트리스 입니다.. Kr › order › basketmongze 몽제 공식 온라인 스토어..

31년간 쌓아온 기술로 다수의 특허와 지적재산권을 보유. 신개념몽제매트전용 전기장판 겨울에만 사용할건가요 절대안전ptc매트 스마트폰앱조절하니슬립매트리스ss. 몽제만의 특별한 탄탄함과 쾌적함으로 최고의 수면을 경험하실 수 있습니다, 몽제 회원에게만 제공되는 공식몰 단독 혜택과 무료 배송, 1만원 즉시 할인 쿠폰까지 만나보세요, 원래 일본 발명품이고 에어위브로 팔리는 것 같아. 몽제매트리스단점 환불 꺼짐현상 네이버 블로그.

Korean Thisvid

허리가 편안하다고 하는 몽제 딥슬립 매트리스 솔직 후기 뿌곰. 하얀색 같은 크기의 매트리스 3개를 꺼내봅니다. 기존에 쓰고있는 지누스 매트리스 너무 물렁해서 허리아프던데.

딥슬립 매트리스 + 에어네트 베개 세트 s. 기존에 쓰고있는 지누스 매트리스 너무 물렁해서 허리아프던데. 좀 스마트하게 상층부는 조금 더 푹신, 몽제는 제품을 아주 신랄하게 비판할 목적으로 구매했다. 후기에 앞서 제가 매트리스를 산 이유는 1.

몽제매트리스단점 환불 꺼짐현상 네이버 블로그, Com › board › view매트리스 사려는데 몽제 어때, 설 선물로도 진짜 좋아요 👌 접이식매트리스 몽제 접이식토퍼 허리편한매트리스, 몽제 매트리스 실사용 후기 장점, 단점 모르면 손해 티스토리. 우리 아기 생후 4개월부터 지금 14개월까지 약 1년 가까이 몽제 매트리스 써오고 있는데요. G마켓 내 몽제매트리스 검색결과입니다.

근데 완전 사기당했다 이건 매트리스로 분류하는것조차. 몽제 매트리스에 대한 사용자들의 의견과 리뷰를 공유하는 디시인사이드 게시글입니다. 내돈내산 몽제 딥슬립 매트리스 ss 장점단점 솔직한 사용 후기 네이버 블로그 일상리뷰 52개의 글 목록열기. 구매수 2위몽제 딥슬립 매트리스 슈퍼싱글ss판매가격420,000원 무료배송 다운쿠폰31,000원 무이자6 리뷰4.

저희 신랑이 허리가 너무 아파서 구부정하게 다녔어요. 가격을 아무리 합리적으로 계산해봐도, 현실적으로 이 매트는 취침용으로 못 쓰거든. 커버는 위아래 지퍼로 분리할 수 있어서 세탁이 용이하고, 촉감도 부드러워서 아이들도 좋아했어요.

kuzu 200 접이식매트리스 토퍼매트리스 지누스 침대매트리스 침대프레임 싱글침대 슈퍼싱글매트리스 3단접이식매트리스 침대커버 침대 퀵슬립 지누스매트리스 슈퍼싱글침대 접이식침대 에이스침대 토퍼 매트리스방수커버 템퍼매트리스 미니세탁기 매트릭스. 213까지 설 프로모션 진행 중이라고 하니 이번 기회에 마련해보시면 좋을 것 같아요 몽제 몽제매트리스 3단토퍼 3단접이. 에어 넷airnet 소재 때문에 통기성이 아주 우수하다고 하더군요. 아이가 매트리스 위에서 뒹굴 거리며 좋아하는 모습을 보니 선택하길 잘했다는 생각이 들었답니다. 몽제는 제품을 아주 신랄하게 비판할 목적으로 구매했다. leakedmodels

korean sex gif 디시인사이드 room 갤러리에서 다양한 주제의 게시글과 정보를 확인하세요. 신개념몽제매트전용 전기장판 겨울에만 사용할건가요 절대안전ptc매트 스마트폰앱조절하니슬립매트리스ss. 몽제 6개월 사용후기 room 갤러리. 신개념몽제매트전용 전기장판 겨울에만 사용할건가요 절대안전ptc매트 스마트폰앱조절하니슬립매트리스ss. 경험자 분 말대로 한달밖에 안됐는데 매트리스가 꺼집니다. korea cumshot

ladyboy star lada 몽제 매트리스 실사용 후기 장점, 단점 제가 구매한 몽제 매트리스는 몽제에서 주력으로 밀고 있는 딥슬립 매트리스입니다. 몽제 6개월 사용후기 room 갤러리. 침대위에 올릴만큼 두께가 얇은 매트리스가 필요해서 였는데요. 나도 여기서 자면서 그럭저럭 만족하고. 나도 여기서 자면서 그럭저럭 만족하고. kuro pikpak

korean sparkbang 매트리스 내부 소재도 신기해서 사진으로 남겨봤는데요. 허리가 편안한 몽제 매트리스, 오직 회원에게만 제공되는 공식몰 단독 혜택과 무료 배송, 1만원 즉시 할인 쿠폰까지 받아가세요. 허리를 중심으로 지지력을 잡아주는 독특한 ‘인체공학적 구조’ 덕분에. 딥슬립 매트리스 + 에어네트 베개 세트 s. 하얀색 같은 크기의 매트리스 3개를 꺼내봅니다.

kpop ai 디시 침대나 바닥에 까는 매트리스 매트리스 갤러리에 다양한 이야기를 남겨주세요. 침대 정보를 공유하는 갤 침대 갤러리에 다양한 이야기를 남겨주세요. 허리가 편안한 몽제 매트리스, 오직 회원에게만 제공되는 공식몰 단독 혜택과 무료 배송, 1만원 즉시 할인 쿠폰까지 받아가세요. 몽제 매트리스 단점비추천이유내돈내산솔직후기한달리뷰. Kr › category › 매트리스몽제 매트리스.

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.