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.

해외 메이플스토리에서 정확하게 측정되었다. 매그맥스 2 사이즈감 관련 다시 체크해봄 러닝 마이너 갤러리. 기본 스팩과 착용감 가격 239,000원 무게 270mm 기준 290g 280mm 317g으로 측정 미드솔 2세대 나이트로 폼 tpee+peba+질소 46mm 스텍 8mm 오프셋 발볼 디비에이트 나이트로. 사실 요즘 맥스쿠셔닝화 들을 전부 반업해서 신고있는데요.

Macoto 離婚

매그맥스 2 확실히 잘나옴 10k 테스트 러닝 마이너 갤러리.. 무게가 단점이라고 하는데 어짜피 슈블2나 노블4를 가지고 대회나갈 것도 아니고 평소에 트레이닝이 목적이니 매그맥스 신고 연습하다가 레이싱화 한번 신어주면 날아갈 듯한 기분이 들..

Redirecting to sgall. 일반 매그맥스 나이트로2 출시 예정일이 내년3월이네요, 일반 매그맥스 나이트로2 출시 예정일이 내년3월이네요. 그러나 맥스쿠션화 중 보메로플러스, 본디9 외에 매그맥스보다 반발력 높은 신발 못찾음, 매그맥스 신고 10k 2회 뛰었음 본인 발 사이즈 273, 10.

Mib 수연 트위터

Com › board › running푸마 매그맥스2 리뷰, 일반 매그맥스1 좋아하는 유트브2명다. 내가 프로급이 아니라서 그런지 모르겠는데 카본도 없는 매그맥스 나이트로가 이렇게 좋을줄 몰랐다, 매맥이 보플에 많이 밀리는게 무게가 좀 컸는데 이정도면 보플보다 가벼운건데 보플 280mm 297g이였는데 지금 매맥1이랑 보플보다 차이가 더크니 read more, 일반 매그맥스 나이트로2 출시 예정일이 내년3월이네요.

Redirecting to sgall, 평상시 일반 뜀박질때 신을려고 하는데푸마 매그맥스 나이트로아식스 노바블라스트5 뭐를 고를지15킬로 정도 뛰면 사진처럼. Com › luxafeta › 223807113079퓨마 매그맥스 나이트로 puma magmax nitro 짧은 후기, 무게와 사이즈 무게는 조금 무겁게 느껴져서, 빠른 달리기보다는 조깅에 더 적합하다는 생각이 들었다, 오늘 매장가서 2신오 봤는데 확실히 1에 비하면 딱딱한 편인데 절라 쫀쫀하더라 dc app. 아식스, 온275 사이즈 잘 신고 뜀박질하고 있어푸마가 발볼이 좁아 반치수 업하라는 말들이 있던데매그맥스나이트로는.

Lpl 웬디 남친

무게가 단점이라고 하는데 어짜피 슈블2나 노블4를 가지고 대회나갈 것도 아니고 평소에 트레이닝이 목적이니 매그맥스 신고 연습하다가 레이싱화 한번 신어주면 날아갈 듯한 기분이 들. Com › buenopaulo › 223589808429매그맥스, 조깅 러닝 ok, 사이즈는 반업. 매맥1 신고 있는데 발등이나 발볼이 여유가 있으니 매맥2도 큰 불편함은 없을 듯함, Com › mgallery › board형들 과체중 푸마 매그맥스 vs 매그니파이3 선택존 러닝 마이너 갤. 특히 장거리 러너들에게는 충격 흡수와 안정성이 뛰어난 러닝화가 필수적인데요.

mib 아인 섹스 평상시 일반 뜀박질때 신을려고 하는데푸마 매그맥스 나이트로아식스 노바블라스트5 뭐를 고를지15킬로 정도 뛰면 사진처럼. 매그맥스2 후기가 안올라오네요 러닝 마이너 갤러리. 매맥1 신고 있는데 발등이나 발볼이 여유가 있으니 매맥2도 큰 불편함은 없을 듯함. 푸마가 미드솔 좋은거 아끼지 않고 벨로시티,매그니파이에 풀 페바 때려박고 메이저 브랜드 중에 atpu도 처음 쓴거보면 기획 방향만 잘 잡고 매그맥스2 같은거에 기존 tpee나 atpu 전장 때려박고 어퍼만 디나엘3같은 어퍼 설계로 만들면. 아침에 몸이 덜 풀려서 페이스 차이가 있을 수도 있는데, 확실히 롤링 크기 차이가 느껴짐. little miss delinquent webtoon latest

likey 뚫는법 매그맥스의 나이트로폼은 매그니파이2의 나이트로폼보다 엘리트1, 2의 나이트로엘리트와 닮았음. Com › board › running매그맥스2 평이 별로구먼 러닝 마이너 갤러리. 푸마 매그맥스 나이트로 리뷰 🏃‍♂️🔥러닝을 즐기는 사람들이 점점 많아지면서, 편안한 착화감과 우수한 쿠셔닝을 제공하는 러닝화에 대한 관심도 높아지고 있습니다. 중족부에 파워테이프측면에 보이는 덧대어진 디테일가 얇지만 더 넓은 면적에 분포하게 바뀜으로 인해서인지 중족부가 더 잡히는 느낌으로 타이트 read more. 이번에 출시한 매그맥스는 네이밍에서 짐작할 수 있듯이. midareuchi7

libido monster pikpak 아침에 몸이 덜 풀려서 페이스 차이가 있을 수도 있는데, 확실히 롤링 크기 차이가 느껴짐. 매그맥스 극찬한 유튜버 매그맥스2 너무 실망한거 같은뎅. 10km 5분 10초대 페이스로 뛰어보니 쿠션화답지 않게 튕켜주는 맛이 좋다푹신푹신x 푹신+탱탱0현재 아디오스 프로4나이트로3앤돌핀. 매맥1 신고 있는데 발등이나 발볼이 여유가 있으니 매맥2도 큰 불편함은 없을 듯함. Ar100민수용 dr200민수용 dr300민수용 max2. mib 불법 링크

mib ca201 구입 동기 자체가 전천후 조깅 + lsd 용이었고 그에 따라 철저히 발이 편한지 끝나고 발에 데미지는. 매그맥스 신고 10k 2회 뛰었음 본인 발 사이즈 273, 10. ㅣ 푸마 매그맥스 나이트로 2 리뷰 puma magmax nitro 2 reveiw 매그맥스2 푸마러닝화 맥스쿠션러닝화 러닝화리뷰 러닝 러닝화추천※ 제가 러닝 하면서 느낀 점을 영상으로 만들었습니다. 1년뒤에 마니올라올듯ㅋㅋ dc app. 구입 동기 자체가 전천후 조깅 + lsd 용이었고 그에 따라 철저히 발이 편한지 끝나고 발에 데미지는.

meeff 야동 매맥1 신고 있는데 발등이나 발볼이 여유가 있으니 매맥2도 큰 불편함은 없을 듯함. 사실 요즘 맥스쿠셔닝화 들을 전부 반업해서 신고있는데요. Com › board › running푸마 매그맥스 나이트로 사이즈 질문 러닝 마이너 갤러리. 매맥이 보플에 많이 밀리는게 무게가 좀 컸는데 이정도면 보플보다 가벼운건데 보플 280mm 297g이였는데 지금 매맥1이랑 보플보다 차이가 더크니 read more. 기본 스팩과 착용감 가격 239,000원 무게 270mm 기준 290g 280mm 317g으로 측정 미드솔 2세대 나이트로 폼 tpee+peba+질소 4.

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.