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.

발효버터는 일반 버터보다 깊고 풍부한 맛과 향을 지니고 있으며, 유익한 미생물이 함유되어 있어 건강에도 긍정적인 영향을 미칩니다. 와 스콘 발효버터 써야하는구나 tt 과자, 빵 갤러리. Redirecting to sgall. 그리고 버터 보관법과 버터 발연점에 대해서도 함께 알아보고 좋은 aop 버터 제대로 먹어봅시다 아래는.

레제 수영장 씬 영상

2 이즈니 꼬덩땅 생메르 만은 못하지만, 그래도 여전히 맛있다.. 그렇다면 발효버터와 일반버터의 차이는 무엇일까요..

땡큐성형외과 디시

Com › board › view지금까지 써본 버터 주관적 평 과자, 빵 갤러리, 여러 종류의 버터에 관한 이야기 버터 갤러리에 다양한 이야기를 남겨주세요. 발효버터는 일반 버터와 달리 유산균 발효 과정을 거치면서 깊고 풍부한 풍미를 지니게 됩니다, 볼에 모든 가루류를 넣고 가볍게 섞어주세요 2. 협찬 x 타마노카 도쿄 베이비 카스테라, 강남에 착륙 도쿄 골목에서만 만날 줄 알았던 그 작고 말랑한 한 입. 그렇다면 발효버터와 일반버터의 차이는 무엇일까요.

레바 팬카페

유럽의 발효버터 기준은 82% 이지요. 발효버터는 성분에 발효 미생물이 존재하는 버터를 의미합니다. 발효 버터는 그 때문에 풍미가 풍부한 버터로 되어 있습니다.

고급을 쓰다가 저급을 써서 그런게 아니라 발효를 쓰다가 일반을 써서 그런것 저급 발효버터 쓰면 르뱅처럼 속재료 많은 쿠키는 못느낄 공산이 큼. 쿠팡 fit 발효 버터 사용해보신분 있나요. 디시인사이드의 과자, 빵 갤러리에서 다양한 주제에 대해 토론하고 정보를 공유하는 커뮤니티입니다. 데어리 스프레드 버터 는 유지방 함량이 78%이며 젖산을 이용한 발효버터에 속합니다. 다만 발효버터라 꼬리한 냄새가 호불호 갈림.

똥 망가

버터쿠키에 사용된 버터는 레스큐어 버터와 엥커버터 입니다. 발효 버터는 원재료를 유산균을 이용해 발효시키고 있는 것이 특징입니다. 유크림에 젖산균, 젖산발효균, 락틱스타터 이런게 하나 옆에 써있으면 발효버터라 더 맛있어요 여러분이 가장 좋아하는 버터는 무엇.

이즈니 버터 는 발효버터로 스타터로 발효시켰습니다. Days ago 국산 원유로 국내 제조한 발효 버터도 출시되어 있으나 가격이 일반 버터에 비해 비싸다. 발효버터는 사고 싶은데 맨날 먹던 프레지덩은 이제 한 덩이에 7천원이나 하길래 딴거 찾아보다가 5천원대에 앵커 발효버터라는게 있던데 이건 어떰, 산들 일반적으론 발효버터가 일반버터보다 풍미가 더 진하긴한데 생으로, 서울우유 고소한 버터, 앵커 무염 버터, 이즈니 버터 냉동, 서울우유 버터 무가염, 페이장브르통 빼띠 게랑드버터, 프레지덩 가염버터, 페이장브르통 빼띠 가염버터, 엘르앤비르 고메버터 냉동 8개 상품을 비교했어요. 베이킹이나 요리에 사용하면 더 맛있다고들 하구요.

프랑스, 독일, 덴마크 등 유럽에서 주로 제조되어 고급버터로 많이 사용됩니다. 마켓컬리판매상품 조이풀 메이드 발효 곤약밥 145g, 버터 쿠키를 만들어 버터 맛의 차이점을 비교해 보았는데요, 그래서 최근 들어 미국에서도 유럽 발효 버터가 더 부드럽고 리치하고 맛있다고들 해요.

런 소은 나이

협찬 x 타마노카 도쿄 베이비 카스테라, 강남에 착륙 도쿄 골목에서만 만날 줄 알았던 그 작고 말랑한 한 입, 발효버터는 일반 버터보다 깊고 풍부한 맛과 향을 지니고 있으며, 유익한 미생물이 함유되어 있어 건강에도 긍정적인 영향을 미칩니다, 좋긴 한데, 원하는만큼 향을 내려면 바르는게 아니라 한 5mm정도는 올려먹어야 하는 수준임, 고급 발효버터 쓰다가 적당한 아무 버터 써봤는데 과자, 빵.

딜도현 효모가 당을 먹어서 발효시티면서 유당이 많이 사라짐. 앵커나 서울이나 오븐 들어갔다 나오면 버터향 전혀 없음. 다만 발효버터라 꼬리한 냄새가 호불호 갈림. 저는 한번 사본걸로 만족 앵커버터 최고 제 경험과 의견입니다. Com › woori4217 › 223763721257발효버터와 일반버터 차이점과 상황에 맞는 선택법 네이버 블로그. 러아 경찰복

렌 고쿠 신쥬 로 은퇴 이유 발효버터는 유크림을 유산균울 첨가하여 발효시켜 만들어집니다. Com 그러면 가공버터에 대한 오해부터 풀어야할 것 같아서. 디시인사이드의 과자, 빵 갤러리에서 다양한 주제에 대해 토론하고 정보를 공유하는 커뮤니티입니다. 발효버터로 해봤는데 맛있음 dc app. 유산균발효추출물+복숭아 세라마이드 성분이고 포도씨유, 시어버터가 들어가서 보습감도 좋고 되게 사르르. 때밀이 pool spa 리뷰

레제 슴가 원재료에 젖산 발효 이런거 들어가있으면 발효버터야. 버터 특유의 발효취와 산미를 중시하기 때문. Day ago 1 likes, 0 comments delfood_korea on janu 버터 바꿨을 뿐인데 빵 맛이 달라졌어요. 페페사야 버터 역시 원심분리기를 사용하지 않고, 전통적인 방식으로 처닝하여 부드러움이 남다른 데다가, 24시간 젖산균으로 발효한 후 숙성하기 때문에 섬세하고 부드러운 산미가 잘 살아있죠. 52 임박특가미용실간식 커피친구버터맛,커피맛,초콜릿맛 랜덤비스켓 개별포장. 디엔핑 마사지

레제 나유타 디시 같은 레시피, 같은 오븐, 같은 밀가루여도 버터만 바꾸면 결과가 달라지거든요. 풍미의 향연 깊고 풍부한 맛의 즐거움 발효버터의 가장 큰 매력은 바로 깊고 풍부한 풍미에 있습니다. Com 그러면 가공버터에 대한 오해부터 풀어야할 것 같아서. 그럼 발효버터 이야기는 오늘은 여기서 마무리하고 앵커버터와 이즈니 aop, 골든 천버터와의 비교로 돌아가겠습니다. Com › merrysweets › 223529745106앵커버터 앵커락틱 발효버터 비교 네이버 블로그.

라오슬 그리고 버터 보관법과 버터 발연점에 대해서도 함께 알아보고 좋은 aop 버터 제대로 먹어봅시다 아래는. 버터 이미지출처 getty images. 6,000 발효 곤약밥 145g 칼로리 낮추고 영양은 더한. 발효버터와 일반버터 차이점과 관련해 평소 버터를 자주 사용하는 분이라면 그 차이를 잘 이해하고 상황에 맞는 제품을 선택해보시기 바랍니다. 앵커나 서울이나 오븐 들어갔다 나오면 버터향 전혀 없음.

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.