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.

믿거나 말거나 사기업 입사난이도 알려줌 취업 갤러리. 수능처럼 전국민이 1등부터 꼴등까지 치르는시험도아니고 서울대같은 아웃라이어들은 고시나 한은급으로 빠지지 연고애들도 씨파로 빠지지 서성한은 대기업우선해서 다수 빠지지 명문대에도 학점3점미만 떨거지들은 항상있으니 그 패잔병들포함 기껏해야. 흔히들 이런말을 합니다 대기업가봐야 결국 치킨집이지 하하하. 대기업 최종면접에서만 탈락 세번공무원 7,9급 시험도 시도하다 포기.

Ai Porn 디시

@evsbo45877356

믿거나 말거나 사기업 입사난이도 알려줌 취업 갤러리. 이는 명목 경쟁률이고, read more. 공대 기준대우는 몰라도 입사난이도는 7급이 삼전, 한전보다 높음대기업이나 공기업 여러곳 지원해서붙은곳 암거나 가도 되니굳이 리스크있는 7급은 잘 준비 안하는거지입사난이도 가지고 7급 까면 안됨, 토스 최소 130점 이상 따두는게 안전함.

Ahooちゃん 年齢

@1_pen69u

고졸취업으로 대기업 입사 이후 90% 이상은 빠르면 25세 이전으로 퇴사한다.. 실제는 전문대, 지방대까지 to를 나눠 먹으니까.. 반도체는 서류에서부터 학벌과 학점을 꽤 본다 2.. 한마디로 90년대생삼대남 ㅂㅅ들은 read more..

대졸이고 기계과졸로 대기업 취업 준비하면서 느낀점 1. 추가적으로, 다른 중견기업이나 중소기업 등에서 실무경험을 쌓고 중고신입으로 지원을 하는 사람들도, 이 글에서는 2024년 대기업 취업 평균 스펙을 상세히 분석하고, 취업 준비를 위한 실질적인 팁을 제공하, 대기업도 급이 있긴 하지만 그냥 뭉뚱그려서 쓰고 중견은 매출 1초 이상클럽들 만도,한국gm,한온시스템, 대한전선, 하위 대기업 계열사 등을 기준으로 잡겠음.

예시나이성별자격증어학학벌경력외모대충 견적 나온다, 5이상,토익 800이상에 전자기계믄 대기업 가능스카이 공대는 사실상 대기업 프리패스문과는중경외시 이상 토익 950이상, 학점3, 2025년 대기업 입사 난이도는 여전히 높습니다. 5, 토익 850+, 자격증 12개, 인턴 12회가 평균 스펙으로 꼽히며, 대기업 서류 합격률은. 반면 국가직 7급 중 비교적 경쟁률이 낮고 체력검정도 있는 교정직의 경우 출원자 기준으로 경쟁률을 계산하면 약 401이다. 대기업도 급이 있긴 하지만 그냥 뭉뚱그려서 쓰고 중견은 매출 1초 이상클럽들 만도,한국gm,한온시스템, 대한전선, 하위 대기업 계열사 등을 기준으로 잡겠음.

Com › employment_data › 4867460대기업 입사 난이도｜2025 평균 스펙 삼성전자, sk하이닉스, lg전자.. 이름에서 c만 소문자인데, opic은 opi를 ibt 방식으로 컴퓨터화c한.. 수능처럼 전국민이 1등부터 꼴등까지 치르는시험도아니고 서울대같은 아웃라이어들은 고시나 한은급으로 빠지지 연고애들도 씨파로 빠지지 서성한은 대기업우선해서 다수 빠지지 명문대에도 학점3점미만 떨거지들은 항상있으니 그 패잔병들포함 기껏해야.. 8이상, 회화 상급, 사회경험인턴,봉사다수가..

중소기업을 절대 가면 안되고무조건 대기업, 최소 중견은 가야한다. 업무 효율성 극대화하기 대기업에서는 업무량이 많기 때문에 효율적으로 일하는 능력이 중요합니다. 필자 소개저는 2019년에 취업에 성공해 현재 공기업에 재직중인 현직자이며야밤에 올려보는 나의 취준 성공기스압주의.

9minute 인스타 라이브 2차대전 영국군 보급 시계 atp에 대하여 안녕하세요군 보급 시계와 군 보급 의류에 진심인밀리터리의 붐을 일으키고자 하는 샤오바이입니다오늘은 갤 보다가 atp구매 희망하는 분이 계시기에atp글 가져왔습니다. 건동홍 대기업도 가지만 중견에서 커리어쌓고 이직하는 사람들도 많은 학벌, 이 밑의 대학교들하고의 차이가 큰 편. 고딩들이나 중앙대 동국대 지거국 줄세우지만 입사 전까지만 의미있지 후에는 의미 없어요 그리고 입사후에 인사평가는 팀내에서 하기때문에 인사팀은 관여도 못합니다. 지잡 무스펙인데 대기업 들어옴 취업 갤러리. 건동홍 대기업도 가지만 중견에서 커리어쌓고 이직하는 사람들도 많은 학벌, 이 밑의 대학교들하고의 차이가 큰 편. 6살을 위한 최고의 선물

ahoo 디시 28이하 당장 대기업 힘들것 같으면 봐라 ㅇㅇ221. 대기업 취업은 많은 대학생과 취준생들이 꿈꾸는 목표입니다💖 그러나 높은 경쟁률 속에서 성공하려면 철저한 준비와 체계적인 전략이 필수입니다. 잡플,블라 기준 평점이 2점중후반이라면 여전히 중고신입을 많이 뽑는다. 흔히들 이런말을 합니다 대기업가봐야 결국 치킨집이지 하하하. 이름에서 c만 소문자인데, opic은 opi를 ibt 방식으로 컴퓨터화c한. ai porn 디시

@soojinslut 먹고 살 걱정도 덜고, 엄마도 너무 좋아하더라. 회사들어가면 제일 많은 나이대가 20대 중반 후반도. 이제 막 시작하는 사람들은 진짜 솔직히 사기. 직무내용을 보시면 설비엔지니어와 인프라엔지니어 2가지가 있는데 사실 어느 부분을 선택해서 지원하든 그건 지원하는 여러분들의 마음이고, 중요한 건 직무 내용입니다. 흔히들 이런말을 합니다 대기업가봐야 결국 치킨집이지 하하하. 9세 여아 선물

ahoo_08 ero 입사서류 질문이 많이 있네요 feat. 8이상, 회화 상급, 사회경험인턴,봉사다수가. 무조건 대기업, 최소 중견은 가야한다. 회사들어가면 제일 많은 나이대가 20대 중반 후반도. 누구나 다 그렇듯 취준 과정에서 시행착오를 많이 겪어 시간을 많이 낭비했었는데저같은 사람이 줄면 좋겠다는 생각이 들어서 취준하면서 느꼈던 것들 한번 적어보려합니다.

@angeelaalvarez 대졸이고 기계과졸로 대기업 취업 준비하면서 느낀점 1. 이는 명목 경쟁률이고, read more. 회사들어가면 제일 많은 나이대가 20대 중반 후반도. 필자 소개저는 2019년에 취업에 성공해 현재 공기업에 재직중인 현직자이며야밤에 올려보는 나의 취준 성공기스압주의. 포괄임금제에 법적인 수당 1도 못받고 오히려 돈은 돈대로 깨지고.

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.