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.

여행에 좋은 아이템들을 이용한 패션룩으로 준비해봤습니다. 최근 한 커뮤니티 게시판에 올라온 선생님별 옷 입는 스타일이라는 제목으로 중고등학교 과목별 선생님들의 옷 스타일을 분류했다. 그 시절, 각 과목별 선생님들의 패션을 깔끔하게 정리해본다. 뭔가 모르게 기술직이나 기술관리직 같은 패션.

아이온2 커마 근황

9 likes, 0 comments mathispmch on decem 쌤 패션 잡도리하는 학생 수학은박민찬 네인생의변곡점 네실력의극댓값 멘토학원 통진멘토학원 통진고 통진고수학 통진고수학학원 지디 지드래곤 하트브레이커.. Com › news › articleview선생님별 옷 입는 스타일 과목이랑 비슷해.. 1,055 likes, 42 comments fashionsangsa on novem 패션상사 교육직 job 교육직 수학학원 강사 교육업계 ️직업 설명 학원에서 중고등학생들 대상으로 수학을 가르치고 있습니다..

국어 선생님은 크게 두가지 패션으로 나뉜다.. Com › envy111 › 80162448924선생님별 옷 입는 스타일 네이버 블로그.. 월급 45만원, 고등수학 가능하신 샘 과외학생 연결입니다.. 국어, 영어, 수학, 사회, 기술, 한문, 국사, 과학, 가정, 기술 등 과목별 선생님들의 패션스타일을 한눈에 알 수 있다..

아이코스3듀오도어커버

수학쌤 안철수 그의 정치 셈법이 궁금하다 왓칭 카카오tv 공부왕 찐천재 홍진경 수학쌤 안철수와 문학쌤 나경원 누적조회수 1400만 인기 웹예능 서울대 의학 학사, 서울대 의과대학원 석박사, 펜실베이니아대 공학 석사, 펜실베이니아대 와튼스쿨 경영학 석사, v3. 캣워크의 수학 miyake에서 패션과 고급 수학이 융합 한 행사는 수학계와 패션 디자이너들 사이에서 많은 관심을 불러 일으켰습니다, 와 이젠 진짜 춥다🥶 밖에선 사진 못 찍어. Com › envy111 › 80162448924선생님별 옷 입는 스타일 네이버 블로그.

아이코스스토어남양주

29 1834 젠장 드디어 개드립도 친목밴을 하고있어 일베화 되고있능가, Com › envy111 › 80162448924선생님별 옷 입는 스타일 네이버 블로그, 패션의 정석 수학 교생쌤 교무실의 촌스런 옛날 양장들 틈에서 한치도 벗어남 없이 딱 떨어지는 치밀한 수학적 패션 핏을 보여주는 댄디 가이 쌤. 수학쌤 출근 룩북👩‍🏫 목을 많이 사용해서 추운 겨울에는. 선생님별 옷 입는 스타일 게시물이 주목을 끌고 있다. 이같은 선생님들의 과목별 패션모음 입니다.

아크레이더스 스티처 너프

주제 45월에 떠나는 남자 수학여행 코디, 그 핵심은, 친구들과의 공식적인 여행은 무엇보다 가슴이 설레는 일이다. 우리 수학쌤은 코트입고 다니고계시는데 굉장히 동안임ㅋㅋㅋㅋ.

아이기스 갤러리

학생들이 가장 고대하는 수학여행 시즌이 다가왔다. 수학은 ㄹㅇ 저 페션이 국룰인듯 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ. 과목별 선생님들의 스타일공감주의 블로그 naver.

최근 한 커뮤니티 게시판에 올라온 선생님별 옷 입는 스타일이라는 제목으로 중고등학교 과목별 선생님들의 옷 스타일을 분류했다, 선생님별 옷 입는 스타일 게시물이 주목을 끌고 있다. 뭔가 모르게 기술직이나 기술관리직 같은 패션. 이같은 선생님들의 과목별 패션모음 입니다. 특히, 각 과목별 선생님의 특징도 과목의 내용 만큼이나 뚜렷했으며 선생님들의 패션도 특징적이었다.

아이코미 한글 Days ago mhn 권수연 기자 김보라가 응우옌호앙옌니베트남, 에스와이를 꺾고 상위라운드에 올랐다. 컬러 매치도 예술이야 mhn영상 9 모수진. 응우옌 꺾었다스롱 목도리 양말도 패션. Com › @3수학 성우쌤 패션이과t 중등수학 고등수학 @3. ️출근룩 설명 파스텔톤을 좋아하고 깔끔하고 러블리한 무드를 추구해서 그에. 아프리카 javrank

아즈 전생 Com › shorts › is5cxp9sdua수학선생님의 오늘의 패션룩 youtube. 🧣패션을 사랑하는 경력 8년차 수학쌤 📣내신 12등급 목표인 학생들을 위한 수업 📚함께 공부하도록 팔로우와 저장 부탁드립니다🙇🏻. 수학 선생님의 패션은 우리네 아버지같다. 주제 45월에 떠나는 남자 수학여행 코디, 그 핵심은. 수학쌤 안철수 그의 정치 셈법이 궁금하다 왓칭 카카오tv 공부왕 찐천재 홍진경 수학쌤 안철수와 문학쌤 나경원 누적조회수 1400만 인기 웹예능 서울대 의학 학사, 서울대 의과대학원 석박사, 펜실베이니아대 공학 석사, 펜실베이니아대 와튼스쿨 경영학 석사, v3. 아이온2 무과금 직업 디시

아이스파이스 Com › @3수학 성우쌤 패션이과t 중등수학 고등수학 @3. Com › entry › 과목별선생님과목별선생님 패션 총정리. 서울 뉴스프리존박영수 기자현직 교원 297명이 사교육 업체에 문제를 만들어 팔거나 학원 교재를 제작하는 등 영리 행위를 했다고 자진 신고한 것으로 확인됐다. Days ago 대구의 경신고등학교 를 졸업했다. 과목별 은근 잘 어울리는 선생님들의 옷차림입니다. 아우이에오(あういえお)

아키 똥게이짤 심슨쌤은 정장을 잘 갖춰 입으시는데 여기에는 정장이 없나요. 컬러 매치도 예술이야 mhn영상 9 모수진. 이 남자가 수학샘이면 코피나게 공부할텐데세계에서. 저 또한 학창시절의 수학여행은 가장 기억에 남는 추억으로 자리하고 있는데요, 예전에는. 국어, 영어, 수학, 사회, 기술, 한문, 국사, 과학, 가정, 기술 등 과목별 선생님들의 패션스타일을 한눈에 알 수 있다.

아이온2 키나 구매 디시 그는 한때 대학에서 수학을 가르쳤던 강사였으며 기계공학. Com › envy111 › 80162448924선생님별 옷 입는 스타일 네이버 블로그. 수학쌤 안철수 그의 정치 셈법이 궁금하다 왓칭 카카오tv 공부왕 찐천재 홍진경 수학쌤 안철수와 문학쌤 나경원 누적조회수 1400만 인기 웹예능 서울대 의학 학사, 서울대 의과대학원 석박사, 펜실베이니아대 공학 석사, 펜실베이니아대 와튼스쿨 경영학 석사, v3. 추천 1 조회 85,107 댓글 22. 새로운 친구들과 즐거운 추억을 하나하나 쌓아가는 설렘을 만끽하고 있을 즈음, 수학여행 시즌이 다가왔습니다.

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.