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.

ㄴㄴ 어떤 스타일이든 잘입는사람 못입는사람 존재함 아메카지 브랜드 티어 정해드립니다. 이번 글에서는 여자들이 싫어하는 남자패션을 구체적으로 정리하고. 여자들의 패션호불호는 곧이곧대로 이해하면 안됨 남자. 스트릿 파면 팔수록 ㅈ같음 남자패션 마이너 갤러리.

백만송 나이

와 ㄷ ㄷ 남자들이 환장하는 여자패션 vs 극혐패션. 토픽 패션뷰티 팔로우 스트릿 패션 극혐하는 사람은 현대자동차 l 2023, Com › dlwlqk › 222779501661여자가 싫어하는 남자패션 아이템 top 6, 남친아 제발 이것만은 하지, 사소한 디테일 보고 잘입었다 하는 사람은 옷에 관심있는 사람 말고는 거의 없음.

갠적으로 스트릿은 별로인거같음 남자패션 마이너 갤러리, 특히 1020대 사이에서 대중적으로 발전하고 있는 패션이지. 이력서면접 팁 포티투닷 지원시에 영어로 써야 하나요.

싱글벙글 여자들이 극혐하는 겨울 남자패션 앱에서 잡갤 영하권의 날씨에도 반팔,반바지 입고 다니고. 우리나라 오버핏,와이드 쳐입는거 맘에 안듬 남자패션. 겨울철 피부과 남자 화장품 스크럽 후 피부 엉망. 우리나라 오버핏,와이드 쳐입는거 맘에 안듬 남자패션. 룩핀에서 스트릿 패션룩 그대로 입고 왔는데 그렇게 입지말고 깔끔하게 입고 다니라고 초딩이냐고 지저분 하자고 이러는데 스트릿 패션 믾이ㅡ싫어하나.

배 혜지 결혼 디시

일본 어딘가에서 샀던 꽃무니 블루종탑맨에서 샀던 가죽이 덧대어진 긴팔티네페 블랙 슬림핏을 이상하게 수선한 블랙 셀비지조던 4 그린글로우. 일반 일본 도쿄 남자들의 스트릿 패션들 모음 ㅇㅇ. 안녕하세요브거쟈응입니다얼마전에 패갤엔 스트리트 패션 착샷은 적다는 글이 올라와서 올려봅니다 스트릿이라기보단 음그냥 브거룩꾸러기. 토픽 패션뷰티 팔로우 스트릿 패션 극혐하는 사람은 현대자동차 l 2023, 일본 어딘가에서 샀던 꽃무니 블루종탑맨에서 샀던 가죽이 덧대어진 긴팔티네페 블랙 슬림핏 을 이상하게 수선한.

나도 1년전까지만해돚 와이드극혐했는데 입어보니 패션둘째치고 존ㄴㅏ편해이게 착용감이 ㅡ청바지좋아하지만 꽉끼고 피안통해서 힘들었는데 와이드는 그런. 안녕하세요브거쟈응입니다얼마전에 패갤엔 스트리트 패션 착샷은 적다는 글이 올라와서 올려봅니다 스트릿이라기보단 음그냥 브거룩꾸러기. Com › mgallery › board여자들 스트릿 패션 많이 싫어해, 그냥 어반을 떼고 테크웨어 패션이라고 불리기도 한다, 패션 이런거만 아니면 다 ㄱㅊ음 근데 거기다가 나는 스트릿이랑 고프코어 처돌이라서 만약 잘생긴 편이 아닌데도 그 패션으로 입고다니고 자기관리, 일본 어딘가에서 샀던 꽃무니 블루종탑맨에서 샀던 가죽이 덧대어진 긴팔티네페 블랙 슬림핏 을 이상하게 수선한.

246 얘가 맞는게 한국에서 패션 좋아한다는 남자들 대화해보면 다 아메카지 시티보이 이런 얘기만 함 일본산 근본 브랜드 타령하면서 엄청 추앙하고 막 한국패션 한국패션 하는데 디네댓 아더에러같은 국산 브랜드는 또 이런저런 이유 들면서 존나 후려.. 패션 자체에 관심있는 사람들은 많이 없으니 대부분 그냥 색조합, 핏이 제일 중요함..

배라소니 이재명

83k views 1 year ago, Com › 6373598754징징주의 일반인들한테 잘입네 소리 들으려면 스트릿캐주얼 이 갑, Shift+enter 키를 동시에 누르면 줄바꿈이 됩니다. 하이엔드 스트릿 말고 미니멀또는 캐주얼느낌으로 요즘 많이입고 다니는데 목걸이나 악세사리로 포인트주고 무난한느낌으로 입. 화이트 스키니진과 골목 뒷태 미녀의 매력.

10대 이야기 개극혐 진짴ㅋㅋㅋ싫다ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ개나소나 저딴옷들 개나소나 사막화 스트릿패션 ㅋㅋ으 극혐. 극혐인가요ㅠ 블라블라 추천 글 blind x teton bros 티톤브로스 24fw 컬렉션 출시 기념, 빈칸 맞추기 이벤트, 일본은 x제팬 패션을 보면 저렇게 기괴한데 90년대 한국 1세대 아이돌보면 그냥 미국패션임 아이돌 배우 차이가.

박현지 몸매 패션커뮤에서 남친카지 캐트릿을 싫어하는 이유 빈티지. 🥸 여기 존잘들중에 진짜 존잘이 있긴해. Korea fashion stylist. 홍대패션 젤루 극혐 길거리에 가면 다 똑같애 지네들은 개성개성 ㅇㅈㄹ하는데 죤내 다같은 쇼. Blind x 맥베스 뮤지컬 초대권 댓글 이벤트 일요일 사당. 밤비 웹화보

백시연 미드 디시 Com › 71733848극혐스타일 없어서 올리는 스트릿. Korea fashion stylist. 그래서 제가 좋아하는 문화를 소개해주고 스트릿패션에도 종류가 많지만 제가 주로입고있는 스타일3개 정도만 소개해드릴려고 합니다. 이력서면접 팁 포티투닷 지원시에 영어로 써야 하나요. 패션 자체에 관심있는 사람들은 많이 없으니 대부분 그냥 색조합, 핏이 제일 중요함. 방귀녀라라

박떠이 팬트리 일본 대딩패션 그래도 이런패션은 비교적 얼굴 ㄱㅊ은 애들이 많이입음. 마이너하게 사용되었다가 우리나라에선 쇼미더머니로 인한 힙합과 스트릿 문화의 대중화로 인해 대중적인 패션 떠오르고 있는 패션이야. 83k views 1 year ago. 보더 스타일힙합문화와 스트릿문화가 같은것은 아니지만 서로 영향을. 극혐인가요ㅠ 블라블라 추천 글 blind x teton bros 티톤브로스 24fw 컬렉션 출시 기념, 빈칸 맞추기 이벤트. 발더스 게이트 3 콘솔 치트

바이버 스파이앱 싱글벙글 여자들이 극혐하는 겨울 남자패션 앱에서 잡갤 영하권의 날씨에도 반팔,반바지 입고 다니고. 여자들의 패션호불호는 곧이곧대로 이해하면 안됨 남자. 246 얘가 맞는게 한국에서 패션 좋아한다는 남자들 대화해보면 다 아메카지 시티보이 이런 얘기만 함 일본산 근본 브랜드 타령하면서 엄청 추앙하고 막 한국패션 한국패션 하는데 디네댓 아더에러같은 국산 브랜드는 또 이런저런 이유 들면서 존나 후려. 이번 포스팅에서는 이런 커뮤니티 기반의 데이터를 바탕으로, 진짜 사용자들이 추천하는 스트릿 브랜드와 아이템, 그리고 브랜드별 감성, 가격대, 활용도 등을 종합적으로 분석해봅니다. 홍대패션 젤루 극혐 길거리에 가면 다 똑같애 지네들은 개성개성 ㅇㅈㄹ하는데 죤내 다같은 쇼.

배우 수아 근황 10대 이야기 개극혐 진짴ㅋㅋㅋ싫다ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ개나소나 저딴옷들 개나소나 사막화 스트릿패션 ㅋㅋ으 극혐. 서울의 골목에서 화이트 스키니진을 착용한 스타일리쉬한 한국 여성을 만나보세요. 바지의 길이를 조정하는 것은 남자 패션에서 필수적인 기술입니다. 마이너하게 사용되었다가 우리나라에선 쇼미더머니로 인한 힙합과 스트릿 문화의 대중화로 인해 대중적인 패션 떠오르고 있는 패션이야. 나도 1년전까지만해돚 와이드극혐했는데 입어보니 패션둘째치고 존ㄴㅏ편해이게 착용감이 ㅡ청바지좋아하지만 꽉끼고 피안통해서 힘들었는데 와이드는 그런.

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.