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.

라고 물어보며 대치를 이어나갔다고 한다. 2014년 6월 강원도 고성군에 위치하고있는 육군 제22보병사단 55연대 gop에서 발생한 탈영 및 총기난사 사건인데요. 인 이등병 준호 정해인는 탈영병들을 추적하며 지독하게 고통스러운 현실과 마주한다. 군의 한 관계자는 23일 오늘 오전 8시께 포위망을 좁혀가던 일부 병력이 임 병장과 접촉했다며 울면서 아버지와 통화를 요구해 휴대전화를 던져줬다고.

컨트리볼 갤러리

카리나 수술 자국

이 사건의 심각성과 국민이 군대를 어떻게 생각하는지 정확히 꼬집은 인터뷰, 임병장 변호인측은 이날 임병장이 군 간부와 후임들에게 따돌림을 당했다는 등의 진술이 담긴 수사기록 상담일지를 공개하며 집단따돌림이 사고 원인이라고 주장했다, 지난해 6월 강원 고성군 22사단 일반전초gop에서 총기를 난사해 최근 1심에서 사형을 선고받은 임모 병장23은 초등학교 때부터 집단따돌림을.

임 병장은 2013년 4월 당초 인성검사에서 a급 관심병사로 분류됐지만, 그 뒤 지휘관 판단에 따라 같은해 11월 b급으로 조정됐다.. 육군 22사단 gop에서 총기를 난사해 동료 5명을 살해한 임모 병장에게 대법원이 사형을 선고했습니다.. 군, 고성 명파리서 임 병장과 교전탈영범 총격에 대응 사격.. 속보軍 임 병장, 울면서 아버지와 통화 요구..

카나오 가슴

케 모노 수 디시

지금까지 비슷한 류의 총기난사 사건은 많이 발생하였으나, 전역이 불과 3개월밖에 남지 않은. 임 병장은 21일 오후 8시 15분 강원도 고성군 육군 22사단 gop에서 경계 근무를 서던 동료 병사들에게 수류탄 1발을 던지고 k2 소총 10여발을 난사한 뒤. 이렇게 해서 임병장이 저지른 범행은 수많은 사람들의 지적과 임병장 본인의 항의에도 불구하고 모두 개인의 책임으로 돌아갔으므로 앞으로 군 입대에 적합하지 않은 자원들의 병역기피 시도가 더욱 강해질 가능성이 높다. 임 병장은 2013년 4월 당초 인성검사에서 a급 관심병사로 분류됐지만, 그 뒤 지휘관 판단에 따라 같은해 11월 b급으로 조정됐다.

2014년 4월 중순, 임도빈 병장이 소속된 소대의 소대장 문 모 소위학군 51기가 감시 장비를 분실한 사유와 철책 훼손 허위보고 모의 사유로 보직해임 당했다. 10년 전 오늘 강원도 고성군에 있는 육군 22사단 gop 소초에서 발생한 일명 ‘임병장 사건’이다. 오늘 전해드릴 사건사고는 대한민국의 총기난사사건 22사단 총기난사사건입니다.

케인 결혼

Gop 총기난사 임 병장에 항소심도 사형 구형, 이 사건의 심각성과 국민이 군대를 어떻게 생각하는지 정확히 꼬집은 인터뷰. 정식으로 해당 사건의 이름은 강원도 고성군 군부대 총기 난사 사건이지만 흔히들 임병장 사건으로 알고 있기에 제목을 저렇게 하였습니다.

카난 asmr 모음 육군 22사단 gop에서 총기를 난사해 동료 5명을 살해한 임모 병장에게 대법원이 사형을 선고했습니다. 2014년 6월 21일 오후, 동부전선 강원도 고성군 주둔 제22보병사단 예하 55연대현 55여단 gop에서. 날 무시 막사에 수류탄 던지고, 뛰쳐나온 동료들 향해 총. 2014년 6월 21일 오후 8시 15분 경 강원도 고성군에 위치한 대한민국 육군 제22보병사단 제55연대 gop에서 발생한 군무이탈 및 총기난사 사건. 일명 임병장 사건으로 널리 알려진 사건이다. 카와키타 사이카 시오후키

치라시 덮밥 가마쿠라 날 무시 막사에 수류탄 던지고, 뛰쳐나온 동료들 향해 총. 드라마 방영 이후 재조명 받았던 사건이 있다. 임병장 사건에 대한 누리꾼들의 관심이 높아지고 있다. Gop 총기난사 사건 임병장 사형 확정 언론보도판결. 임 병장당시 22세은 21일 오후 2시부터 오후 7시 55분까지 gop 주간 경계 근무에. 카카오 쿠키런 친구 초대작 디시

치어갤 임병장 은 자신의 몸에 총구를 겨누며 여기서 나가면 난 사형이죠. 작성일, 20160707, 조회수, 4219. 임병장 은 자신의 몸에 총구를 겨누며 여기서 나가면 난 사형이죠. 2014년 6월 21일 오후 8시 15분 경 대한민국 강원도 고성군에 위치한 대한민국 육군 제22보병사단 55연대 13초소 gop에서 발생한 군무이탈 및 총기난사 사건. Com › postview 2014년 제22보병사단 총기난사 사건의 전말. 캘빈클라인녀 야동

카와키타 사이카 보지 이 사건으로 인해 5명이 사망하고 9명이 부상을 입었다. 3일 오후 강원도 원주시 제1야전군사령부 보통군사법원에서 열린. 2014년 6월 21일 오후 8시 15분 경 대한민국 강원도 고성군에 위치한 대한민국 육군 제22보병사단 55연대 13초소 gop에서 발생한 군무이탈 및 총기난사 사건. 총을 쏜 병사는 22사단 임도빈으로 k2 소총과 실탄 60발을 소지하고 군에서 탈영했습니다. 임병장 사건에 대한 누리꾼들의 관심이 높아지고 있다.

카와구치 사쿠라 안유진 참으면 윤 일병, 못 참으면 임 병장은 병영부조리로 인해 피해를 입은 군 장병들이 선택의 기로에 놓이는 상황을 풍자적으로 표현한 문구이다. 총을 쏜 병사는 22사단 임도빈으로 k2 소총과 실탄 60발을 소지하고 군에서 탈영했습니다. 육군 22사단 일반전초gop, general outpost에서 총기를 난사해 상관과 동료 등 5명을 살해하고 7명을 다치게 한 임모24 병장에게 사형이 확정됐다. 이 사건으로 인해 5명이 사망하고 9명이 부상을 입었다. 제22보병사단 총기난사 사건 r763 판.

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.