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.

세상에 다양한 색깔이 있는 만큼 다양한 색깔 이름들도 있습니다. 서울에서 가장 힙한 사찰즐길 거리 한가득 조계사 산책. 하얀 눈으로 덮인 겨울 풍경과 잘 어울리는 이름이예요. 색깔은 미국식으로는 color, 영국식으로는 colour라고 표현하죠.

하얀 눈으로 덮인 겨울 풍경과 잘 어울리는 이름이예요.. 하얀 눈으로 덮인 겨울 풍경과 잘 어울리는 이름이예요..

Sone811 자막

진주 같은예제pearly white teeth 백옥같이 하얀 치아 네이버사전 보기 ivory 발음 ˈaɪvəri 뜻 상아색, 아이보리색예제an ivory skin 상아빛 피부 네이버사전 보기 bleached.. 유럽의 국가 벨라루스는 하얀 루스라는 뜻인데, 그들의 전통의상이 흰색이라서.. 새뜻한 자주 vivid red purple 메이즈 maize 옥수수와 같은색.. 여진족 의 완안부는 흰색을 숭상했다는 기록이 나오며, 그래서 금나라 에서는 흰색 옷을 즐겨입거나 좋아하는 사람들이 많았다..

Sotwe 보지

Sotwe 구닝 검열

Sotwe 高中

티타늄 화이트 titanium white 3. Com › 59white, 흰색과 관련된 단어 1. 고양이 털의 색깔에 어울리는 이름을 흰색, 검은색, 오렌지색, 회색, 삼색, 줄무늬 고양이별로 추천드리겠습니다. Fair피부색이 밝고 고운나 lightcolored색이 밝은 등으로 돌려말하는 것이 보통이다, 흰색도 앞으로는 순수한글인 하양으로 바뀝니다, Chapter22 강아지 이름 뭐가 좋을까.

흰색, 하얀색, 새하얀색은 영어로 white, snow white, milk white, ivory 등으로 표현됩니다, 흰색, 하얀색, 새하얀색은 영어로 white, snow white, milk white, ivory 등으로 표현됩니다. 동백이 하얀거랑은상관없지만 자식이던 애완동물이던 붙여주고 싶은 이름ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 11년 전.

sotwe 귀두 여러분 집에 사진첩, 즉 앨범 album 한 두개씩은 있으시죠. 귀여운 흰색 강아지를 위한 이름 아이디어를 찾으세요. 색깔은 미국식으로는 color, 영국식으로는 colour라고 표현하죠. 색깔 이름 흰색, 은색, 회색 rnamenerds. 강아지 이름 추천, 부르기 좋은 이름 애견유치원을 운영하면서 정말 다양한 이름을 접하게 된다. sparkbang スマホ

sotwe 국산 Com › postview흰색 강아지 이름 추천 100개 네이버 블로그. 영어공부법 영어단어공부 영어독학 영어색깔이름 영어어휘공부 영어표현 영어회화 영어회화공부 원어민영어회화 원어민영어회화표현 원어민전화영어 원어민화상영어 전화영어 화상영어 화상영어공부 화상영어사이트 화상영어추천 화상영어할인 화상영어후기. 우리가 몰랐던 순우리말 ‘색깔 이름’ 순우리말 빛깔이름은 본디 ‘검다’, ‘희다’, ‘붉다’, ‘푸르다’, ‘누르다’ 다섯 가지이다. 유럽의 국가 벨라루스는 하얀 루스라는 뜻인데, 그들의 전통의상이 흰색이라서. 영어의 색상 이름 외에도 다른 언어의 색상을 나타내는 이름에서 영감을 얻을 수 있습니다. spankbang 대물

sotwe fb pro 강아지 이름은 외자보다는 두자 이상이 대부분인데, 그게 부르기도 편하고 두자인 이름 앞에 성을. Com › postview색 이름6 특이한 이름을 가진 색 8가지 네이버 블로그. Gwynfor, caerwyn 등 여러 웨일스 이름의 시작과. 동백이 하얀거랑은상관없지만 자식이던 애완동물이던 붙여주고 싶은 이름ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 11년 전. 오늘은 흰색 일본 특이한 고양이 이름 추천드려보면서 고양이 이름짓기 방법까지 살펴보려고 합니다. sotwe israbbithole

spnagban ‘오색찬란하다’고 할 때의 오색이 바로 검정, 하양, 빨강, 파랑. White 이외의 흰색, 하얀색 유사 표현들 흰색은 기본적으로 white로 표현할 수 있습니다. 한국 에서는 일본식 외래어 표기 화이트 ホワイト의 영향으로 잘못알고 있는 사람이 많다. 87 주인공으로서는 최초로 흰색, 무지개색과 함께 가졌다. 나름 자연과 관련된 이름 50가지 정도로 흰색 고양이 이름 추천드려볼게요 오늘 이름 추천은 거의 영어로 된 이름이라 할 수 있습니다 다음 시간에는 한국 이름으로 다시 정리를 해볼게요.

sotwe 배달노출 멤버들 문희준, 장우혁, 토니 안, 강타, 이재원 강진우 김민주 눈꽃 인터넷 방송인 니지산지 레비 엘리파, 카가미 하야토 7, 후우라 카나토, 아이아 아마레 다현 라울 snow man 마스다 쿠레아 girls² 르 코르뷔지에 박하나 배우 본인도 흰색을 좋아한다. 딸깃빛 딸기의 빛깔과 같이 붉거나 연한 붉은빛. 한국의 감에 해당하나 흔히 일본음 대로. 추천하기 위해 정리한 것이니 참고하시어 예쁜 이름 지으시길요. 이외에도 이런 표현들도 사용할 수 있습니다.

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.