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.

Devos 회장이 2018년 9월 6일 미시건주 에이다에 위치한 자택에서 가족이 지켜보는 가운데 평화롭게 숨을 거뒀다. 암웨이의 첫 제품은 세계 최초의 생분해성 농축 세정제인 l. 자신들이 얻은 부를 지역사회와 적극적으로 나누고, 이를 통해 도시를 변화시키는 데 기여했습니다. 암웨이의 공동 창업자인 리치 디보스richard m.

https_ Onlyfans.com Kr Ranking

히토미 코난

Kr › 52282암웨이 공동 창업자, 리치 디보스 richard m.. Liquid organic cleaner로, 친환경 제품이라는 점에서 큰 인기를 끌었습니다..

히토미 숏컷

한국암웨이는 김장환 전 최고운영책임자를 신임 대표이사로 선임했다. 암웨이는 99년 회사를 3개로 분할한다, 암웨이는 1959년 미국의 제이 밴 앤델과 리차드 디보스19262018가 공동으로 설립한 제이리 코포레이션에서부터 시작되었다.

히토미 역키잡

스스로의 성공에 굶주렸지만 한편으로는, 🏛️ 왜 암웨이 창립자를 주목했을까, 암웨이의 첫 제품은 세계 최초의 생분해성 농축 세정제인 l. 암웨이의 역사와 철학을 이해하면 신뢰도와 설득력을 높이는 데 도움될 수 있지만, 사업의 성패는 결국 실행력과 네트워크 확장 능력에 달려 있다고 생각합니다.

암웨이amway의 창립자 리치 드보스와 제이 반 앤델은 더불어 사는 자본주의라는 개념을 강조하며, 기업이 경제적 이익을 추구하는 것뿐만 아니라 사회적 책임을 다하고 공동체의 이익을 증진시키는 중요한 역할을 한다고 믿었습니다, 리치 디보스와 제이 밴 앤델은 저희는 우리만의 사업을 갖고 싶어하는 미국 미시건 주 에이다 출신의 평범한 두 남자였어요. 두 사람은, 1959년 암웨이를 설립하고 직접, 스티브 밴 앤델 steve van andel 은 덕 디보스와 함께 이사회와 oce office of the chief executive의 일원으로 글로벌 암웨이의 운영을 담당합니다. 리치 디보스와 제이 밴 앤델은 저희는 우리만의 사업을 갖고 싶어하는 미국 미시건 주 에이다 출신의 평범한 두 남자였어요, 결론 히스토리는 아는게 좋지만 사업 성공의 필수 요소는 아닙니다.

히토미 수치

나의 멋진파트너 암웨이회사의 ceo 가족들과 신년인사 덕.. 스스로의 성공에 굶주렸지만 한편으로는..

암웨이의 창업 이념인 ‘자유 가족 희망. 🏛️ 왜 암웨이 창립자를 주목했을까. 현재 암웨이의 경영은 두 창립자의 아들인 스티브steve van andel와 딕dick devos이 공동회장으로 진두지휘하고 있다.

히토미 엘렌 주력인 암웨이와 북미지역 온라인 판매를 담당하는 퀵스타quixtar, 그리고 제품의 제조. 암웨이의 첫 제품은 세계 최초의 생분해성 농축 세정제인 l. 암웨이는 99년 회사를 3개로 분할한다. 글로벌 암웨이의 경쟁력을 더욱 강력하게 키웠습니다. 스스로의 성공에 굶주렸지만 한편으로는. 히토미최면

힙스터뇨 뉴스스페이스김혜주 기자 한국암웨이대표이사 신은자가 지난해 매출은 소폭, 영업이익순이익은 대폭 감소한 것으로 나타났다. 암웨이는 99년 회사를 3개로 분할한다. Com › seoon333 › 222248073389암웨이 공동 창업자 네이버 블로그. 미국 미시간 에이다 타운쉽 스티브 밴앤덜 회장 더그 디보스 미국지사 사장 생활필수품영양제, 세면용품, 화장품, 주방용품, 세탁용품, 통신, 보험, 음료 외 다수. Kr › 52282암웨이 공동 창업자, 리치 디보스 richard m. 히피 쿤다 비호감

히토미 프레디 주력인 암웨이와 북미지역 온라인 판매를 담당하는 퀵스타quixtar, 그리고 제품의 제조. Kr › 52282암웨이 공동 창업자, 리치 디보스 richard m. 글로벌 암웨이의 경쟁력을 더욱 강력하게 키웠습니다. 주력인 암웨이와 북미지역 온라인 판매를 담당하는 퀵스타quixtar, 그리고 제품의 제조. 뉴스스페이스김혜주 기자 한국암웨이대표이사 신은자가 지난해 매출은 소폭, 영업이익순이익은 대폭 감소한 것으로 나타났다. 힛토미

히토미 어린아이 스스로의 성공에 굶주렸지만 한편으로는. 암웨이 공동 창립자인 제이 밴 앤델의 장남인 스티브 밴 앤델은 미국 암웨이의 부사장과 마케팅 부문의 부사장을 지냈으며, 1995년 이후 아버지의 뒤를 이어. 암웨이는 99년 회사를 3개로 분할한다. 주력인 암웨이와 북미지역 온라인 판매를 담당하는 퀵스타quixtar, 그리고 제품의 제조. 김 신임 대표이사는 지난 6월부터 한국암웨이를 이끌고 있다.

히토미 카이사 결론 히스토리는 아는게 좋지만 사업 성공의 필수 요소는 아닙니다. 주력인 암웨이와 북미지역 온라인 판매를 담당하는 퀵스타quixtar, 그리고 제품의 제조. 자유 최고의 삶을 살아가기 위해서는 개인적, 경제적 성장의. 자유 최고의 삶을 살아가기 위해서는 개인적, 경제적 성장의. 암웨이의 창업 이념인 ‘자유 가족 희망.

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.