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.

허접한 선수들 없애고 그나마 수준있는 선수들로만 리그를 꾸려서 무한 경쟁을 시켜야지 리그 수준이 높아짐 현재 한국 프로야구는 실력에 비해 인기가 너무 많은것 같아서 징징대봄 가연 이상형 프로필 받기 27여 셀소해봅니다🙋🏼‍♀ 블릿 셀소 주간베스트. 빠따는 일본이나 한국이나 별 차이 안난다 들었거든. 기자의 시각 한국 야구, 팬들 책임은 없나 2023 월드 베이스볼 클래식wbc 1라운드 경기를 일본 도쿄 경기장에서 보면서 한일韓日 야구 수준 차이를 절감할 수 있었다. Profile_image berrill ip보기.

Fapello 강인경

대체로 이러한 논쟁은 박찬호가 로스앤젤레스 다저스.. Hours ago 야구 일본인 코치가 본 한국야구 문제점txt 유년기의끝 추천7조회1,499댓글 글번호 20260130 1939 ip 183.. 빠따는 일본이나 한국이나 별 차이 안난다 들었거든..

Fc2 Hjd2048

Fc2 미녀혁명

Fc2 고전

기존 국내야구 갤러리의 개념글을 네가지 키워드로 요약한다면 대부분은 정치, 유머글 a, 걸그룹 글 a, 안티페미니즘, 그리고 일반글 대부분은 중계 이다. 15 2240 한국야구 일본야구보다 수준 낮아서 졌노. 다만 제가 막연히 갖고 있는 느낌은 아래와 같습니다. 국내야구 수준 너무 낮은게 일본 보니까 딱 드러난다 kt 위즈.

Fc2ppv 4799139

덕수고 엔딩 보다가갑자기 궁금해짐 일본 유소년 뎁스 두꺼운 사전와 우리나라 유소년 뎁스 습자지 차이 에서 졌음중학교고등학교 뎁스에서도 졌고 그리고 야구지원 자체가 진짜 우리가 졌지 거기 야구하는데 학부모 돈내는게 월 5만원 낸다더라 일본 정부 자체가 유소년 지원 하는게 진짜. 한국 프로야구를 좋아하는 사람들의 공간입니다. 그렇다면 한국 프로야구 수준, 정말 어느 정도인가. 27 それでも動く名無し 20230310 金 220638.

fc2 단발 +조규성 6개월 킵하는 거 가지고도 해축팬들이 염병지랄을 떠는데 무조건 7년 데리고 있어야 하는 kbo 구단한테는 왜 아무런 이야기가 안나오냐는 거. 많은 야구팬 분들이 2023 wbc를 보며 한국야구와 일본야구의 실력 차이를 실감했으리라 생각합니다. 조금 단적인 예이지만, 야구계의 fm인 ootp에서 일본 2군은 aa, 한국이나 대만 2군은 r 리그로 인정하고 있으며, 이외에도 프로그램을 조금 살펴보면 한국 야구는 쿠바리그, 멕시칸리그, 애틀랜틱 독립 리그나 aa 리그와 비슷한 수준으로 보고, 일본은 aaa와 비슷한. 마찬가지로 같은 시간 들여서 수준 낮은 경기를 보기 싫은 수요도 있는거지. 어, kbo는 npb보다 한 단계 아래지. fc2.con

fc2 ppv 4620399 스포츠 카테고리로 분류된 212 국내야구 갤러리입니다. 디지털데일리 배태용기자 단순히 기술이 앞서는 수준을 넘어서 그동안 쌓아온 양산 경험과 품질에 대한 고객의 신뢰는 단기간에 추월할 수 없는 영역. 수준 운운하면서 걱정하는 척하면 스스로 뭐라도 좀 되는것같은 착각이 들어요. Profile_image berrill ip보기. Hours ago 야구 일본인 코치가 본 한국야구 문제점txt 유년기의끝 추천7조회1,499댓글 글번호 20260130 1939 ip 183. fc2 3998254 女優

fc2ion 顔 초창기 20042009편집 원본 편집 2004년 야구 갤러리 가 만들어졌다. 전국티비 스포츠중계 해외축구중계, epl중계, mlb중계, nba. Kbo 리그와 일본프로야구 npb, 메이저리그 mlb의 수준 차이에 대한 논쟁은 한국 프로야구가 출범한 이래 끊임없이 이어져 온 뜨거운 주제입니다. 스포츠 쿠페 p1800에서 영감을 받은 혁신적인 비율, 현대적인 스칸디나비안 디자인, 직관적이고 편안한 실내, 최고 수준의 안전성 등을 바탕으로 스웨디시. +조규성 6개월 킵하는 거 가지고도 해축팬들이 염병지랄을 떠는데 무조건 7년 데리고 있어야 하는 kbo 구단한테는 왜 아무런 이야기가 안나오냐는 거. fc2ppv3879833

f95zone fashion business 조금 단적인 예이지만, 야구계의 fm인 ootp에서 일본 2군은 aa, 한국이나 대만 2군은 r 리그로 인정하고 있으며, 이외에도 프로그램을 조금 살펴보면 한국 야구는 쿠바리그, 멕시칸리그, 애틀랜틱 독립 리그나 aa 리그와 비슷한 수준으로 보고, 일본은 aaa와 비슷한. 더 이상 수도갤, 야구갤이라고 보긴 어렵게 되었지만 유입되는 유저들이 디시문화의 기준이라 생각하는. 이 시발점은 10구단 늘리면서 수준이하 애들도 1군 뛰면서 시작된건가. 선수단 구성에서 인원이 많이 들어감 + 최저연봉이 낮음 + 애초에 야구 선수 연봉이 생각보다 엄청 씨게 들어가질 않음. 앞으로 야구하는 애들은 더더욱 줄어드는데 바닥찍을 일만 남았다.

fc22953018 대체로 이러한 논쟁은 박찬호가 로스앤젤레스 다저스. Redirecting to sgall. 대체로 이러한 논쟁은 박찬호가 로스앤젤레스 다저스. Com › mgallery › board한국야구 수준이 떨어지는 이유는 팬들 때문이지 뭐 퓨처스리그 마. 그래서 요즘은 4부수준이 천차만별 복불복인거같음 요즘에는 사회인야구 몇부 의 개념이 사라진거같다는 개인적인생각.

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.