블랙핑크 la콘서트 속 제니 비키니 오픈.

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.

제니, 단 하나뿐인 비키니 입고 파격 노출la. 가수 제니가 해외공연에서 입은 의상이 과도한 노출로 입방아에 올랐다. 블랙핑크 la콘서트 속 제니 비키니 오픈. 제니의 la 콘서트 무대 의상이 다시 한번 화제가 됐다.

제니의 La 콘서트 무대 의상이 다시 한번 화제가 됐다.

제니는 하얀색 올인원 절개 의상을 입고 무대에 올랐는데, 상의 가슴과 복부가 v자로 깊게 파인.. 8일과 9일 각 동영상 채널에 업로드 되고 있는 제니의 솔로 콘서트 팬 직캠 영상에서 제니가 착용한 파격적인 의상이 화제와 함께 논란이 되고 있다.. 한눈에 보는 오늘 방송가요 뉴스 제니.. 블랙핑크 멤버 제니가 노출의상으로 인한 선정성 논란에 휩싸였다..

제니의 솔로 콘서트 ‘the Rby Experience’ 이번 콘서트는 제니가 솔로 아티스트로서 준비한 특별한 공연이다.

제니 개인 솔로앨범이 공개되면서 여러 행보를 이어나가고 있는데, 그 중 La에 있었떤 제니 콘서트 의상이 화제이다.

지난 8일부터 9일까지 유튜브와 sns등 동영상 채널에 올라오고 있는 제니의 솔로 콘서트 팬 직캠 영상이 화제다. 스포츠서울 최승섭기자 블랙핑크 제니가 미국 솔로 콘서트에서 선보인 과감한 의상이 연일 화제를 모으고 있다. 제니의 솔로 콘서트 ‘the rby experience’ 이번 콘서트는 제니가 솔로 아티스트로서 준비한 특별한 공연이다.

블랙핑크 제니, 미국서 파격 의상 논란솔로 콘서트.

The ruby experience la 콘서트에서 선보인 제니의 의상, 팬들의 반응, 그리고 k팝 의상 트렌드까지 낱낱이 파헤쳐 봅니다, The ruby experience la 콘서트에서 선보인 제니의 의상, 팬들의 반응, 그리고 k팝 의상 트렌드까지 낱낱이 파헤쳐 봅니다. 그는 미국 la에 이어 오는 10일 뉴욕, 15일 인천에서 ‘더 루비 익스피리언스’를 진행한다. La에서 개최된 ‘the rby experience’는 강렬한 퍼포먼스와 화려한 무대 연출로 팬들을 사로잡았다, 알파경제김다나 기자 블랙핑크의 멤버 제니가 최근 미국 로스앤젤레스에서 열린 솔로 콘서트 ′ruby′를 통해 새로운 공연 의상을 선보이며 팬들 사이에 논란을 일으켰다.

그리고 언제까지 여가수의 무대 의상 논란이, Com › 177제니 노출 la 콘서트 의상 극과극 반응 나오는 이유 몰랐어요. 이날의 공연 영상이 국내외 커뮤니티에 확산되고 있습니다.

한눈에 보는 오늘 방송가요 뉴스 제니.

그룹 블랙핑크 멤버 제니 29가 미국 공연에서 파격적인 의상을 선보여 논란이다. 몸을 조이지 않는 구조였지만 허리선은 또렷하게 드러났다. Com › taehana0426 › 223792111346제니 미국 콘서트 노출 패션, 예술인가. 솔로곡 like jennie 파트 전환 타이밍에, Com › 177제니 노출 la 콘서트 의상 극과극 반응 나오는 이유 몰랐어요, 이에 대해 팬들의 반응이 극과 극으로 나뉘고 있습니다.

남자도 마찬가지다 그걸 잘 지키면서 사는 사람도 있고 누구나 즐길 수 있도록 보여주거나 사용하는. 블랙핑크 제니, 미국서 파격 의상 논란솔로 콘서트, Com › view › 20250309n09752파격적인 제니의 노출 의상, 충격 넘어선 논란 멋지다 vs 민망하다. 도쿄 공연에서 공개된 제니의 코르셋 무대룩은 비비안 웨스트우드 특유의 실루엣이 중심이었다.

남자도 마찬가지다 그걸 잘 지키면서 사는 사람도 있고 누구나 즐길 수 있도록 보여주거나 사용하는, 속옷을 연상시키는 블랙 의상에 로우라이즈 스커트를 입어줬는데 너무 수위가 높은 건 아닌지ㅠㅠ. 조명 비추니 속이 다 보여제니, 美 공연 아찔, 제니 개인 솔로앨범이 공개되면서 여러 행보를 이어나가고 있는데, 그 중 la에 있었떤 제니 콘서트 의상이 화제이다. 블랙핑크 멤버 제니가 노출의상으로 인한 선정성 논란에 휩싸였다.

시노다유 추천 춤도 과격하기 때문에 저런 의상으로 춤을 추다가 아찔한 사고가 날까봐 조마조마했던. 공연 영상이 sns를 통해 공개되면서 제니의 의상이 주목받았다. Com › view › 20250309n12011주요 부위 민망&mldr. 최근 제니 콘서트 의상 논란이 뜨겁게 퍼지고 있습니다. 22만원 단독 공연인데10분 늦게 시작 70분만. 스즈 비리비리

시노미아루이 제니 콘서트 노출의상에 갑론을박 네이트 연예. 가수 제니가 해외공연에서 입은 의상이 과도한 노출로 입방아에 올랐다. The ruby experience la 콘서트에서 선보인 제니의 의상, 팬들의 반응, 그리고 k팝 의상 트렌드까지 낱낱이 파헤쳐 봅니다. 블랙핑크 제니의 파격적인 공연 의상에 갑론을박이 일었다. 블랙핑크 제니가 la 콘서트에서 보여준 무대가 뜨거운 화제다. 스페셜솔져 디시

스페이스 바니 봄툰 춤도 과격하기 때문에 저런 의상으로 춤을 추다가 아찔한 사고가 날까봐 조마조마했던. 블랙핑크 제니가 la 콘서트에서 보여준 무대가 뜨거운 화제다. 제니는 지난 6일7일 미국 la에서 ‘the ruby experience’ 공연을 펼쳤다. 남자도 마찬가지다 그걸 잘 지키면서 사는 사람도 있고 누구나 즐길 수 있도록 보여주거나 사용하는. 🔎 la concert jennie outfits 👉🏻 제니는 2025년 3월 정규. 스트립챗 불법 디시

스트립챗 갤러리 도끼자국이 선명하고, 게다가 노브라까지. 단순 쇼케이스가 아닌, 단독 공연 가격이다. 알파경제김다나 기자 블랙핑크의 멤버 제니가 최근 미국 로스앤젤레스에서 열린 솔로 콘서트 ′ruby′를 통해 새로운 공연 의상을 선보이며 팬들 사이에 논란을 일으켰다. Com › 177제니 노출 la 콘서트 의상 극과극 반응 나오는 이유 몰랐어요. 8일과 9일 각 동영상 채널에 업로드 되고 있는 제니의 솔로 콘서.

슬라임 히토미 그룹 블랙핑크 멤버 제니 29가 미국 공연에서 파격적인 의상을 선보여 논란이다. 이러한 순간들은 팬들 사이에서 큰 화제가 되었다. 조명 비추니 속이 다 보여제니, 美 공연 아찔. 8일과 9일 각 동영상 채널에 업로드 되고 있는 제니의 솔로 콘서트 팬 직캠 영상에서 제니가 착용한 파격적인 의상이 화제와 함께 논란이 되고 있다. 🔎 la concert jennie outfits 👉🏻 제니는 2025년 3월 정규.

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.