Human rights are never guaranteed. The liberties we value were earned—step by step—following the disasters of the 20th century, when governments recognized, however imperfectly, that state authority must be limited by law, institutions, and a common foundation of human dignity.

Today, that structure is collapsing. Under relentless from , and long undermined by and , the rules-based order that helped make human rights enforceable is .

Can human rights endure without the rules that created them? They can, but not by holding onto a failing status quo. They will endure only if we construct something new: a lasting human rights coalition that protects fundamental norms (even when a superpower withdraws), and makes oppression expensive.

Admittedly, the decline in human rights protections precedes Trump’s return to office. Over the past two , democracy has been retreating globally, and with it the safeguards—such as independent courts, free press, and responsible institutions—that make violations more difficult to commit and conceal. When democratic protections wear away, the entire spectrum of rights can deteriorate alongside them. And although democracies are not a cure-all for human rights, they represent our strongest protection.

In just one year, the Trump Administration has acted forcefully to undermine essential democratic protections: attacking , , politicizing meant to be neutral, and employing state authority to critics throughout society, including , universities, legal practices, and even late-night television hosts. These measures not only suppress expression, they also indicate that responsibility is optional and that authority can be misused with impunity.

The Trump Administration’s handling of immigration has been particularly . A president may secure borders and implement stringent immigration policies, but no electoral victory authorizes a government to refuse anyone the right to seek or to impose degrading conditions on migrants.

Beyond U.S. borders, the Trump Administration has international law’s restrictions on lethal force, while regarding international duties with indifference or disdain. And when other governments remain quiet, fearing tariffs, reprisal, or security abandonment, they become complicit in a world where might, not morality, determines who receives protection. Trump’s foreign policy has removed the facade that U.S. global leadership is bound, even , to human rights. Quickly, the administration has human rights reporting, from key multilateral institutions, and aid programs that saved lives. It has simultaneously embraced while belittling democratic partners, and the International Criminal Court.

China and Russia, which have invested years in weakening the human rights framework through , , and coordinated at the UN, are capitalizing on Washington’s withdrawal. When the United States shows disdain for the rules and institutions that limit abuse, it emboldens every leader who thinks rights are only for the powerless.

The repercussions are already apparent, especially regarding international justice. For example, despite being sought by the ICC, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not only continued to travel but also met with President Trump in Alaska. ICC warrants retain some impact—Putin skipped the BRICS summits in South Africa and Brazil—but the broader signal is alarming: if you’re powerful enough, you can evade accountability.

The question, therefore, is not who will supplant the United States, but whether the governments still dedicated to the human rights structure can act in coalition. Although the U.S. was never a steadfast protector of the rules-based order, implementing rights selectively and frequently without the limits it demanded of others, when it exerted its influence, America was unparalleled.

The swift change in Washington’s stance, dismantling the post-World War II system it helped construct, has revealed a difficult reality: the framework cannot rely on any single superpower. The solution to our challenges isn’t nostalgia for yesterday’s arrangement; it is to build a human rights coalition of rights-respecting democracies capable of protecting fundamental norms when powerful nations withdraw. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has offered a similar case, urging to establish a new order based on common values.

This coalition could levy sanctions and visa restrictions on abusive officials; strengthen money-laundering regulations so kleptocrats cannot stash wealth in safe harbors; back independent media and civil society organizations facing threats; and shield international institutions when powerful states attempt to intimidate them into quiet. It should also employ incentives, not just punishments, by providing deeper trade and security collaboration to governments that fulfill basic commitments on elections, judiciaries, and minority rights.

None of this will succeed, however, without civic bravery within nations where democracy is unraveling. Institutions cannot protect themselves. Parliaments and courts must restrain executive authority. Universities and legal practices should reject coercive agreements that exchange independence for temporary security. Corporations should cease treating authoritarian demands as simply “regulatory risk.” And citizens must repudiate the alluring falsehood at the core of authoritarian politics: that the erosion of others’ rights will preserve their own.

A system that protects human rights doesn’t persist by chance; it persists because governments and civil society construct frameworks robust enough to survive any leader.

Human rights can endure the Trump Era.

But only if we create a global order that is not held hostage by Trump or his successors.