Following the results of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, a second administration under Donald Trump has already sparked conversation over the path forward for democracy and how to safeguard many of the rights that remain essential to our way of life. We spoke with Carr Center affiliates about the future of human rights in the United States under the upcoming presidential administration to learn what this may mean for democracy and civics, immigration and refugee rights, racial justice, women’s rights, climate justice, and other aspects of our society that intersect with our human rights.
The views expressed below are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy or Harvard Kennedy School. These perspectives have been presented to encourage debate on important public policy challenges.
Read our expert commentary on:
- Democracy and civics
- Immigration and refugee rights
- Racial justice
- International relations and foreign policy
- Activism and social movements
- Women’s rights and gender equity
- LGBTQI+ rights
- Indigenous rights
- Climate change and environmental justice
- Surveillance and disinformation
Democracy and Civics
Gloria Ayee
Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election is a strong indicator of shifting democratic values and societal priorities in the United States. Trump’s enduring appeal suggests that a significant portion of the electorate resonates with his promises of economic rejuvenation and reveals rising skepticism about established institutions. Exit polls showed increased support across diverse demographics that is evidence of a complex tapestry of civic engagement, identity politics, and political tribalism in the United States. In some ways, the election results also signify an evolving national identity that requires more intentionality and awareness when attempting to balance traditional values with modern perspectives as the American electorate grapples with foundational questions of national identity and democratic legitimacy.
The American sociopolitical landscape is marked by deep-seated cultural and ideological divisions that significantly influenced the election. Key issues such as the economy, immigration, national identity, and social change were central to voter decision-making, and highlighted a preference for political rhetoric that promised immediate, transformative change. Moreover, the willingness to support a leader who some perceived to be a political outsider reflected a strong desire among many Americans for change, even if this change challenged established constitutional law and democratic norms.
“Key issues such as the economy, immigration, national identity, and social change were central to voter decision-making, and highlighted a preference for political rhetoric that promised immediate, transformative change.”
- Gloria Ayee
Trump’s second term will prompt critical considerations about the future of democracy and human rights in the United States. The prospect of increased executive power and authoritarian tendencies could potentially erode civil liberties, and safeguarding robust legal frameworks will be critical for ensuring that constitutional rights are protected. Trump’s win also mirrors broader transformations across the globe and reflects developments in the international political arena as different nations wrestle with identity, governance, and human rights. Thus, understanding these dynamics is crucial for navigating the complicated democratic landscape both domestically and internationally. As with any critical historical juncture, the choices that will be made by the next Trump administration will profoundly shape the trajectory of democracy in the United States.
Dr. Gloria Yayra A. Ayee is an Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School, and a Lecturer in Government and International Relations at the Harvard Extension School.
_
Hajar Yazdiha
In 1956, W.E.B. Du Bois condemned U.S. politics and its empty handwringing over presidential elections made by and for elites. “Stop yelling about a democracy we do not have,” Du Bois wrote, “Democracy is dead in the United States.” Sixty-eight years later, pundits conduct exhaustive post-mortems on the 2024 election, 24-hour news cycles ominously predicting the end of democracy under Trump. Yet Du Bois’ words continue to hang in the air. Did U.S. democracy die long ago? Did it ever truly exist? How might recognizing its long deficiencies emancipate our political imaginations towards truly democratic futures?
“I see the forces of civic creation in the burgeoning forces of the grassroots, everyday people awakened to the limits of U.S. democracy as we know it and committed to creating something new.”
-Hajar Yazdiha
As a scholar of racial politics and social movements, I see in this moment the simultaneity of social forces of destruction and creation: destruction through the intersecting manifestations of deeply forged social divides, fraudulent systems of campaign finance and corporate influence, the corrupt and fragmented media landscape, and a successful right-wing long game. Yet more importantly, and more hopefully, I see the forces of civic creation in the burgeoning forces of the grassroots, everyday people awakened to the limits of U.S. democracy as we know it and committed to creating something new. I have studied a range of groups—immigrant rights activists, racial justice activists, Muslim rights activists, LGBTQ+ activists—across generations, from seasoned civil rights organizers to Gen Z student activists. Shared among these groups is the understanding that the march towards collective freedom is not linear, nor has it ever been. True democracy has always emerged in the slow, deep work of relationship-building among everyday people united in their commitment to a collective future they may well never see. These communities are uniting in shared struggle, strengthening coalitions, sharing political education, pooling resources and expertise, and developing systems of mutual aid. As we prepare for the months and years ahead, we must not let the elite political theater in Washington, D.C., distract us from the call of a people’s democracy summoning us right outside our doors.
Hajar Yazdiha is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Southern California and a Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.
_
Immigration and Refugee Rights
Jacqueline Bhabha
President-elect Trump has moved fast to appoint a strongly anti-immigrant leadership team for his administration. Given the prominence of promises to radically curb immigration in the Republican campaign, this is not surprising. There are two aspects to this anti-immigrant policy promise. One is to “fix” the border by increasing the militarization of immigrant and asylum seeker exclusion, whether that complies with the US's international obligations or not. Excluding asylum seekers peremptorily, without ascertaining that this would not expose them to persecution, would violate US obligations, but that is clearly what is intended. The other is to “send back” millions of immigrants, even if they have lived and worked here for decades. Accordingly, the recent Trump appointees include Stephen Miller, an extreme anti-migrant ideologue who supported the separation of children from their asylum seeking parents at the border as a deterrent measure in the first Trump administration; they also include Thomas Homan as “border czar,” a career immigration official who has called for a reinstatement of workplace raids to round up and deport workers with irregular status. This inhumane policy, last implemented comprehensively under President W.H. Bush, led to arrests of single parents whose young children found themselves in daycare or at the school bus stop with no-one to pick them up.
The only silver linings in this bleak, racist and nativist scenario are the following: that implementation of policies that wreak irreversible harm on cherished relatives, employees or community members will provoke outrage and protest, just as the family separation policy did in the the first Trump administration; that the weaponization of immigration as a tool for whipping up resentment, legitimizing scapegoating and realizing the false promise of reverting to a past golden era will quickly be discredited as effective solutions to the grave economic challenges facing de-industrialized communities and other left-behind constituencies. Tragically, we seem to be in a situation where it has to get much worse before it gets better. Alas the price will be paid by hundreds of thousands of adults who happen to have the “wrong” nationality and equal numbers of children who happen to have the “wrong” parents, through absolutely no fault of their own. A cowardly new world awaits us all.
Jacqueline Bhabha is the Professor of the Practice of Health and Human Rights at Harvard School of Public Health and the Jeremiah Smith Jr. Lecturer in Law at Harvard Law School.
_
Willie Mack
The dehumanizing, nativist, and xenophobic ideology from the Republican Party, and specifically Donald Trump, is dangerous. His violent nativism is dangerous not just for immigrants of color, but for all people of color in and outside the United States. Trump has a long history of spewing this dangerous rhetoric against Black people. He has attacked and criminalized not only Black immigrants and countries, but also Black Americans. Trump’s racism exposes the carceral partnership between punitive anti-Black-and-Brown immigration policies, the criminalization and over-policing of communities of color in the U.S., and the U.S. empire.
“There is a direct connection between punitive immigration enforcement, the criminalization of Black and Brown American citizens in the U.S., and the neocolonialism in the Global South.”
-Willie Mack
There is a direct connection between punitive immigration enforcement, the criminalization of Black and Brown American citizens in the U.S., and the neocolonialism in the Global South. Abuses by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents against migrants at the southern border are well documented. However, this violence is not relegated only to migrants and the southern border. Indeed, when Black and Brown immigrants are disparaged, that racist rhetoric puts Black and Brown Americans in danger as well. For example, during the 2020 George Floyd protests, CBP agents terrorized and kidnapped protestors on the streets of Portland and positioned snipers around George Floyd’s funeral. Also, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) works with local police departments to target and apprehend immigrants deep within the U.S.’ own borders. Furthermore, punitive anti-immigration policies against immigrants of color works to reinforce the U.S.’ exploitation and neocolonial relationship with countries like Haiti. These carceral partnerships between border enforcement, local policing forces, and U.S. empire places an additional layer of punitive punishment that immigrants of color and communities of color must navigate. In this way, the consequences of Trump’s punitive and violent nativist anti-immigration platform are dangerous for all Americans of color, because it extends into communities that are already over-policed, surveilled, and criminalized, while further strengthening the U.S.’ racialized carceral empire.
Willie Mack is an Assistant Professor in the Black Studies Department at the University of Missouri-Columbia and a Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.
_
Racial Justice
Michael McEachrane
There is a growing disconnect today between liberal democracy and basic principles of human rights and justice. The U.S. is a glaring example of this. But it is also now a trend across Europe and in the world’s largest democracy, India. Liberal democracy is increasingly being reduced to procedural matters, such as free periodical elections and majority rule. In today’s United States, even this watered-down version of democracy may be in danger.
From a racial justice perspective, this trend reveals a crisis of the meaning and purpose of liberal democracy. What should the relationship be between liberal democracy and providing robust forms of human dignity, equality, and non-discrimination? Historically and into this present moment, liberal democracy has, with seeming ease, been married with racial, ethnic, religious, and national exceptionalism; with enslavement, colonialism, Jim Crow and segregation; deep-seated and racially correlated socio-economic inequalities and lack of equal opportunities; ruthless exploitation of natural and human resources in the Global South; as well as ecological destruction at a planetary scale with devastating impacts, especially on Global South countries and people of color around the world.
“There is a growing disconnect today between liberal democracy and basic principles of human rights and justice.”
-Michael McEachrane
In this sense, the next four years of more racism, bigotry, U.S. imperialism, and putting America first at almost any cost should positively motivate us. What we need today is a liberal democracy 2.0 that holds itself to higher account. A democracy whose purpose it is to achieve societies that are robustly based on the equal moral worth of the human person; on racial equity and the elimination of all forms of group-based discrimination; on maximizing human potential and flourishing for everyone (including across national boundaries and in future generations); and on honoring the web of life, the integrity of the natural world, and our symbiotic relationship to it.
Michael McEachrane is a 2024 Visiting Fellow at the Harvard Law School Human Rights Program and a Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.
_
International Relations and Foreign Policy
Lotem Bassan-Nygate
During his first presidency, President-elect Donald Trump strongly opposed multilateralism, championing an “America First” agenda and withdrawing from institutions such as the Paris Agreement, UNESCO, the WHO, and the UN Human Rights Council. Prior to the recent election, some diplomats voiced concerns about whether a second Trump presidency would deepen this disengagement from multilateral institutions, particularly the UN.
In my research, I find that governments’ efforts to uphold shared norms and standards of the international community often yield reputational benefits abroad. For example, governments that are vocal about other countries’ human rights violations during the UN Universal Periodic Review tend to be viewed more favorably by other international actors. Using survey experiments, I demonstrate that such policy behaviors can increase public support for international cooperation among third-party observers and enhance perceptions of a country’s global status.
“If President-elect Trump's policies persist in the coming term, they could undermine the United States’ global image, potentially diminishing its diplomatic leverage and ability to shape political outcomes in ongoing conflicts.”
-Lotem Bassan-Nygate
If President-elect Trump's policies persist in the coming term, they could undermine the United States’ global image, potentially diminishing its diplomatic leverage and ability to shape political outcomes in ongoing conflicts. However, the international political context in which Trump 2.0 is entering—marked by the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East—is vastly different from his first presidency. These crises may compel greater U.S. engagement in foreign policy and multilateral efforts, presenting an opportunity to rebuild its reputation and reassert leadership.
Lotem Bassan-Nygate is an Assistant Professor of Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.
_
Anna Romandash
As a Ukrainian, Trump’s presidency is going to have a direct impact on me—and, at the moment, it is not so easy to guess what that impact is going to be like. Trump and his team had a rhetoric that is hard to consider Ukraine-friendly—but then, speech before an election and actual actions once in office are two different things. For now, I am not certain what to expect.
In my opinion, Joe Biden’s presidency was not too good for human rights around the world, because there was little to sustain the Democrats’ rhetoric against human rights violators. Trump is entering his second presidency with a narrative that is very different—and democracy and human rights around the world are not a major concern for his party, as long as they do not interfere with his other objectives.
Unpredictability is still better than knowing exactly what to expect—at least, that’s my take on Trump’s new presidency. After all, this gives space for some potential new developments which may be better for human rights and democracy around the globe than initially declared during Trump’s campaign. For instance, having control over all three branches of power, Trump and the Republican Party may want to show that America is a strong international force to be reckoned with, and challenge some of the autocracies around the world. But again, this may not be the case at all, and we may ultimately see policies that are more isolationist than before.
Anna Romandash is an award-winning journalist from Ukraine and an author of Women of Ukraine: Reportages from the War and Beyond (2023).
_
Activism and Social Movements
Susan H. Farbstein
Donald Trump’s return to the White House threatens human rights in the United States and around the world. From the rights of women and immigrants, to impacts on the environment, health, and inequality, to attacks on treaties and multilateral institutions, the potential consequences can feel unbearable. But we are not powerless in this moment.
First, we need to focus on the voices of marginalized, vulnerable, and directly affected communities. Which human rights issues do they prioritize? How can we link those issues to the broader imperative to protect democracy and uphold the rule of law? We must listen deeply and find better ways to explain how the new administration’s policies and actions will have tangible consequences in our everyday lives.
Second, we must collaborate with human rights practitioners across the globe. We can draw on the wisdom of colleagues who have been engaged, for years, in battles against dictatorship and authoritarianism in their home countries. We desperately need to understand what strategies and frameworks have been most effective, and which have failed to break through. Equally important, when we lose hope or our motivation flags, our peers can inspire us and strengthen our resolve. Solidarity is essential.
“Democracy requires open public debate and a robust civil society, capable of defending human rights and holding leaders accountable. We must uphold rights to speech and assembly, and ensure dissenting voices are heard and protected.”
-Susan H. Farbstein
Third, we need to defend the space in which social movements and advocates operate. Autocrats build power by targeting and silencing journalists, politicians, judges, academics, and activists. If Congress, the courts, and the media fail to check the new administration