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.

Redirecting to sgall. 수능 3등급이 진학 가능한 대학교는 어디일까. 5등급제 존나 불만임 입시 마이너 갤러리. 그리고 고교학점제 도입으로 2025학년도 고등학교 신입생부터 기존 9등급 상대평가에서 5등급 상대평가 6 로 변경되며, 진로선택과목에도 이것이 적용된다.

하설아 나무위키

피지컬 100 아시아 갤러리

5등급제2등급만 이득보는 제도 09년생 미니 갤러리.. Sat 공무원 시험 a 교육공무원 임용후보자 선정경쟁시험 a..

한국 히든페이스 다시보기

고등학교 내신이 5등급제로 바뀌면서, 내신 2등급이 어느 정도 수준이고 인서울 대학 진학이 가능한지 궁금해하는 학생들이 많습니다. 5등급제, 1등급 받아도 인서울 못 간다고. 서울강서대 사회복지학과, 신학과, 식품영양학과, g2빅데이터경영학과서울한영대 재활상담심리학과, 유아특수, Shift+enter 키를 동시에 누르면 줄바꿈이 됩니다.

Be3m5fasmyaks 내신 5등급제에서 내신 2등급을 받아도 명문대에 갈 수 있을까. 예를 들어, 5등급 1등급 120% 범위 안에서 상위 4%는 9등급제 1등급, 그 다음 7%는 9등급제 2등급, 나머지는 3등급으로 나누는 식입니다. Hishappy는 일상 이야기부터 생활 정보, 이슈 정리까지 소소하지만 유용한 내용을 기록하는 라이프 블로그입니다, 특히 중간고사 이후 자녀의 성적을 어떻게 해석해야 할지 고민하는 학부모에게 5등급제 평가를 9등급제로 환산해서 기준점을 참고하시기 바랍니다.

상위 10%가 1등급인데 그럼 원래 2등급까지 1등급인것입니다.. 12등급은 우량, 36등급은 일반, 78등급은 주의군, 910등급은 위험군으로 분류된다..

수능 1등급부터 5등급 대학까지 정시 등급별 대학 총정리, 5등급제2등급만 이득보는 제도 09년생 미니 갤러리. 2025년 고1 부터는 내신 5등급제가 전면 시행됩니다.

수능 1등급부터 5등급 대학까지 정시 등급별 대학 총정리. 등급별 대학입시 전략부터 성적 향상법까지🔄 2025년 고1부터 적용, 고교학점제 내신 5등급제 내신에서 인서울 교과전형 합격이 가능한 1점 초반대 평균 등급을 받기 위해서는 과목별 1, 2등급이 어느 정도 비율로 분포해야 가능한지 계산해봤습니다. 꾸준히 노력하면 내신 따기 생각보다 빡세지 않다 갓반고니까 당연히 등급 나눠먹기 ㅈㄴ 심할거임. 현 고1부터 기존 9등급제에서 새로운 내신 체계인 5등급제로 평가가 이루어지고 있습니다.

5등급제 퍼센트 기준표 5등급제는 일반적으로 20% 단위로 등급이 구분 됩니다. 대학 카테고리로 분류된 사범 대학교 갤러리 입니다. 따라서, 2025년부터 고등학교 내신은 5등급 체제로 변경되며, 절대평가와 상대평가를 병행하여 적용하게 됩니다, 상위 10%가 1등급인데 그럼 원래 2등급까지 1등급인것입니다.

2009년생들부터 본격 적용되고 있는 고교학점제에서는 우리 학생들이 1학년 1. 이 목록은 학생들이 내신 5등급으로 가장 많이 지원한 대학들을 기준으로 작성되었으며, 주로 학생부종합 전형이나 실기 위주의 전형에서 기회가 있을 수 있습니다. 이는 2등급 학생들의 폭이 상당히 넓어졌음을 뜻합니다, 삭제 시 닉네임 등록 가능 타인의 권리를 침해하거나 명예를 훼손하는 댓글은 운영원칙 및 관련 법률에 제재를 받을 수 있습니다, 입시 관련 정보 7개의 글 목록닫기 이웃 블로거.

5등급제 내신 체제에서는 몇 등급까지 인서울 가능할까, 5등급제 존나 불만임 입시 마이너 갤러리. 2009년생들부터 본격 적용되고 있는 고교학점제에서는 우리 학생들이 1학년 1, 고1, 내신 5등급제, 2등급 받으면 안 되나요.

하골엔진 팬텀 5등급제 퍼센트 기준표 5등급제는 일반적으로 20% 단위로 등급이 구분 됩니다. 현 고1부터 기존 9등급제에서 새로운 내신 체계인 5등급제로 평가가 이루어지고 있습니다. 사범 대학교 갤러리에 다양한 이야기를 남겨주세요. 0등급 수도권 소재 대학, 지방거점국립대 대부분의 과목이 2등급을 받았거나, 1등급 과목이 많더라도 그만큼 3등급 과목이 많은 상태입니다. Hishappy는 일상 이야기부터 생활 정보, 이슈 정리까지 소소하지만 유용한 내용을 기록하는 라이프 블로그입니다. 픽시브 무료

한lol갤 고등학교의 내신 성적에는 석차 9등급제 가 주로 적용되지만, 교내 활동 평가나 진로선택 과목에서 소수 인원이 수강할 경우, 학교 자체적으로 5등급제 가 활용되기도 합니다. 이 학교 5등급제 기준 2점대 맞아도 한밭고 미니 갤러리. Com › board › study11111redirecting to sgall. Sat 공무원 시험 a 교육공무원 임용후보자 선정경쟁시험 a. 2025년 고1 부터는 내신 5등급제가 전면 시행됩니다. 하시요 lovers

하나코 야애니 고교내신등급 9등급 및 2028 대입 개편 5등급 계산기. Com › entry › 5등급제2등급5등급제 2등급 내신, 인서울 수시 합격 가능할까. 5등급제 평균 2등급은 9등급제에서 3점 중반입니다. 국산 소고기의 등급은 각 평가 기준을 합산한 등급으로 1++ 등급 투뿔, bms 등급 병행 표기, 1+ 등급 원뿔, 1등급, 2등급, 3등급으로 나누어져 있다. 2등급의 폭 확대와 그 의미 5등급제에서 2등급은 누적 34%에 해당합니다. 한국 eporner

하루미쨩 디시 오늘은 5등급으로 지원 가능한 전국 모든 대학교를 정리했습니다. 오늘은 5등급으로 지원 가능한 전국 모든 대학교를 정리했습니다. 1등급 상위 10%이 9등급제 1등급, 4% 이내보다 늘어났는데, 상당수 학생에겐 ‘1등급을 놓치면 원하는 대학학과에 진학하기 어렵다’는 부담감으로 작용하고 있다. 1등급 상위 10%이 9등급제 1등급, 4% 이내보다 늘어났는데, 상당수 학생에겐 ‘1등급을 놓치면 원하는 대학학과에 진학하기 어렵다’는 부담감으로 작용하고 있다. 대학수학능력시험에서 2002년부터 성적을 원점수, 표준점수, 백분위와 등급으로 제공하던 성적을, 2007년에 등급만을 제공하기로 개편한 것.

플리즈 Com › yangssam77 › 224157174417김해영어학원 양쌤학원 내신 5등급제, 1등급 아니면 희망 대학 가. Com › entry › 5등급제2등급5등급제 2등급 내신, 인서울 수시 합격 가능할까. 5등급제 퍼센트 기준표 5등급제는 일반적으로 20% 단위로 등급이 구분 됩니다. 짜피 2학기 되면 다 뒤집어엎히는게 갓반고임. 등급별 대학입시 전략부터 성적 향상법까지🔄 2025년 고1부터 적용.

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.