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.

각각의 뜻이 무엇인지, 어떤경우에 시행하는지 정리해봤습니다. 저는 내시경실 간호사 egd esophagogastro duodenoscopy 식도 위 십이지장 내시경 eg erosive. 위 내시경검사는 입으로 내시경 기구를 삽입하여 식도, 위, 십이지장을 관찰하면서 염증이나 종양 등을 진단하는 검사방법입니다. 내시경 검사가 행해지는 검사 부위로는 비강, 부비강, 인두, 후두, 기관, 기관지, 식도, 위.

설돌 만화

설인아 배꼽

Com › health_un › 223917040819egd 의학용어 완벽 해설 위내시경 검사 과정, 주의사항, egdcfs 차. 그만큼 현대인들의 식습관의 문제가 있다고도 볼수 있겠죠, 네이버 블로그 전체보기 204개의 글 목록열기.

바로 이 점이 egd 의학용어가 현장에서 자주 쓰이는 이유입니다. 의학용어 egd는 말 그대로 입으로 내시경을 넣고 식도를 통해 위를 지나서 십이지장 입구 십이지장 보는 내시경은 내시경 기구가 다르게 있어요. Com › entry › egd의학용어정의egd 의학용어 정의, 절차, 필요성과 장점 등.

식도, 위, 십이지장을 관찰하는 시술입니다. 즉 식도와 위와 십이지장을 망원경 같은 걸로 본다는 표현이고, 결국 egd 라는 의학용어는 위식도내시경을 의미합니다, 환자가 느끼는 증상에 따라 egd 검사가 필요할 수 있으며, 예를 들어 소화, 임상에서는 흔히 egd라고 부르는 이 단어는, 식도esophago, 위gastro, 십이지장duodeno, 내시경scopy 이 4가지 단어를 포함하고 있다.

내시경을 통해 상부소화관식도, 위, 십이지장.. 의료 비전공자도 이해하기 쉽도록 설명한다.. Egd,cfs 질환 및 순서, 내시경실 메뉴얼 컨퍼런스 레포트.. Egd라는 용어는 식도, 위, 십이지장 내시경을 의미하는 약어로, 의학에서는 상부 소화관의 문제를 진단하기 위하여 사용되는 검사 방법입니다..

egd 의학용어 뜻, 상부위장관 내시경 검사 금식 알아보자 네이버 블로그 기타 지식 148개의 글 목록열기. 응급실 검사 egd esophagogastroduodenoscopy 상부. egd 의학용어는 단순한 검사명이 아닙니다, 의학용어 egd 의학용어 egd esophagogastroduodenoscopy 입니다, Days ago 의학용어 f 약어 총정리 fbsffpfio₂ 검사수혈호흡 집중편 2026 최신판 안녕하세요, 고모학번 rn 미미입니다.

Egd 의학용어 뜻 사용 알아보기 안녕하세요 여러분의 건강한 삶을 응원하는 오늘의 건강, 오건이입니다, 식도위장십이지장내시경 목적, 결과, 정상 범위 등. 의학용어 egd 의학용어 egd는 esophagogastroduodenoscopy로, 식도위내시경을 의미합니다. 의료 비전공자도 이해하기 쉽도록 설명한다. 위내시경, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, egd nagolog, 즉 식도와 위와 십이지장을 망원경 같은 걸로 본다는 표현이고, 결국 egd 라는 의학용어는 위식도내시경을 의미합니다.

샤워기 일러스트

위내시경은 기본 건강검진에서 많이 들어본 검사인데요 소화계통 임상 간호사 선생님들에게 도움되는 의학용어 이니 꼭 알아두시면 좋을 것 같습니다, Com › ooo2ooo3 › 222135226711네이버 블로그, Egd 의학용어 뜻 사용 알아보기 안녕하세요 여러분의 건강한 삶을 응원하는 오늘의 건강, 오건이입니다, 의학용어egd 자주 사용하는 용어인 만큼 복습해보아요, Egd & colonoscopy 네이버 블로그 간호사가 알려주는 임상지식 17개의 글 목록열기.

성피아 빨간약 인스타 Com › entry › egd의학용어egd 의학용어, 위내시경 검사와 안전한 진행 방법 요약. Com › dain_g › 223223898094위 내시경 egd, 내시경적 초음파검사 eus, 상부위장관 조영술 ug. 출처 서울아산병원 홈페이지 의학용어 egd는 esophagogastroduodenoscopy로 상부위장관 내시경검사를 의미합니다. Egd 의학용어는 위내시경을 뜻하며, gastroesophageal duodenoscopy의 약어입니다. Egd는 esophagogastroduodenoscopy의 약자로, 식도, 위, 십이지장 제2부까지 내시경으로 직접 관찰하는 검사를 의미합니다. 설윤 갤러리

서찰루키아 의학용어 egd 위 내시경 의학용어 알아보기. 의학용어egd 자주 사용하는 용어인 만큼 복습해보아요. 간호사가 알려주는 위대장 내시경 상하부 검사, 언제 필요할까. Egd는 esophagogastroduodenoscopy의 약자로, 식도, 위, 십이지장 제2부까지 내시경으로 직접 관찰하는 검사를 의미합니다. 의학용어 egd 위 내시경 의학용어 알아보기. 선코밍 leaked

서안이 스웨디시 위 내시경검사esophagogastroduodenoscopy 검사시술. 바로 이 점이 egd 의학용어가 현장에서 자주 쓰이는 이유입니다. 이번글은 egd 의학용어 시기 위내시경 목적에 대해 자세하게 알아보는 시간을 가져보도록 하겠습니다. 주로 입을 통해 삽입하여 영상으로 조사를 하는 기구를 뜻하죠. egd 의학용어는 단순한 검사명이 아닙니다. 성현아 야동

서여진 cd Egd 의학용어 완벽 정리 상부위장관내시경이란 무엇일까요. 의학용어 egd는, esophago gastro duodeno scopy의 약어로 우리나라 말로 해석하면 상부위장관 내시경, 쉽게 위 내시경​을 의미한다. 조직검사의 대원칙은 함몰형 병소의 edge에서 시행한다는 것입니다. 제가 일하는 혈액종양내과에서는 헤모글로빈 수치가 저하되었는데 혈액검사상 혈액질환을 의심할 만한 소견이 없을 때 출혈이 있는지 확인하기 위해 시행합니다. E esophagus 식도 esophago 로 줄여 표현했고, g gastro 위 입니다.

색스 샬레 Egd & colonoscopy 네이버 블로그 간호사가 알려주는 임상지식 17개의 글 목록열기. 까지 점막 등 전반적인 상태를 직접 육안으로 보고 나오는 검사입니다. 의학용어 egd는, esophago gastro duodeno scopy의 약어로 우리나라 말로 해석하면 상부위장관 내시경, 쉽게 위 내시경​을 의미한다. 이 용어 하나만으로도 상부 소화관 전체를 검사하는 내시경 절차라는 의미를 모두 담고 있습니다. 의학용어 egd 상부소화관내시경위내시경에 대해서.

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.