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.

치위생사는 의료 분야의 직업군 중 하나로 안정적인 직업으로 인식되다 보니 치위생학과 지원율이 높아지고 있어 가장 핫랭킹인 수시등급 및 취업률 순위와 학과소개에 대해 알려 드리고자 합니다. 남자는 모르겠는데여자는 물론 간호 물치가 좋긴하지만 보행이나 임병이나 방사선 이런데 보단 치위생이 꿀릴게 없다 생각함 dc official app. 취업을 떠나 인간관계나 배울수있는 학문 ex. 이번 포스팅에서는 치위생학과 대학 순위를 경쟁률, 취업률, 등급별로 알아보겠습니다.

윤가놈 일진 디시

치위생사는 의료 분야의 직업군 중 하나로 안정적인 직업으로 인식되다 보니 치위생학과 지원율이 높아지고 있어 가장 핫랭킹인 수시등급 및 취업률 순위와 학과소개에 대해 알려 드리고자 합니다.. 방사선치료, 치기공과, 치위생과, 장례지도과, 임상병리과 등등의 국가 기술 자격에 필수 되는 학과들조차 초봉 2400도 어려운 게 현실이다.. 제 친구가 직업에 대해 슬럼프가 생겨서 조언을 구하고자 글을 작성합니다.. 국가고시 합격률은 2021년 기준 83..

유혜디 진성준

아 그리고 지원가능하여 치위생과에 가게되면 대충 남학생들은 어느정도 있는지 알고싶습니다. 실제 치위생사는 치과 병의원, 보건소, 치과기자재 업체 등 다양한 분야에서 일할 수 있으며 특히. 치위생학과를 전공하고 대학을 졸업해야만 치위생사 국가고시에 응시할 수 있는데요.

Com › mgallery › board부산에 4년째 치위생학과 어디어디 있음. Com › 100077598576131 › videosfacebook. Com › entry › 2025년전국2025년 전국 치위생과 추천대학 및 수시등급 총정리. 아 그리고 지원가능하여 치위생과에 가게되면 대충 남학생들은 어느정도 있는지 알고싶습니다.

근데 모의고사 점수 항상 140150점 이상 나오는 read more.. 간호학과 물리치료과 작업치료과 치위생과 뷰티케어과 호텔외식..

유튜브 동영상 Mp3 추출

연세대원주캠 경북대상주캠 단국대천안캠 을지대 가천대 5개 대학이 제일 높던데 수시기준으로 2점대 후반3점대 초반으로, 38 답답해서 현실을 말해주는데 대다수 간호학과 애들은 치위생학과에 관심도 없다, 방사선치료, 치기공과, 치위생과, 장례지도과, 임상병리과 등등의 국가 기술 자격에 필수 되는 학과들조차 초봉 2400도 어려운 게 현실이다.

윤가놈 건강 디시 치과의사의 진료및 치료에 협조하고, 국민의 구강질환 예방 및 위생에 관한 진료 업무를 담당하는 일을 합니다. Com › entry › 2025년전국2025년 전국 치위생과 추천대학 및 수시등급 총정리. 남중,남고출신이라서요 ㅋㅋㅋ 치위생사분들 힘내셔요. 이런게 처음이었어서 이때 진심으로 관둘까했지만, 버텼더니 나중에는 저를 멀쩡하게 대했고 지금은 이분이 일을 관뒀어요ㅋㅋ 암튼 그렇지만 고민인게 치위생사분들이 어떻게 일하는지 볼수는 있어도 결국 저는 환자를 상대하지도 않고, 짧은 시간동안 일하고. 싱글벙글 싱글벙글 치과대학 치위생학과 ㅇㅇ175. 으 응 asmr

은꼴샐리 치위생사 월급&연봉 평균연봉은 3012만원. 전문대학의 치위생과3년제 혹은 대학의 치위생학과4년제를 졸업하고 치과 위생사 국가시험에 합격하여 면허를 취득해야 합니다. 치위생학과를 전공하고 대학을 졸업해야만 치위생사 국가고시에 응시할 수 있는데요. 치위생학과 대학 순위, 내신 등급, 취업 준비 방법에 대한 정보를 제공합니다. 둘 다 여초라는 공통점이 있고 각각 장점을 따져보자면 치위생사는 졸업 후 칼취업에 보건계열 공무원. 윤공주 후장

윤수빈 노출 디시 치과의사의 진료및 치료에 협조하고, 국민의 구강질환 예방 및 위생에 관한 진료 업무를 담당하는 일을 합니다. 4년제 일반대학의 치위생학과 를 졸업하고, 치과위생사 국가고시 를 봐서 합격하여 치과위생사 면허를 취득하면 될 수 있습니다. 아 그리고 지원가능하여 치위생과에 가게되면 대충 남학생들은 어느정도 있는지 알고싶습니다. 국가고시 합격률은 2021년 기준 83. 3년차쯤 원장님이 좋게 봐주셔서 팀장의 직함을 가지게 됐습니다. 윤공주 유료

윤가놈 하늘을 2025년 입시를 준비하는 여러분을 위해 전국 치위생과 추천 대학 정보와 수시 전략, 그리고 미래 전망까지 꼼꼼하게 정리해봤습니다. 이번 포스팅에서는 치위생학과 대학 순위를 경쟁률, 취업률, 등급별로 알아보겠습니다. 이런게 처음이었어서 이때 진심으로 관둘까했지만, 버텼더니 나중에는 저를 멀쩡하게 대했고 지금은 이분이 일을 관뒀어요ㅋㅋ 암튼 그렇지만 고민인게 치위생사분들이 어떻게 일하는지 볼수는 있어도 결국 저는 환자를 상대하지도 않고, 짧은 시간동안 일하고. 치위생학과 대학 순위, 내신 등급, 취업 준비 방법에 대한 정보를 제공합니다. Com › 100077598576131 › videosfacebook.

이구로 미츠 리 환생 근데 모의고사 점수 항상 140150점 이상 나오는 read more. 4년제 치위생학과 4년제 대학과 전문대학은 학과 명칭부터 조금 차이가 있는데요. 제 친구는 한 4년차 치과위생사 입니다. 2025년 입시를 준비하는 여러분을 위해 전국 치위생과 추천 대학 정보와 수시 전략, 그리고 미래 전망까지 꼼꼼하게 정리해봤습니다. Com › ddakpd › 223832840045치위생학과 전망, 취업, 대학교, 순위 정리 네이버 블로그.

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.