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.

Com › cdw1980 › 223704001121네이버 블로그. 제7차 계절관리제 5등급 차량 운행제한 시행 안내 25. 과거 등급제 편집 2020년까지는 개인신용등급은 1등급에서부터 10등급까지 분류되어 있었다. Shift+enter 키를 동시에 누르면 줄바꿈이 됩니다.

Jsiroto.org

수시 5등급 대학으로 호서대학교를 선택한 이유와 과정에 대해 공유합니다.. 즉, 현재 고등학교 학생이 3등급이면, 2028년엔 2등급이라는 겁니다.. 고등학교의 내신 성적에는 석차 9등급제 가 주로 적용되지만, 교내 활동 평가나 진로선택 과목에서 소수 인원이 수강할 경우, 학교 자체적으로 5등급제 가 활용되기도 합니다..

Kanon_hentai_jp Kemono

Com › mobile › tag5등급제 q&a 태그 대표페이지, 내신 5등급 대학 top 110 순천향대학교 순천향대 일반학생 실기. 수시 5등급 대학 선택기 호서대학교 등록기. 이 목록은 학생들이 내신 5등급으로 가장 많이 지원한 대학들을 기준으로 작성되었으며, 주로 학생부종합 전형이나 실기 위주의 전형에서 기회가 있을 수 있습니다. 한 고등학교에서는 중간고사를 치른 뒤에 점수가 잘 나오지 않자 학교 자퇴를 해야하나 고심하는 학생도 있다고 하는데요.

동아일보의 최신 뉴스와 정보를 제공합니다, Com › board › view수능 5등급 합격 가능한 top10 대학교 정리했습니다. 1등급과 2등급 사이의 격차 확대 현장에서 봤을 때, 1등급과 2등급의 차이가 과거보다 훨씬 커졌어요, 특히 중간고사 이후 자녀의 성적을 어떻게 해석해야 할지 고민하는 학부모에게 5등급제 평가를 9등급제로 환산해서 기준점을 참고하시기 바랍니다. 10월 10일 나온 시안의 핵심내용 통합형융합형 수능, 내신 5등급제 등을 유지확정하되, 국가교육위원회 의결 내용취지를 존중하여, 시안을, 9등급제 4등 안에 들어야 ⇒ 1등급 5등급제 10등 도 ⇒ 1등급 즉, 1등급 학생 수의 급증을 의미합니다.

Kemono Party Twitter

그런데 2028 수능개편안이 적용되면 내신이 5등급제가 되면서 1등급은 10%, 2등급은 24%까지 포함시키면서 전교생의 총 34%가 2등급안으로 들어옵니다. 2325번 학생들은 9등급제 평균 등급이 2, 이번 영상에서는 5등급제 내신 체제 하에서 실제로 상위권 대학을 가기 위해 필요한 내신 컷과 학부모. 내가 학교에서 상위 14%에서 상위5%왔다갔다하는데 걍 시험에서 실수하면 바로 2등급떠서 공부 좇도안하는 새끼들하고 같은 등급뜸.

kimhee1412 twitter Com › entry › 5등급제2등급5등급제 2등급 내신, 인서울 수시 합격 가능할까. 1등급 상위 10%이 9등급제 1등급, 4% 이내보다 늘어났는데, 상당수 학생에겐 ‘1등급을 놓치면 원하는 대학학과에 진학하기 어렵다’는 부담감으로 작용하고 있다. 이듬해부터 다시 표준점수와 백분위를 제공하게 되면서 2007년에 치러진 수능을 가리켜 등급제 수능이라고 합니다. 오늘은 5등급으로 지원 가능한 전국 모든 대학교를 정리했습니다. 이 목록은 학생들이 내신 5등급으로 가장 많이 지원한 대학들을 기준으로 작성되었으며, 주로 학생부종합 전형이나 실기 위주의 전형에서 기회가 있을 수 있습니다. kemono nakai

keoya hitomi Sat 공무원 시험 a 교육공무원 임용후보자 선정경쟁시험 a. 사범 대학교 갤러리에 다양한 이야기를 남겨주세요. 상위 10%가 1등급인데 그럼 원래 2등급까지 1등급인것입니다. 고1, 내신 5등급제, 2등급 받으면 안 되나요. Com › mgallery › board진지하게 5,6등급 맞은 애들은 이 대학들 추천함 ㅇㅇ 한석원 마이너. kbj asmr

kissjav 個人 ⬇️ 입시 고민이 있는 학생과 학부모님은 입시상담반 신청해. 5등급제 쉽다는 말 들으면 원통비통함 36등이 117등이랑 동급 취급받음. Com › yangssam77 › 224157174417김해영어학원 양쌤학원 내신 5등급제, 1등급 아니면 희망 대학 가. 등급별 대학입시 전략부터 성적 향상법까지🔄 2025년 고1부터 적용. 예를 들어, 5등급 1등급 120% 범위 안에서 상위 4%는 9등급제 1등급, 그 다음 7%는 9등급제 2등급, 나머지는 3등급으로 나누는 식입니다. k-vam 디시

kissjav 다운로드 처벌 디시 ⬇️ 입시 고민이 있는 학생과 학부모님은 입시상담반 신청해. 2025년 고등학교 내신등급 5등급제 완전정복. 고1, 내신 5등급제, 2등급 받으면 안 되나요. 오늘은 5등급으로 지원 가능한 전국 모든 대학교를 정리했습니다. 수시 5등급 대학 선택기 호서대학교 등록기.

kbj사이트 고1, 5등급제 내신은 올 1등급 아니면 답이 없을까. 내 성적으로 대학어디가, 수시합격예측, 정시합격예측, 수시등급, 정시등급, 대학계열탐색검사, 내신등급계산기, 모의지원, 입시분석자료 제공사이트 입니다. 2갤러는 갤러리에서 권장하는 비회원 전용 갤닉네임입니다. 고교학점제 내신 계산 5등급제 내신에서 인서울 교과전형 합격이 가능한 1점 초반대 평균 등급을 받기 위해. 꾸준히 노력하면 내신 따기 생각보다 빡세지 않다 갓반고니까 당연히 등급 나눠먹기 ㅈㄴ 심할거임.

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.