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.

과거 등급제 편집 2020년까지는 개인신용등급은 1등급에서부터 10등급까지 분류되어 있었다. Com내신등급계산기 고교 9등급 5등급 및 중학교 성적 산출 2028 개정. 23년 입결을 기반으로 만든 영상이니 참고 부탁드립니다. 0등급 수도권 소재 대학, 지방거점국립대 대부분의 과목이 2등급을 받았거나, 1등급 과목이 많더라도 그만큼 3등급 과목이 많은 상태입니다.

태정이와 지은이 러브하우스

트위터 Nuru

한 고등학교에서는 중간고사를 치른 뒤에 점수가 잘 나오지 않자 학교 자퇴를 해야하나 고심하는 학생도 있다고 하는데요, 5등급제2등급만 이득보는 제도 09년생 미니 갤러리. 2009년생들부터 본격 적용되고 있는 고교학점제에서는 우리 학생들이 1학년 1. 고교내신등급 9등급 및 2028 대입 개편 5등급 계산기.

탄지로 카나오 임신

2009년생들부터 본격 적용되고 있는 고교학점제에서는 우리 학생들이 1학년 1. 고등학교 내신이 5등급제로 바뀌면서, 내신 2등급이 어느 정도 수준이고 인서울 대학 진학이 가능한지 궁금해하는 학생들이 많습니다, 9등급제로 1111311 뜬사람인데. Be3m5fasmyaks 내신 5등급제에서 내신 2등급을 받아도 명문대에 갈 수 있을까. 5등급제에서 2점때는 다 전학가야되는거 아님.

예비 고1인데, 배재 내신 23등급 5등급제 기준이면 인서울 하나요.. 3점 중반이면 일반고 기준 인서울이 쉽지 않습니다.. 하지만 여러 가지 문제점이 도출되고 있는데요..

트위터 고양이녀

이번 영상에서는 5등급제 내신 체제 하에서 실제로 상위권 대학을 가기 위해 필요한 내신 컷과 학부모, 오늘은 5등급으로 지원 가능한 전국 모든 대학교를 정리했습니다, 평균 2들도 1,2,3 섞여서 2 나오는 경우가 대부분이니깐. 수시 5등급 대학으로 호서대학교를 선택한 이유와 과정에 대해 공유합니다. Com › mgallery › board진지하게 5,6등급 맞은 애들은 이 대학들 추천함 ㅇㅇ 한석원 마이너. 2025년부터 ‘5등급’ 체제통합융합형 수능 과목체계로 개편 정책뉴스 뉴스 대한민국 정책브리핑.

5등급제 → 9등급제 변환 방법 5등급 내신 등급을 9등급제로 변환하기 위해선, 각 5등급 구간 내에서의 백분위 범위를 고려해 세분화해야 합니다, 23년 입결을 기반으로 만든 영상이니 참고 부탁드립니다, 6대까지 올라가 1등급대에 진입하는 현상이 나타납니다.

토르티비 과거 노무현 정부에서 시행했던 교육 정책으로 내신과 수능 성적을 모두 9개의 등급1등급이 최상, 5등급이 중간, 9등급이 최하1 으로 매기는 제도이다. 국산 소고기의 등급은 각 평가 기준을 합산한 등급으로 1++ 등급 투뿔, bms 등급 병행 표기, 1+ 등급 원뿔, 1등급, 2등급, 3등급으로 나누어져 있다. 과거 등급제 편집 2020년까지는 개인신용등급은 1등급에서부터 10등급까지 분류되어 있었다. 대학 카테고리로 분류된 사범 대학교 갤러리 입니다. Com › mobile › tag5등급제 q&a 태그 대표페이지. 트우ㅏ터 자위

탱글다희 유출 무료 ⬇️ 입시 고민이 있는 학생과 학부모님은 입시상담반 신청해. 8 부근이지만, 5등급제 환산 등급은 1. 생기부 ㅈ같이 안써줘서 5등급제에서 2 등급 맞아서 대학 못간다는데. Com › cdw1980 › 223704001121네이버 블로그. 1등급 상위 10%이 9등급제 1등급, 4% 이내보다 늘어났는데, 상당수 학생에겐 ‘1등급을 놓치면 원하는 대학학과에 진학하기 어렵다’는 부담감으로 작용하고 있다. 트위터 계정 비공개

트위터 누드비치 그런데 2028 수능개편안이 적용되면 내신이 5등급제가 되면서 1등급은 10%, 2등급은 24%까지 포함시키면서 전교생의 총 34%가 2등급안으로 들어옵니다. 5등급제, 1등급 받아도 인서울 못 간다고. 내신 5등급제는 기존 내신 9등급제에서 5단계로 줄여 간소화한 상대평가 제도입니다. 1등급과 2등급 사이의 격차 확대 현장에서 봤을 때, 1등급과 2등급의 차이가 과거보다 훨씬 커졌어요. 이는 2등급 학생들의 폭이 상당히 넓어졌음을 뜻합니다. 토가 히미코 야동

토 요코 키즈 트위터 Com › mobile › tag5등급제 q&a 태그 대표페이지. 일반 5등급제에서 2점때는 다 전학가야되는거 아님. 내 성적으로 대학어디가, 수시합격예측, 정시합격예측, 수시등급, 정시등급, 대학계열탐색검사, 내신등급계산기, 모의지원, 입시분석자료 제공사이트 입니다. 인서울 메이져 미디어학과 보통 1점대죠. 짜피 2학기 되면 다 뒤집어엎히는게 갓반고임.

툰브로.con Com › board › view수능 5등급 합격 가능한 top10 대학교 정리했습니다. 내신 2등급 정도면 괜찮지 않을까 생각할 수 있습니다. 오늘은 5등급으로 지원 가능한 전국 모든 대학교를 정리했습니다. 6대까지 올라가 1등급대에 진입하는 현상이 나타납니다. 내신 5등급으로 지원 가능한 대학들의 목록을 정리해드리겠습니다.

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.