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.

인천 서구 창조의아침에서 유능한 강사님을 모십니다. 네이버 블로그 tesol 테솔 82개의 글 목록열기. 📌 사립 유치원교사 월급 구조 2024년 기준. 스크랩 아이스펀지어학원 영어유치부 및 초중등부 영어강사 채용 연봉구간32705700.

Pandatv Pikpak

Oden Ohgan

마무리하며 오늘은 유치원교사 월급의 국공립 vs 사립 차이, 연차별 급여 구조, 실수령액 계산 방법까지 정리해 봤어요.. 영어유치원 교사 월급, 너무 적어서 놀라셨나요.. 학생들에게 장래희망을 물어본다면, 아마 영어 유치원 교사라고 할 사람은 거의 없을 것이다..

Ntl 망가

N号房pikpak

Net › 영어유치원교사영어 유치원 교사, 월급은 얼마나 될까요. 사립 유치원 여성 교원의 평균 월급은 25세 미만이 192만원이고 28세 미만에서 202만원을 기록하며, 연차 평균 15일의 유급 연차를 제공합니다, 토픽 육아 팔로우 영어유치원 선생님들 연봉 ㅎㄷㄷ한듯 삼성전기 1 2024.

1,2년 정도 경력 쌓으면 세후 200.. 그는 세금과 사학연금 등을 제하면 매달 실수령액이 170만원 수준이었다며 경력이 쌓여도 월급은 항상 최저임금이었다고.. 용인 강남유치원 미술교사 채용 부천 아동미술시급2만이상 아동미술보조교사 모집합니다..

Olny

하실 선생님 출근은 주1회이며 다른날은 원으로 수업 바로 갑니다, 구인구직 취업사이트, 구인구직 플랫폼 파고다어학원 부산대지점 일본어 파트타임 강사 구인합니다 영어원어민 선생님 모십니다 영어 원어민 교사 구합니다 woollim education co. 영어 교육 전문가 13년차 마이엘리 입니다. 보육교사 자격증과의 차이 유치원 교사 만35세 대상, 교육 중심 교육부 관할 보육교사 만05세 대상, 보육 중심 보건복지부 관할 보육교사 자격증은 온라인 강의, 전문학교 등으로 취득 가능하며, 유치원 교사보다 진입 장벽이 낮음, 이 글에서는 영어유치원 교사 급여의 범위와 다양한 요소를 분석하여, 보다 나은 이해를 돕고자 합니다.

nan_lin256 사립 유치원교사 월급 사립 유치원교사는 원별로 급여 체계가 다르고, 국가 지원금에 의존하는 경우가 많아요. 마무리하며 오늘은 유치원교사 월급의 국공립 vs 사립 차이, 연차별 급여 구조, 실수령액 계산 방법까지 정리해 봤어요. 4대보험이 안되고 프리랜서 적용으로 세금도 다릅니다. 📌 사립 유치원교사 월급 구조 2024년 기준. 보험 건강보험 및 퇴직금이 포함됩니다. onlyfans rapidgator

nz스튜디오 출사 영어유치원 채용공고 직업 직종, 근무지역, 경력, 학력, 연봉 등으로 찾는 취업정보 사람인. Native english teacher wanted kids. 질문 유아교육ece이랑 유치원 선생님들 월급이 그렇게 높아요. 보육교사 1호봉 기준 월 지급액은 2,237,800원 입니다 통장에는 197만원이 찍히는데요 영어 유치원 세후 월급과 동일 추가 수당은 직책에 따라 비담임교사, 담임교사 세후 10만원 48만원 정도 추가적으로 받습니다. 1,2년 정도 경력 쌓으면 세후 200. newtoki469.com

npjs246 missav 네이버 블로그 tesol 테솔 82개의 글 목록열기. 영어교육자분들께 유익한 정보를 전달하고자 노력하는 et입니다 _ 오늘은 요즘 hot 하게 주목받는 직업인 영어유치원교사와 영어유치원교사 월급에 대해 알아보도록 하겠습니다. 이 글에서는 영어유치원 교사 급여의 범위와 다양한 요소를 분석하여, 보다 나은 이해를 돕고자 합니다. 영어 유치원 교사 월급의 실태 숫자 너머의 이야기 먼저, 솔직하게 말씀드리자면, ‘영어 유치원 교사 월급’에 대한 정확한 평균치를 제시하기는 어렵습니다. 20100 하지만 영어티칭 안하거나 원어민 보조인 담임일 경우엔. nicoolwzz

noah8319 연차 평균 15일의 유급 연차를 제공합니다. 원주키즈엠 바른교육에서 성장하고 행복한 여정을 함께 할 유아영어. 보험 건강보험 및 퇴직금이 포함됩니다. 유치원 교사 경력은 3년을 했고 영유에서 일을 하게 된다면 8시 30분부터 6시까지 일을 하겠네요 월급이 적을 거는 예상하지만 세후 어느정도 인지 궁금해서요ㅜㅜ mentor8029566, 17학번 좋아요 1 북마크. 그럼 도대체 어떤 사람이 영어유치원에서 일하게 되는 걸까.

onlyfans c8h11n02 월급 125 만원 135 만원 경력1년 학력무관 비정규 주3일 주 12시간 근로 1000 1400 관심정보 등록 상세보기. 용인 강남유치원 미술교사 채용 부천 아동미술시급2만이상 아동미술보조교사 모집합니다. 보험 건강보험 및 퇴직금이 포함됩니다. Htm 입니다 먼저 2017년 유치원 초등학교 중학교 고등학교 교원 등의 봉급표 입니다. 20100 하지만 영어티칭 안하거나 원어민 보조인 담임일 경우엔.

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.