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.

한국교원단체총연합회교총는 공정성 확보가 어렵다며 즉각 철회를 요구하고 나섰다. 결국 수업 방식이 참여토론수업으로 개선되고 그런 수업을 평가하는 학생부 종합전형 운영이 현실적으로 가장 타당한 방법입니다 학종은 다양성에 초점을 두는 전형이 아닙니다. 수시에서 별로 존재감이 없지만, 단순 비율로 따지면 전국에서 가장 많은 신입생을 이 전형으로 선발한다. 전국 학교마다 학생들의 수준이 천차만별이기에 내신 등급만으로는 학생을 제대로 평가할 수 없다는 비판.

Hbad170

대학교육협의회 자료에 의하면 대학은 여전히 학교 교육계획 내에서 이루어진 봉사활동을 통해 학생의 인성과 공동체 의식을 평가한다.. 2024년부터 대학입시 변화되는 것은..

Grok Spicy

저는 학생부종합전형의 폐지를 외치고 싶습니다.. 한양대서울는 2027학년도부터 추천형학생부교과 전형에서 기존의 교과 100% 방식을 폐지하고 교과정성평가 10%를 신규 도입한다.. 교육부는 오늘 22일 국무회의에서 이 같은 내용을 담은 고등교육법 시행령 일부 개정령안이 심의의결됐다고 밝혔습니다.. 교원 임용시험 방식을 시도교육감이 정하도록 한 교육자치정책협의회의 결정을 둘러싸고 논란이 일고 있다..

Com › currentnews › 2239312455752026학년도 한동대 입학전형 네이버 블로그. 국립부경대 입학본부는 내년 입시를 준비하는 부산울산경남 지역 고교생과 학부모들에게 전공과 입시 정보를 미리 제공하기. 결국 수업 방식이 참여토론수업으로 개선되고 그런 수업을 평가하는 학생부 종합전형 운영이 현실적으로 가장 타당한 방법입니다 학종은 다양성에 초점을 두는 전형이 아닙니다. 국민 절반 학종전형 폐지축소56% 정시비중 60∼100%로, 2026 고려대 세종캠퍼스 수시, 이 글 하나로 끝낸다feat.

Hearheart

Com › yaleaca › 2241543948442028학년도 서울대 입학전형 주요 변경사항 네이버 블로그, 그렇다면 우리는 이 변화의 흐름 속에서 어떤 전략을 세워야 할까요. 또 정부는 학생부 비교과영역을 폐지하는 방안도 검토 중이다, 국립부경대 입학본부는 내년 입시를 준비하는 부산울산경남 지역 고교생과 학부모들에게 전공과 입시 정보를 미리 제공하기.

flim13 video 학교장 추천이 필요하지만 학교별 추천 인원수 제한은 없다. 대학 측에서 발표하고 있는 2020년도. 결국 수업 방식이 참여토론수업으로 개선되고 그런 수업을 평가하는 학생부 종합전형 운영이 현실적으로 가장 타당한 방법입니다 학종은 다양성에 초점을 두는 전형이 아닙니다. 수능의 보완재로 작용하게 될 학생부 종합전형 고교학점제로 과거와 달리 학생. 서울대 입시에서 특수목적고, 자율형 사립고, 강남 3구 일반고 합격자가 독식하는 쏠림 현상이 심화됐고, 이는 학생부 종합전형이 학교 교육을 정상. haerin idolfap

grok 우회 프롬프트 학생 개인의 재능과 특기를 고려해 다양성을 살린다는 목표로 도입된 학종은 객관성과 공정성, 투명. 수능의 보완재로 작용하게 될 학생부 종합전형 고교학점제로 과거와 달리 학생. 가장 큰 변화는 수능 중심의 정시 확대, 학생부종합전형 축소, 논술전형 폐지입니다. 충북대는 학생부종합을 ⅰ전형과 ⅱ전형 두 가지로 운영하는데, 이 중 ⅰ전형은. 2025학년도 수시, 정시 모집인원정원 외 포함 3,906명. grok bj

giulymoonchild nude 수능과 같은 객관식 시험으로 줄 세우는 방법을 지양하며, 보다 다양한 가능성을 보고 학생을 뽑자는 취지였다. 그동안 운영했던 학생부종합전형 중 학교생활우수자전형은 2026학년도 수시모집부터 폐지됐다. 성균관대는 원래 수능 100%로 정시 선발을 하다가 2026학년도 입시에서 사범대에 한해 수능 80%, 학생부 20%를 적용했다. Kr › entrance › plan2025학년도 연세대. ※ 2028학년도 경희대학교 대학입학전형계획 최종안은 2026년 4월 대교협 심의를 거쳐 최종 확정되므로. fromis_9 deepfakes

harang3_3 x 지방 대학으로 갈수록 학생부교과전형의 비율이 압도적으로 높아지며, 정시모집 비율은 급격히 감소하는 경향을 보인다. Kr › entrance › plan2025학년도 연세대. 학종에서 비교과를 안보고 자소서까지 폐지되면 학종의 의미. 그 이유는 선생님들을 교육을 시킨다고 선생님들이 달라지지 않기 때문입니다. Kr › society › education2026수시 국민대, 학생부종합 922명 선발&mldr.

fujikawa nokaze 이에 교육부는 지난달 26일 학종 비율이 높은 13개 대학을 대상으로 실태조사를 진행한다고 발표했다. 최근 들어서는 정부가 교사 추천서를 폐지하고 고등학교 학교생활기록부에서 교내 수상경력과 자율동아리 활동, 소논문 실적을 빼는 방안을 확정했다. 정원 외 특별전형 계열 구분 폐지, 수능 영역별 반영비율 변경 라. 나의 전공찾기, 학부모 대입전형 아카데미 행사를 잇달아 개최했다고 이날 밝혔다. 전국 학교마다 학생들의 수준이 천차만별이기에 내신 등급만으로는 학생을 제대로 평가할 수 없다는 비판.

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.