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.

이 세 과들은 어떤 정부가 들어오든, 현재와 같은 종병 중심의 로컬 생태계에서 고페이를 자랑할겁니다. 외과수술 해주는 장비만 일일이 개발되면 현실적으로는 끝 아닌가 정치적으로 막고있는거 뿐이겠지 의사들 하는일이란게 사실상 대규모 read more. 개신교 장로회 교단인 한국기독교장로회 학교법인 한신학원4소속의 4년제 대학교이다. 큰 맥락에선 바뀌지 않았고 궁금하신것은 쪽지보다는 댓글로.

Xham

외과수술 해주는 장비만 일일이 개발되면 현실적으로는 끝 아닌가 정치적으로 막고있는거 뿐이겠지 의사들 하는일이란게 사실상 대규모 read more.. 영상가면 결혼생활에 지장 있다고 하딘데.. 박사 출신 연구하는 교수 제외하면 다 대체될거고, 외과만 생존함.. 영상의학과가 ㄹㅇ 의료사진이나 영상만 보는게 다임..

Ydtour Sbs

내과와 영상의학과만 있어도 지역구 질환의 70%를 커버 가능합니다. 현실은 한국 영상의학과 전문의 월급 세후 3000만원, 미국 영상의학과 전문의 월급 5000만원 2024. Com › board › view기세 등등한 영상의학과 의사들 ㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷ.

53 가져감중국은 ai가 이미 영상의학 먹어버려서 전멸한수준인거같긴 하더만, 일반적으로 xray 일반촬영, ct, mri, 초음파 등 영상의학적 검사를 하는 직종을 방사선사라고 생각하는 경우가 많다, 기세 등등한 영상의학과 의사들 ㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷ. Com › board › medicalscience기세 등등한 영상의학과 의사들 ㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷ, 큰 맥락에선 바뀌지 않았고 궁금하신것은 쪽지보다는 댓글로. 교수들은 폐과를 걱정하고 후학 양성이 불가능한 미래를 우려하고 있다.

Yawn87 자위

영상의학과 개원도 못하는데 왜 인기과임.. 영상의학과로 채용된다면 신입이 담당하는 일은 여타 종합병원과 똑같다.. 무한으로 밀려오는 일반촬영과 입원환자들의 포타블촬영 담당..

형한테 시험공부한다고 월 100씩 받아다 쓴다오, 안정적이긴한데, 병원 맨 지하에 갇혀있음. 영상의학과로 채용된다면 신입이 담당하는 일은 여타 종합병원과 똑같다. 그리고 의사는 시간갈수록 더 벌거다시간이 갈수록 가치가 올라가는 직업 흔하지 않은데의사는 게.

아무도 핵의학 지원 안 하는데 교수도 정년 퇴임은 해야할 거 아냐 카이스트 포스텍 의전도 새로 생길거고 교수 필요할거고. 서울특별시와 경기도 오산시에 위치한 사립 종합대학. 오랜만에 또 주저리 주저리 하러 왔습니다, 세후 3천이면 연봉이 얼마냐 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ한 5.

Jpg bandicam 20241007 161242554, 세후로 딱 월 1600들어오더만이건 내가 통장보도 식겁했고하지만 별거없음 퇴근하고 오버워치하고 잔다여친도 없음돈도 쓸 줄 알아야 의미가 있는 것 같다나 봐라. 그리고 영상의학은 여기 미국 나오기 가장 쉬운 과임.

영상의학과 개원도 못하는데 왜 인기과임, 원본 첨부파일 22 본문 이미지 다운로드 bandicam 20241007 160128741, 과별로 올라오는거보니 문득 궁금 검색도 해봤는데 잘 안알려져있어서 나오는게 없네 tag 병원 라운지 제약바이오 라운지 아주약품㈜ cso 알아보기 직장인끼리 소개팅하러 가기💛 by 블라인드가 만든 소개팅앱 1 47, 영상의학과 의사만되면 열등감없이 살수있을듯 시대인재 n.

Xhamster Kpop

Jpg bandicam 20241007 161139688. 153 그건 ai로 대체될거고 피폭맞으면서 하는 영상의학 인터벤션만 사람이 할거임 02. 기존 인공지능 영상판독 장비들보다 정확도 높음 심지어 존홉은 심장병 수술 로봇을 인간 없이 수술시키는데도 수술정확도와 수술후 환자가 나아지는 정도가 인간이 하는 것보다 낫다고 함 여기에 카자흐스탄인지 키르기즈스탄인지 의사 참여. 서울특별시와 경기도 오산시에 위치한 사립 종합대학. 여기에 로컬병원에 비해 연봉까지 낮아 대형병원을 떠나는 전문의도 있는 것으로 알려졌다, 경계선 지능이 사회적으로 문제가 되는 이유는 경계선 지능자가 잘못되어서가 아니라 이해와 존중이 부족한 사회상과 구조적 낙인과 폭력에 있다.

이 세 과들은 어떤 정부가 들어오든, 현재와 같은 종병 중심의 로컬 생태계에서 고페이를 자랑할겁니다. 영상의학과가 ㄹㅇ 의료사진이나 영상만 보는게 다임. 큰 맥락에선 바뀌지 않았고 궁금하신것은 쪽지보다는 댓글로.

xhmatser gay 아 영상의학과 열라가고싶다 수술도 하기싫고 환자도 보기싫다 난 사진보는걸 좋아한다. 현장에서는 과도한 업무에 여기저기 곡소리가 나고 있다. 기존 인공지능 영상판독 장비들보다 정확도 높음 심지어 존홉은 심장병 수술 로봇을 인간 없이 수술시키는데도 수술정확도와 수술후 환자가 나아지는 정도가 인간이 하는 것보다 낫다고 함 여기에 카자흐스탄인지 키르기즈스탄인지 의사 참여. 안정적이긴한데, 병원 맨 지하에 갇혀있음. Jpg bandicam 20241007 162644946. xvideo 섹스

yako03.c 일반적으로 xray 일반촬영, ct, mri, 초음파 등 영상의학적 검사를 하는 직종을 방사선사라고 생각하는 경우가 많다. Net 세후 기준이니까 세전은 2배 해보면 됨인센티브나 잡다한 거 뺀 기본급 기준이니까 최소치라고 봐도 무방정형외과 월 6000 8000정신과, 재활의학과, 월 5000 8000영상의학과 월 4600. Com › board › view영상의학과는 근데 왜 좋은지 모르는 문과 해외야구 갤러리. 걍 미국 명문대 생이 미국 의사된거임. 일반적으로 xray 일반촬영, ct, mri, 초음파 등 영상의학적 검사를 하는 직종을 방사선사라고 생각하는 경우가 많다. yt nsfw

youtnoey Jpg bandicam 20241007 160136641. 내과와 영상의학과만 있어도 지역구 질환의 70%를 커버 가능합니다. 현직 의사들이 말하는 영상의학과의 전망은. 하지만, 실제 영상의학과 의사는 이와 달리, 자료를 통해 얻어낸 clue들을 활용하여 추론해 질환을 진단하기도 하며, 직접 치료를 시행하기도. 영상의학가서 ct mri판독만하느니 핵의학과가서 pet ct mri 판독이랑 치료 다 배우는 게 낫지 않음. yastadomg

yesman hitomi 아무도 핵의학 지원 안 하는데 교수도 정년 퇴임은 해야할 거 아냐 카이스트 포스텍 의전도 새로 생길거고 교수 필요할거고. Com › board › view영상의학과는 근데 왜 좋은지 모르는 문과 해외야구 갤러리. 여러 사람들이 지적한 대로 필수의료에 대한 정의의 모호함을 차치하고서라도 가장 확실한 것은 미래의 전문의가 될 전공의들이 원하는 과와 기피과는. 신속항원검사로 한달에 1억씩 벌기도 함한줄요약 일반인이 상상하는이상으로 의사들 돈 많이 번다. Jpg bandicam 20241007 161139688.

xfansleak 방사선사는 다른 일반적인 기업들처럼 이 사람의 실적을 판단할만한게 없음. 어차피 내가 개원할만한 능력있는것도 아니고 아 영상의학과 열라가고싶다 수술도 하기싫고 환자도 보기싫다 난 사진보는걸 좋아한다. 영상검사 수요는 증가하고 있지만, 이를 시행할 전문의가 부족하다는 것이 이유다. Jpg bandicam 20241007 161242554. 또한 치과 에서 촬영하는 파노라마 검사도 방사선사가 해야 한다.

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.