This page compares the published ethical scores of active world leaders in the Truth By Reason database as at 28 June 2026. It is a snapshot, not a permanent verdict. Living leaders continue to make decisions, and their assessments must change when significant new evidence or conduct emerges.
The current comparison includes 37 active subjects assigned to the world-leaders category. The highest current result is Jacinda Ardern at +71.76. The lowest current result is Radovan Karadžić at -100.00.
Current ethical ranking of active world leaders
- 1. Jacinda Ardern — +71.76 · B — high · 2017–2023 · full assessment
- 2. Volodymyr Zelenskyy — +58.22 · C — moderate · 2019–2026 · full assessment
- 3. Angela Merkel — +48.14 · B — high · 2005–2021 · full assessment
- 4. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva — +42.78 · B — high · 2003–2010 and 2023–2026 · full assessment
- 5. King Charles III — +39.38 · C — moderate · 1976–2026 · full assessment
- 6. Ursula von der Leyen — +31.54 · B — high · 2019–2026 · full assessment
- 7. Barack Obama — +29.44 · B — high · 2009–2017 · full assessment
- 8. Pedro Sánchez — +27.33 · B — high · 2018–2026 · full assessment
- 9. Anthony Albanese — +26.11 · B — high · 2022–2026 · full assessment
- 10. Keir Starmer — +24.42 · C — moderate · 2024–2026 · full assessment
- 11. Claudia Sheinbaum — +19.16 · C — moderate · 2018–2026 · full assessment
- 12. Donald Tusk — +18.11 · B — high · 2023–2026 · full assessment
- 13. Emmanuel Macron — +11.77 · B — high · 2017–2026 · full assessment
- 14. Cyril Ramaphosa — +10.52 · B — high · 2018–2026 · full assessment
- 15. Narendra Modi — +2.09 · C — moderate · 2014–2026 · full assessment
- 16. Javier Milei — -14.76 · C — moderate · 2023–2026 · full assessment
- 17. Bola Tinubu — -17.57 · C — moderate · 2023–2026 · full assessment
- 18. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan — -19.83 · B — high · 2003–2026 · full assessment
- 19. Prabowo Subianto — -22.08 · C — moderate · 1998–2026 · full assessment
- 20. Paul Kagame — -22.85 · B — high · 2000–2026 · full assessment
- 21. Ferdinand Marcos Jr. — -22.86 · B — high · 2022–2026 · full assessment
- 22. Aung San Suu Kyi — -25.51 · B — high · 1988–2021 · full assessment
- 23. Giorgia Meloni — -25.93 · C — moderate · 2022–2026 · full assessment
- 24. Tony Blair — -26.67 · B — high · 1997–2007 · full assessment
- 25. George W. Bush — -36.25 · B — high · 2001–2009 · full assessment
- 26. William Ruto — -37.62 · B — high · 2022–2026 · full assessment
- 27. Donald Trump — -49.76 · C — moderate · 2017–2021 and 2025–2026 · full assessment
- 28. Xi Jinping — -55.07 · B — high · 2012–2026 · full assessment
- 29. Mohammed bin Salman — -56.97 · B — high · 2017–2026 · full assessment
- 30. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi — -70.95 · B — high · 2013–2026 · full assessment
- 31. Alexander Lukashenko — -80.19 · A — very high · 1994–2026 · full assessment
- 32. Benjamin Netanyahu — -84.96 · B — high · 2009–2021 and 2022–2026 · full assessment
- 33. Vladimir Putin — -89.35 · B — high · 2000–2026 · full assessment
- 34. Kim Jong Un — -94.03 · A — very high · 2011–2026 · full assessment
- 35. Charles Taylor — -95.50 · A — very high · 1989–2003 · full assessment
- 36. Bashar al-Assad — -98.50 · A — very high · 2000–2024 · full assessment
- 37. Radovan Karadžić — -100.00 · A — very high · 1992–1996 · full assessment
The complete category can also be browsed through Ethical Assessments of World Leaders.
What the ranking measures
Each overall score is the equal-weight average of six applicable dimensions:
- personal moral conduct;
- rights and dignity;
- nonviolence and harm;
- stewardship of power;
- wisdom and truthfulness;
- consequential legacy.
The method is explained fully in How Truth By Reason Calculates Ethical Scores. The score is not an approval rating, election prediction, economic league table or measurement of intelligence.
Why competence is not the same as ethical leadership
A government may be administratively competent while restricting rights. A leader may increase national income while directing benefits unequally or suppressing criticism. Another may communicate compassionately but fail to prevent foreseeable harm.
Competence matters because incompetence can cause suffering. It is nevertheless only one part of the ethical record. The purpose for which power is used, the means employed and the distribution of consequences also matter.
Why high-scoring leaders are not declared morally perfect
A positive result means the supported record leans toward the positive ethical poles. It does not mean that every policy was beneficial, every claim was true or every affected group was treated fairly.
Even strongly positive profiles retain material criticism. Shared achievements should not be attributed entirely to one leader, and disputed evidence should not be hidden merely because it complicates an admired reputation.
Why a score near zero can conceal important disagreement
A result near zero may arise for several different reasons:
- substantial positive and negative dimensions approximately offset;
- the conduct was genuinely limited or neutral;
- the evidence remains disputed;
- important information is missing;
- different periods of leadership point in different directions.
The six-dimensional profile is therefore more informative than the final average. A leader may score positively for material development but negatively for equal rights, truthful communication or checks on executive power.
Why negative scores require more than political dislike
A negative score must rest on attributed conduct and consequences. Political disagreement by itself is not evidence of cruelty, deception or abuse of power.
The assessment should distinguish between:
- an unpopular policy and a rights violation;
- ordinary political persuasion and deliberate deception;
- legitimate state authority and unaccountable coercion;
- foreseeable harm and an outcome that could not reasonably have been known;
- allegation and established evidence.
Current leaders require continuing revision
Historical assessments can eventually reach a stable period. Contemporary leadership cannot. New wars, court findings, reforms, corruption evidence, humanitarian actions or institutional changes may materially alter a score.
A current assessment should therefore display its period and review date. The apparent precision of the number must never suggest that the subject’s future conduct has already been assessed.
National outcomes are not personal possessions
Economic growth, vaccination, peace agreements, public services and infrastructure are usually collective achievements. Citizens, civil servants, scientists, businesses, local governments and prior administrations contribute.
The same principle applies to harm. A leader is not automatically responsible for every event within a country. Responsibility rises where the subject designed, ordered, knowingly continued, concealed or possessed decisive authority over the conduct.
Comparing democrats and authoritarians
The category contains leaders operating under very different institutional conditions. A democratic leader may face courts, legislatures, elections, independent media and internal party restraints. An authoritarian leader may possess far greater control over policing, information and public institutions.
Greater power creates greater opportunity for benefit but also greater responsibility for harm. Ethical judgment should account for what the subject could realistically control, prevent or correct.
Confidence grades matter
A score with very-high confidence is supported by a more complete, attributable and stable record than a score with moderate confidence. The confidence grade does not make conduct more or less ethical; it describes how securely the conclusion is supported.
Readers should be especially cautious where a contemporary assessment depends upon developing events, disputed attribution or restricted access to reliable information.
How to use this page
The ranking is an entry point. Open each profile to read the positive evidence, negative evidence, six dimensions, period, confidence and sources. Compare the broader Highest and Lowest Ethical Scores, and read Ethical Leadership: What Should Be Measured? for the standards applied to leadership.
Conclusion
Modern world leaders should not be judged by charisma, nationality, ideological loyalty or one favoured statistic. Ethical leadership requires attention to rights, suffering, honesty, responsibility, power and long-term consequences.
The ranking is therefore useful only when it directs readers back to the evidence beneath each score.