Is your ‹‹Power›› still ‹‹Soft››? Introduction to American foreign influence.

In today's interconnected world traditional instruments of influence—culture, education, and humanitarian aid—face new challenges. The United States has long relied on soft power, which Joseph Nye defines as the ability to attract and persuade through culture, values, and political systems. However, the "America First" doctrine has brought significant changes to soft power and public diplomacy, particularly evident in budgetary shifts, including cuts to USAID funding.

Historical Context

During the Cold War, the U.S. employed soft power to counter Soviet ideology. Cultural exchange programs, educational scholarships, and Voice of America broadcasts promoted American democracy and freedom, even in closed societies. These initiatives strengthened alliances and laid the groundwork for the expansion of soft power.

Post-Cold War, foreign policy shifted from ideological struggle to economic and informational challenges. The U.S. actively used multilateral and bilateral communication strategies, leveraging digital technologies to disseminate American values. However, globalization introduced risks like information warfare, cybercrime, and the rise of alternative influence centers, such as China.

The 21st century brought a digital transformation that reshaped public diplomacy. The internet and social media expanded reach, allowing direct communication with millions. Conversely, the digital environment became an arena for manipulation and fragmented discourse, demanding innovative approaches and reforms in foreign assistance and diplomacy .

Evolution of Public Diplomacy

The foundations of modern public diplomacy and soft power were established under George W. Bush in response to 9/11 attacks. Negative perceptions of the U.S., especially in the Muslim world, required efforts to build trust and support. Recommendations were developed to allocate resources to radio broadcasting, educational programs, and cultural exchanges to combat terrorism and improve the country's international image.

Barack Obama's administration redefined soft power by strengthening ties with civil society, reforming international broadcasting (e.g., Voice of America), and integrating digital technologies into public diplomacy, enhancing its flexibility and adaptability.

The first Trump administration sought to control public diplomacy, with presidential oversight of foreign broadcasting and the use of information resources to bolster the president's image. Despite the lack of a unified strategy, Trump initiated "data diplomacy" and attempted to shape the media landscape favorably. This approach differed sharply from his predecessors, causing disunity in the interpretation of public diplomacy goals and weakening traditional soft power channels1.

The current evolution of public diplomacy reflects a historical sequence: from Bush's ideologically driven policies, through Obama's reforms, Trump's attempts to repurpose the instrument for personal rhetoric, to the Biden administration's efforts to restore traditional values and strengthen digital communication channels, and potentially a second Trump administration continuing to disrupt established institutions.

Trump's Second Term and USAID

Trump's actions towards USAID and public diplomacy represent a strategic reorientation of U.S. foreign policy, driven by his "America First" ideology and domestic political challenges.

Trump views the existing foreign assistance apparatus as disconnected from national interests. In his view, USAID and traditional soft power tools have failed to effectively promote American values and protect U.S. interests. His political base demands concentrating resources on domestic priorities and strict control over how the U.S. is presented globally. Consequently, his administration initiated freezes on foreign programs and significant cuts to USAID, reducing its staff from over 10,000 to under 3001. These measures are seen as an attempt to "cleanse" the state apparatus of "radical left" elements and reallocate financial and human resources to national defense and development. Trump believes that cutting foreign aid will improve budget efficiency and regain control over foreign policy channels. The reorientation of public diplomacy—using media primarily to promote his persona—reflects a desire to personalize foreign policy, which allows direct appeal to the electorate but undermines long-term U.S. influence as traditional cultural exchange and diplomacy tools lose their versatility.

The reasons behind this policy go beyond economics. Trump sees the established system as part of the "deep state" hindering his "America First" agenda. He believes that only decisive measures can extract the U.S. from old models and regain control over all aspects of foreign policy. Collaboration with figures like Elon Musk, heading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), aligns with this effort to "cleanse" the state apparatus .

Future Trends

• Short-term Consolidation and Resource Redistribution: Trump and his supporters believe that tighter control over foreign programs will save funds for domestic defense and development, potentially increasing popularity among voters opposed to international aid spending1.

• Risk of Losing Global Influence: Analysts warn that reducing soft power tools will weaken U.S. diplomatic weight, as traditional USAID programs have built trust in the American model in the Global South. With growing competition from China and Russia, the vacuum created by these cuts could be filled by alternative initiatives1.

• Shift to Hard Power: Trump aims to shift foreign policy rhetoric from soft power to the direct use of military and economic power, sanctions, and negotiations. He believes that decisive action and personal rhetoric will enable the U.S. to negotiate with opponents from a position of strength, though this approach may reduce flexibility and long-term effectiveness in foreign policy1.

• Long-term Consequences for Allies and International Image: Sharp cuts in humanitarian aid and educational programs could undermine trust among allies accustomed to stable support and weaken international alliances. This, in turn, could strengthen competitors like China and Russia, especially in the Global South, where the U.S. has traditionally played a key role in ensuring stability.
  

In conclusion, Trump's strategy in his second term is a deliberate effort to redefine American foreign policy by abandoning soft power tools in favor of more assertive, centralized, and economically driven methods. Trump believes this course will allow him to wrest the U.S. from the influence of the "deep state" and regain control over foreign policy priorities. However, this policy risks undermining the U.S.'s status as a global leader, negatively impacting national security, and creating favorable conditions for competitors on the international stage.