Whittling down sources of U.S. soft power Today World News

Since assuming office for the second time in January 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump’s directives, especially on foreign policy, have been projected as power moves as part of the plan to put “America First” and to “Make America Great Again”. However, these actions are also cutting at the roots of U.S.’s influence in the world that make up its ‘soft power’.

Soft power is defined as “the use of positive attraction and persuasion to achieve foreign policy objectives” — an economic, cultural and values-based measure as opposed to the military or coercive nature of ‘hard power’.

A look at five major sources of the U.S’s influence on the world or its ‘soft power’, and how they are impacted by the Trump administration’s recent moves:

Alliances: Since the Second World War, the formation of the “Five Eyes Alliance” for intelligence sharing in 1946, and the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949, the U.S.’s hard power but also its soft power has multiplied. Yet, a number of Mr. Trump’s statements appear to be weakening the U.S.’s image amongst its allies. From his territorial claims on Greenland, a semi-autonomous region that is part of Denmark, or his case for annexing Canada, to his unilateral actions in the Russia-Ukraine war — all have been at odds with the policies of the U.S.’s European allies, where U.S. soft power is the highest.

Additionally, Mr. Trump has criticised the U.S.’s alliance treaty with Japan as “unequal”, and his praise for North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, with whom he shares a “great relationship”, has led to misgivings in Tokyo and Seoul. Adverse comments by a Trump nominee on the AUKUS agreement (a trilateral security pact between Australia, the U.K. and the U.S.) have also raised questions in Australia. While all of these are just statements at present and not hard action, they are still straining ties between the U.S. and its closest friends, while empowering those U.S. had declared its “strategic rivals” . These moves bring into question just how committed the U.S. will be to groupings which aren’t even alliances, like the Quad, which India will host this year. Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s full-fledged backing to the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, as well as plans to redevelop it, is causing the U.S. to lose support in countries of the Global South.

USAID: The attack by the Trump-appointed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, on America’s assistance programme — the United States Agency for International Development or USAID — has axed another source of U.S. influence in the world. In a matter of weeks, decade-old programmes of the USAID have been slashed down, with only about 17% of programmes being spared. With $35 billion in appropriations, of which about a third was allocated to sub-Saharan Africa, USAID distributed more than $24 billion to humanitarian, health, agriculture and education programmes, with the rest being used for governance and administration. While many dependent on USAID funds have decried the loss, others, including in countries like India, have hailed the curtailment of USAID programmes, as they were seen as political instruments to further U.S. interests.

Both would be in agreement, however, that USAID furthered American influence, and the Trump administration’s actions against it won’t just reduce that influence — it also means that all such U.S. programmes in the future would be eyed with suspicion in recipient countries.

In addition, moves to gut iconic U.S. agencies, including think tanks like the U.S. Institute of Peace, and the Wilson Center, as well as federally funded media like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) will constrain Washington’s global messaging as well.

Trade: Mr. Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs” planned for April 2 as part of his “war on tariffs” are a blow to the U.S.’s reputation as a champion of free trade and globalisation ever since 1945. At the time, the U.S. had come through a severe regime of protectionism and high taxes known as the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930, which had hit the U.S. economy in the Great Depression years. Post-1945, U.S. grew its economic power by spreading U.S. goods around the world.

While it continued to push for lower tariffs worldwide, Washington supported the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which incorporated the concerns of the developing world, through the Uruguay Rounds, by building a level-playing field through tariffs. In 2005, in the Doha round, the U.S. proposed a “tariff free world by 2015”. However, it has been growing more protectionist in the past decade. Mr. Trump’s plan for reciprocal tariffs now would not only cause untold damage to trade levels with many countries, say experts, it will also test U.S.’s credibility as a trade partner.

As the U.S. pushes for a bilateral trade agreement with India, negotiators must watch closely how it treats pre-existing Free Trade Agreement partners like Canada, Mexico, and Australia.

Immigration: Given that native Americans make up less than 3% of the U.S’s total population, the US is a nation of immigrants. It has served as a beacon for those from other countries seeking a better life for the last few centuries, symbolised by the inscription on the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”.

U.S. immigrants are in every part of its corporate and government echelons, adding to America’s reputation as a “melting pot” that welcomes diversity. The Trump administration’s rejection of Diversity Equity Inclusion (DEI) policies in recent weeks will have repercussions on that image abroad, as will visuals of soldiers deporting thousands of illegal migrants, shackled and aboard military planes; new curbs on legal migration; heightened scrutiny at airports for H-1B and Green Card holders; as well as Mr. Trump’s executive order on banning citizenship by birth, which is currently being heard by the Supreme Court.

Education: Finally, there is the most potent source of U.S. soft power — the American university, a place for a comprehensive education and a bastion of free thinking and speech that has attracted youth from around the world for decades. Admission into U.S. universities is an aspirational goal for most societies, including their influential and powerful elites. The U.S. ranks at the top of the Higher Education Policy Institute’s “Soft Power Index”, that looks at how many current leaders (defined as Monarchs, Presidents, Prime Ministers) have been educated in countries other than their own.

The Trump administration’s crackdown on student protestors, arrests and forced deportations of foreign students believed to be involved in protests, and withdrawal of funding to universities unless they comply to a government-approved SOP for student activism, will impact foreign student footfalls. In Mr. Trump’s first tenure, the U.S. had dropped in its rankings year-on-year in the Soft Power 30 ranking report and saw fewer foreign students arrive.

The decline in influence

In his book Bound to Lead, which came out in the early 90s, Joseph Nye, the political scientist credited with the term “soft power”, wrote that the events of preceding years, including the fall of the Soviet Union, the reunification of Germany, and the first Gulf war proved that the “United States remained the only country with significant hard power and soft power resources,” theorising that these would ensure the U.S.’s place as the world’s most influential power. In a more recent article in the Financial Times last week, however, Mr. Nye is pessimistic about the future of U.S. influence as a consequence of Mr. Trump’s “truncated view of power, limited to coercion and transactions”, concluding that U.S. soft power will suffer in the next few years. Some have drawn parallels to China’s deployment of “wolf warrior” diplomacy in the 2010s, coupled with aggressions against neighbours, and the unilateral implementation of its Belt and Road Initiative, that eventually lost it more friends than it gained.

Mr. Nye concedes that Mr. Trump is not solely responsible for this turn in U.S. policies, which are widely popular at present, and warns that the administration will face “checks and balances” in the form of the judiciary, public opinion turning, and the Senate races of 2026.

New Delhi may be better advised to pace its negotiations with the U.S., rather than to give Washington concessions and make compromises now that may not be required if the Trump administration is tempered by those checks, and the fall in U.S. soft power.