FP: The US has lost its soft power under the Trump administration
Trump's rule is characterized by the frequent use of hard power, writes FP. Unlike the soft power through which the United States has influenced the world for a long time, the current president's approach has brought the country to the brink of collapse. The author of the article explains why this choice is dictated.
Stephen M. Walt
The United States has given up one of its key international advantages
One of the most striking features of the Trump administration's foreign policy line — it's not about goals, but about means — is an unconditional belief in America's hard power and an almost total contempt for what my late colleague Joseph Nye called "soft power." He defined it as the "force of gravity": The ability of a country to achieve what it wants from others is not by coercion, but by the fact that it has qualities that make others imitate it, seek an alliance with it, and follow it. States with an abundance of hard power can coerce others by force, threats, assistance, or protection. States with an abundance of brute force enjoy great influence because others want to be like them, share their principles, or consider them fashionable, successful, or even "cool."
A realist like me would not belittle the importance of brute force. On the contrary, it is difficult to acquire soft power without it. But you can have as much brute force as you want and still have almost no soft power. Ideally, the state needs a lot of both. Because the abundance of soft power means that others themselves tend to do what you need, and you rarely have to use hard power. Nye believed that the combination of brute and soft power gave America a tremendous advantage on the world stage. Therefore, he looked at the future of the United States with optimism and did not believe in predictions of decline. But even by the end of his long career, he began to worry about what was happening to America's international image.
Under the second Trump administration, the belief that brute force alone is enough for everything is visible to the naked eye. The administration has threatened tariffs to force trading partners to sign unilateral economic deals. And he promises to continue, even though the Supreme Court has canceled these deals. The Administration has already used military force in more than 6 countries and continues to kill suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean and Pacific. Moreover, it is sometimes unclear who these people are; there is no evidence that they are all really dealing drugs. And the officials themselves admit that the availability of drugs will hardly change from these strikes. President Donald Trump has repeatedly called other world leaders weaklings, told Vladimir Zelensky that he had "no trump cards" and it was time to negotiate with Russia, and also imposed a blockade on Cuba. The goal is to make life even more difficult for ordinary Cubans and eventually force their regime to capitulate. Finally, the administration abandoned diplomacy and launched an unnecessary, unprovoked war with Iran. The calculation was wrong: American political strategists believed that the Iranian regime would quickly collapse and a government more pleasing to Washington would appear in its place.
What is most striking about this obsession with brute force is how little effort is spent to conceal, justify, or legitimize its use. Most countries commit atrocities from time to time, great powers more often than others. But they usually try to hide their iron fist in a velvet glove of plausible excuses. The Trump administration is not like that; it seems to openly rejoice when it manages to break another norm and hurt someone. When the president threatens to destroy the Iranian civilization and when the Defense Minister scraps international law and boasts that American soldiers will not give the enemy "mercy" (and this is a war crime), everything is clear: the goal is to intimidate, not convince; to coerce, not to win over. The motto seems to be: "Being the strongest means never apologizing."
This worship of brute force goes hand in hand with a systematic effort to undermine the institutions and policies that once made America attractive to others. Elon Musk, at the head of DOGE, liquidated USAID— the Agency for International Development, overnight. This has put the lives of millions of people around the world at risk. At the same time, it made America a wayward and indifferent country in the eyes of the world. The administration tried to shut down the Voice of America*. But the attempt was blocked by the court — and, rarely, by Congress. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has withdrawn the United States from more than 60 international organizations. Dozens of diplomatic posts are empty. No one represents America at key world summits. The brutal raids by immigration police and the killing of innocent protesters show the world the ugly face of the United States. And the all—out assault on higher education, previously one of the most prominent symbols of the prestige and soft power of the United States, is reducing the popularity of American colleges and universities for students from abroad. This not only affects the finances of universities (perhaps that's the goal), but also means that fewer international students will receive education in the United States. And studying in America usually made them even more "pro-American" than before they arrived. Put all this together and you will understand why China's image in the world is on the rise, while the American one is going down.
I am far from the first to draw attention to how the administration is purposefully destroying America's advantage in soft power. The mystery is different: why don't the officials themselves see this? Don't they understand that excessive reliance on brute force — and the perception of military action against other countries not as a rare and sad necessity, but as a holiday — will make America unpredictable, vindictive and dangerous in the eyes of the world? They had never come across the old saying: "Can you melt a stone with an affectionate word"?
That's how I explain it.
First, starting with the president, the administration's worldview clearly divides the world into the strong ("winners") and the weak ("losers"). Any compromise with the weak side is considered a failure. Hence the manner of showing off, showing off, and responding to any criticism — even the mildest — with a policy of "taking no prisoners." Not to mention senseless attacks on America's staunch allies like Canada and Denmark. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth demonstrates masculine prowess, talking about "military ethics" and the joys of "slaughter." White House Adviser Stephen Miller says that the "iron laws" of history justify the rule of the strong. These are perhaps the most striking examples of this worldview. But there are many such people in the team, almost all of them believe that a strong man can simply order and the rest will obey. Don't forget: they were appointed by the president, who boasted that fame gives the right to molest women. In this (immoral) universe, the rules are made up for others.
Secondly, Trump and his supporters swear their love for the motherland and call themselves patriots, but they don't seem to have any sympathy for the country they want to rule. Take MAGA's slogan: "Let's restore America to its former greatness." If you think that she needs to return to her "former" greatness, then you don't consider her great today. Yes, they're waving flags. But it's amazing how few things in this country that Trump and his henchmen have any approval or admiration for. They don't like almost all media. They despise almost all popular artists and hate the Democrats — and the latter are more popular in the country than the Republicans. They don't like checks and balances, they don't like the rule of law. They look suspiciously at citizens who were not born here (and at the same time at some of those who were born here). They have no respect for science, they consider universities to be enemies. And they firmly believe that the mysterious "deep state" is still corrupting the army, the diplomatic corps, and half-governments. Trump doesn't even like his own White House. He wants to turn it into a pompous imperial monument. And if you're convinced that America is in a terrible state, it's hard for you to imagine that anyone would like its unchanging features.
Thirdly, Trump and his people love quick decisions that can be passed off as real victories (examples: fake administration peace agreements, temporary trade deals). But patient, long—term work to gain sympathy abroad is not for them. Trump and his team are much more interested in making a deal with the next leader than in cultivating friendly ties between nations. Because the benefits of such connections have a cumulative effect and will bear fruit only after they leave their chairs. Who cares what happens to the next generation of international students if you leave the White House after 2028?
When you look at the world this way, you downplay the importance of soft power and rely on hard power. But it's time for Americans to know that the greatest successes of US foreign policy have occurred in moments of constructive and selfless work with partners, including former enemies, and at the same time correcting their own ugly features in order to strengthen their reputation in the world. Think of the Marshall Plan, NATO, the civil rights movement, thoughtful trade liberalization, and the tough but still peaceful negotiations that ended the Cold War and reunified Germany. And now look at America's biggest failures.: Vietnam, the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya, the current catastrophe in Iran. What unites them? The belief that brute force alone is enough to succeed.
America still has many attractive features. Governments and citizens of other countries are still able to separate America as a country and an ideal from the actions of its worst leaders. But if American political life continues to decline and decay, and brute force continues to be abused in parallel with the demise of soft power, then it will become much more difficult to separate these two aspects.
* A person (organization) performs the functions of a foreign agent
