The Erosion of US Soft Power: The Strategic Implications of US Global Disengagement

Source: Wikimedia Commons/President Donald J. Trump Delivers a Speech on National Security Policy, December 18, 2017.

Following the end of World War II, the United States emerged as a global leader and helped open the door to an era of globalization. This global interconnectedness led to new, larger markets, increased economic growth, and cooperation on major issues such as climate change, food security, and public health. It has also discouraged the outbreak of large scale conflict, as the economic cost of war became too great to bear. However, recent US policy shifts, specifically the implementation of global tariffs and a diminished leadership role in international conflicts such as the invasion of Ukraine, has led allies and nations around the world to question the reliability of the US on the world stage. These actions have weakened US soft power, its ability to shape global outcomes through influence and trust, rather than coercion, both economically and militarily. 

The US’s implementation of widespread global tariffs has provoked backlash from several major economies. As a result, sales of pharmaceuticals, phones, and cars fell by 16.3% from April to May. These tariffs have reduced access to key export markets, disincentivized trade with the US, limited imports, and reduced foreign tourism and investment. In response, countries such as India, China, and Canada have imposed retaliatory tariffs, further escalating tensions. In addition to tariffs, China responded on April 4th by implementing restrictions on rare earth elements, creating a monopoly for China and putting at risk production of goods requiring these elements, from defense equipment to consumer goods. China and Canada have both made WTO complaints against the US recently, on duties on automobiles, imports from China and Canada, and steel and aluminum. This breakdown in economic cooperation has not only weakened trust in the US, but has also led countries to seek alternative trading partners and manufacturers, including European and Asian markets. This erosion of trust in trade policy reflects growing discomfort with US military leadership as well.

In addition to the tariffs, the US’s latest administration's lack of strong support for Ukraine during its invasion by Russia has caused concern among primarily NATO allies. President Trump’s insistence that European nations increase defense spending, along with criticism that Europe is too dependent on the US for security, has strained transatlantic relationships. This past month, NATO members have agreed to meet the 5% investment in defense by 2035, 3.5% to core defense requirements and to meet NATO capability targets, and 1.5% to infrastructure, cyber security, among other items. Some argue that Europe relies too heavily on the US, which carries much of the defensive burden. These concerns, along with US policy shifts and perceived indifference toward Ukraine, have prompted European countries to reconsider their dependence on American defense products and military support.

As a result of these tensions, many European nations are considering turning towards domestic and regional defense companies such as Airbus, Saab, and Dassault, moving away from US firms like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. This shift raises key strategic considerations, such as whether they should invest in European alternatives to promote regional independence, or continue buying US defense systems to ensure integration with previously acquired US equipment. In May, President Macron stated that Europe and the Indo-Pacific should maintain “strategic autonomy,” avoiding choosing a side between the US and China to maintain the economy and security. This debate goes beyond Europe, during the increasing of US tariffs, China refused deliveries of Boeing aircraft, turning to Airbus to reduce reliance on the US. A major meeting is planned between Airbus and China on July 30, reported to increase aircraft orders, boosting European economic growth at America’s expense. While Boeing has pivoted towards deals with countries like Qatar, securing orders for over 200 wide-body aircraft, the shift from China and Europe reflects a substantial blow to US influence in global aerospace. 

The widespread use of US defense companies by foreign nations has historically reflected America’s soft power, its ability to influence and lead through reputation, trust, and voluntary alignment, rather than force. However, the move away from American defense systems is a clear sign of waning soft power. The erosion of trust in US leadership, both economically and militarily, illustrates a possible desire to reduce dependence on the US. Historically, US soft power was reinforced not only through military alliances, but also through widespread use of US-made defense equipment, ensuring diplomatic alignment, as well as through arms sales used as incentives to work with the US. This shift has major implications since soft power has long been one of the US’s most valuable tools for maintaining its influence without coercion. In addition to military and defense industry soft power, organizations such as Voice of America, which provides global news to counter misinformation, and USAID, which delivers foreign aid and supports regional stability, have also been shut down, further diminishing the US’s soft power infrastructure. The shutdown of the Voice of America leaves people in nations that have fragile democracies or authoritarian regimes, more exposed to disinformation, eroding US ability to oppose other narratives and propaganda being spread. Without USAID, countries who rely on US support may turn to other countries like China, allowing US influence surrounding governance and economic development to be overturned. We have been seen as a global moral leader, with the shutdown of organizations like these, we run the risk of losing credibility and undermining partnerships towards our dedication towards public diplomacy and development assistance. Due to a lack of trust in the United States, other countries may begin to form a new international order that excludes the US. This effort would aim to create greater global stability. As a result, there may be a shift away from the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency, a development that satisfies other countries such as those in the BRICS alliance.

The United States’ recent actions, focusing on domestic and distancing from foreign relations, seen through the enacted tariffs and uncertain international leadership, have curtailed the US’s global standing. This has led to the questioning of long-standing partnerships, economic and military shifts, suggesting a movement away from the US global leadership, and toward a multipolar order. If the US continues down this path, and does not reassess its role on the global stage, rebuild partnerships with allies, and reaffirm its commitment to working with other countries, it runs the risk of a continued, long-term decline in power and influence globally.