Why Is American Soft Power Collapsing Under Trump’s Second Presidency?

By Geopodec
The Great Reconfiguration: American Soft Power and Cultural Strategy in the Trump II Era
A fractured transatlantic order symbolized through geopolitical chess, American power, and a divided Europe.



1. Introduction: Soft Power in a Fragmented World

As of early 2026, the international order is defined by a profound and visceral fragmentation. The traditional concept of "soft power"—articulated by Joseph Nye as the ability to attract and persuade through values rather than coercion—is undergoing its most severe crisis since the end of the Cold War. Following the analytical tradition of the Institut Choiseul, which has explored the intersection of geoeconomics and cultural influence since 2011, we observe that the second term of Donald Trump has accelerated an institutional decay of the post-1945 consensus.

Since January 2025, Washington has executed a radical return to transactional logic, replacing atrophied diplomacy with a "might-makes-right" posture. Yet, American influence has not vanished; it has been recomposed into new, often abrasive, matrices. This reconfiguration follows three distinct axes:

  • The methodical dismantling of public diplomacy instruments in favor of a utilitarian power struggle.
  • The rise of a "techno-conservative" matrix where private actors and algorithmic deterrence replace traditional state-led attraction.
  • The export of the "Nationalist International," projecting the American culture war as a primary vector of foreign policy.

2. The Dismantling: Methodical Erasure of Public Diplomacy

The Trump II administration views traditional soft power as a sign of vulnerability rather than a strategic asset. This ideological rejection has translated into a structural weakening of the pillars that once projected American "benevolence," particularly in the Global South and across multilateral institutions.

The Erosion of Traditional Influence (2025 Data)

Institution/Program Action Taken Strategic Impact
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) February 2025: Proposed 93% budget cut; cancellation of $100M in programs. Near-elimination of federal capacity for educational exchange; surrender of the "scholarship" battlefield to rivals.
Fulbright Program June 2025: En masse resignation of the board over "ideological vetoes." Severe erosion of academic trust; perceived politicization of historically neutral intellectual exchanges.
USAID Integration into State Dept.; large-scale dismantling of development bureaus. Reduced capacity to project benevolent power in Africa and Latin America to counter Chinese and Russian propaganda.
U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) March 2025: 500+ furloughs; closure of regional bureaus in strategic hubs. Weakened American narrative presence in critical regions such as Eastern Europe and Francophone Africa.
Global Engagement Center (GEC) Full elimination of the agency tasked with countering disinformation. Washington left without a dedicated federal tool to combat adversarial information warfare.
Multilateral Institutions Withdrawal from UNESCO (2026 effective) and Paris Agreement; defunding of WHO and UNRWA. Abandonment of normative leadership; retreat from the "smart power" consensus in favor of erratic unilateralism.

3. The New Matrix: "Techno-Conservatism" and Private Actors

As public instruments decline, a new framework of influence has emerged from the fusion of Big Tech and the State. This "Technological Republic" was codified by the January 2025 Executive Order "Removing Barriers to American Leadership in AI," which opened public procurement to Silicon Valley giants, effectively making them the armed wings of American power. The August 21, 2025 "Joint Statement" further formalized this, forcing European regulatory easing and imposing American technological standards as a prerequisite for trade.

  1. Elon Musk: Embodying the privatization of the American apparatus, Musk has been delegated specific federal prerogatives to serve a populist, techno-patriotic agenda.
  2. Peter Thiel: Through Thiel Capital and the Thiel Fellowship, he promotes a vision of reindustrialization and technological sovereignty, bypassing traditional academic systems in favor of breakthrough innovation.
  3. Alex Karp (Palantir): A leading architect of "algorithmic deterrence," Karp argues that Western survival requires "total collaboration" between tech and defense, moving past the "technological agnosticism" of the previous era.
  4. Marc Andreessen: A vocal advocate for tech giants to act as explicit vectors of national authority, aligning the digital frontier with Washington’s military and economic imperatives.

4. Exporting the "Nationalist International": The Culture War as Diplomacy

The administration no longer distinguishes between domestic grievances and foreign policy. Instead, it utilizes an "Anti-Woke" model to unite global conservative movements against liberal elites, often treating traditional allies as ideological adversaries.

"Trump's foreign policy is the external translation of his fight against liberal elites. He does not distinguish between domestic and international spheres." — Célia Belin, European Council on Foreign Relations.

This ideological offensive is reinforced by direct pressure: in 2025, American embassies sent formal letters to French companies compelling them to abandon Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies under threat of sanctions. This "reverse cultural diplomacy" is supported by hubs such as the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 and Hungary’s Mathias Corvinus Collegium. CPAC events in Budapest and Warsaw have become the staging grounds for this "Nationalist International," finding parallels in the techno-authoritarianism of Nayib Bukele in El Salvador and the libertarian alignment of Argentina’s Javier Milei.

5. The Transatlantic Rupture and "Europeanization"

The breach of trust between Washington and its traditional allies has reached historic proportions. March 2025 polling data reveals a stark divide: 51% of Europeans now view Donald Trump as an "enemy," with skepticism peaking in Denmark (66%) and Belgium (63%). This has catalyzed the "Europeanization of NATO," a concept championed by General Stanisław Koziej to ensure strategic survival as the American "nuclear sharing" commitment wavers.

The Old Alliance (Post-1945) vs. The New Reality (Post-2025)

  • The Old Alliance: Security guarantees based on shared liberal values and automaticity under Article 5; U.S. dominance in command structures and strategic assets.
  • The New Reality: Transactional partnerships requiring 3.5% GDP defense spending; European attainment of strategic capabilities including space intelligence, strategic logistics, and aerial refueling.
  • The Nuclear Pivot: A shift away from the U.S. umbrella toward a reorientation of French and British nuclear doctrine as a regional deterrent.
  • Strategic Independence: Friedrich Merz’s 2025 priority for German "independence" from the U.S., signaling the rise of a European-led defense architecture.

6. The Symbolic and Economic Toll

The pivot toward transactionalism has incurred a measurable price, both in prestige and capital. The global perception of America has shifted from an "uncontested leader" to an "unreliable partner," inducing a significant economic contraction in its cultural exports.

The Price of Transactionalism

  • Tourism Collapse: Triggered by trade wars and the April 2025 "Liberation Day" proclamation of 20% tariff hikes, international arrivals dropped by 22.5% in 2025, a $12 billion loss.
  • Scientific "Brain Drain": Ideological interference in research has driven elite scientists toward programs like France’s "Safe Place for Science."
  • The Greenland Controversy: Insulting private comments by U.S. officials to the Danish and Greenlandic Prime Ministers—exemplified by Senator Lindsay Graham’s dismissal of Danish sovereignty—forced a humiliating climbdown and alienated Nordic allies.
  • Normative Erosion: The cancellation of prestigious grants and the dismantling of the USAGM have left the American narrative at its most incoherent state in the modern era.

7. Conclusion: Polarizing Power

By early 2026, the United States remains a culturally omnipresent force, but it has transitioned from a universal model to a polarizing mirror. This new configuration of soft power is a double-edged sword: it seduces those who admire iconoclastic leadership and brutal frankness, but it creates deep repulsion among traditional allies and the proponents of a rules-based order. America has effectively blurred its national narrative, moving from the role of an uncontested leader to that of a controversial power. In this fragmented landscape, the U.S. continues to fascinate, but it does so as a source of friction rather than a beacon of stability. The reconfiguration is complete: Washington no longer seeks to lead the world, but to dominate its fragments.

References