The United States Built a Global Dream — Now It’s Letting It Slip Away
Why America’s Secret Weapon Was Never Its Military
The Channel 4 documentary The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka opens with a haunting scene: civilians in Jaffna, desperate and terrified, gathering at the gates of the United Nations compound, pleading with the UN not to abandon them. Within hours of that footage, most of them would be killed by advancing Sri Lankan forces. The government had revoked diplomatic visas and ordered all NGOs, including the UN and the Red Cross, to leave. For those trapped in the war zone, the UN’s presence symbolized more than humanitarian aid — it was a lifeline, an embodiment of Western diplomacy and, in particular, the power and protection that many associated with the United States. The belief, however fragile, was that as long as the UN stayed, there would be oversight, justice, and perhaps even safety.
Growing up in South Asia, I witnessed firsthand the profound impact of American soft power — often projected through international institutions, development aid, and cultural alliances. In the most desperate situations, it was a source of hope. We can — and should — debate the ethics and motives behind soft power, but that conversation is secondary to the reality it created for millions: a belief that American presence meant safety, dignity, and the possibility of justice. It was this very belief that moved Tamil civilians to plead with the UN not to leave — because to them, the UN’s presence was not just a symbol of the international community, but a lifeline tied to American influence.
For decades, the United States has maintained its global dominance not only through military might or nuclear deterrence, but through something more nuanced and far-reaching: soft power. This includes a wide array of deliberate cultural exports — Hollywood films, American television, music, fashion — as well as humanitarian aid, diplomacy, and educational outreach. These are not just aspects of American life shared incidentally with the world; they are strategic instruments of influence. Together, they have projected an image of the U.S. as a symbol of freedom, prosperity, and progress. This image — part myth-making, part geopolitical craft — was carefully cultivated.
This wasn’t a coincidence — it was the result of deliberate planning, a long-term strategy woven into the fabric of American foreign policy for decades.
Soft power — the ability to shape the preferences of others through appeal and attraction — has been a cornerstone of America’s post-WWII foreign policy. It allowed the U.S. to win allies, influence ideologies, and stabilize regions without deploying troops. Foreign aid, development programs, cultural diplomacy, student exchanges, and the global magnetism of American media — all of these were tools used not just for benevolence but for strategic continuity. The Marshall Plan was a soft power masterstroke. So was the founding of USAID, the Peace Corps, and the State Department’s countless cultural attaché programs. These weren’t just symbolic; they generated real goodwill and aligned nations with U.S. interests.
To understand the broader arc of this strategy, it helps to look backward — to the ancients.
History’s Playbook: Greek, Romans, and the Art of Influence
When the Greeks expanded their empire, they believed dominance meant replacement. They sought to overwrite local cultures with their own, imposing language, religion, architecture, and governance. Their power was declarative, assertive, top-down. The Romans, by contrast, took a more integrative approach. They did not seek to erase cultures but to infiltrate them — to fold them into a broader Roman order. They sent musicians, artists, writers, and engineers to live among the people, elevating Roman norms not by imposition, but by integration. They built infrastructure, hosted games, offered citizenship, and subtly cultivated a shared identity across provinces. The Romans understood what we today call soft power: influence that comes not from force, but from allure.
The United States, historically, has followed a similar Roman playbook. Rather than demanding cultural submission, it offered its ideals as aspirational. The world came to the U.S. not just for economic opportunity or refuge, but for meaning. American art, music, movies, and even fast food became signifiers of modern life. And when disaster struck — famine, war, or economic collapse — American aid often arrived first, not only helping people survive but further embedding U.S. credibility and presence in the world’s emotional memory.
But that long-cultivated influence is now under threat — from within.
Trump and the Erosion of Soft Power
The Trump administration’s deliberate rollback of soft power infrastructure — defunding and dismantling USAID, pulling out of United Nations bodies, slashing foreign aid, and abandoning diplomatic institutions — marks a radical break from this decades-long strategic posture. Under the guise of “America First,” the U.S. has effectively walked off the soft power battlefield. The consequences may not be immediate, but they are inevitable.
China has already begun filling the void. Through the Belt and Road Initiative, Confucius Institutes, and cultural outreach, China is stepping into spaces the U.S. once held with quiet authority. While the nature of Chinese soft power is different — and often more transactional — its rise signals a shift in global gravitational pull. Nations that once looked westward for leadership are beginning to look elsewhere. Influence, after all, abhors a vacuum.
What’s more troubling is the apparent misunderstanding — perhaps even disregard — of soft power by those currently driving U.S. foreign policy. Recent U.S. annual threat assessments and intelligence hearing reflect a worldview that leans heavily on hard power, while sidelining the quiet influence of diplomacy, narrative, and cultural presence — the very tools that created and sustained America’s trust in the world.
Trust is not easy to build. You can’t drone your way into trust. You can’t sanction your way into admiration.
The Dissolving of Soft Power
Growing up in South Asia, I witnessed how American soft power could show up in profound ways — through aid, education, Hollywood, music, and the arts. In moments of crisis, it wasn’t just resources that arrived, but a sense of being seen and valued. For many like me, the United States represented more than geography — it was an idea, a symbol of possibility. That idea mattered. It still does.
Now, as an American, I’m concerned. Concerned that we are dismantling one of the most powerful tools of national influence ever wielded. Concerned that we’re undervaluing the role of perception, narrative, and emotional allegiance in the global order. And concerned that by doing so, we are undermining our long-term strategic interests, tarnishing the image that has earned us trust, alliances, and a place in the world’s imagination.
Because make no mistake: U.S. economics, diplomacy, and global standing have always rested, in part, on its soft power. Undermine it, and you weaken the very architecture that has allowed the United States to lead without always having to dominate.
Perhaps even if the world still wants to believe in the United States. The question remains: does she believe in herself?
In the absence of trust, soft power dissolves — and with it, the influence that once needed no explanation.
Resources
The Strategist. Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Whatever happened to soft power?
History.com. How Ancient Rome Thrived During Pax Romana
Wikipedia. Hellenistic Period.
Reuters. Image of the US has plunged under Trump, survey shows.
Council on Foreign Relations. U.S Soft Power Is Siraling in Asia, With China Filling the Void.
Council on Foreign Relations. China’s Big Bet on Soft Power.
Manohar Parikar Institute For Defence Studies and Analyses. Hard Attack on US Soft Power: The Case of USAID.
Harvard Kennedy School. Professor Joe Nye coined the term “soft power”. He says America’s is in decline under Trump.