Soft power suicide: America gives up the battle for the hearts and minds

For someone who aspires to be a disruptor, Donald Trump is remarkably predictable. Take anything that increases US power and influence around the globe, and makes the rest of the world admire the US and seek to emulate it, and he immediately takes an axe to it, ceding the space to America’s adversaries before they have even had to make a move. Great powers in history have collapsed in the wake of military defeat, internal revolution or as the result of steep economic decline, but rarely have they voluntarily surrendered all their power attributes without a fight.

Yet this is what is happening to the US today in the area of soft power, the term coined three decades ago by Joseph Nye of Harvard, and that describes the special US capacity to achieve its foreign policy objectives not by military force or economic coercion, but by attracting others to voluntarily side with it and seek to intensify interaction with it. This is because cooperation with the US was seen not as a zero-sum game of winner and loser but, to quote President John F. Kennedy, as a rising tide that would lift all boats. Integration into the US global network of alliances and partners was viewed as benefitting not just states, but also civilian populations who believed that when push comes to shove the US would have their backs and stand up for their human rights and freedoms. In short, the US was a trustworthy partner that best defended its interests by staying loyal to its values. The US global system was an empire of sorts in its vast geographical outreach; but it was, to recall the remark by the former head of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, Geir Lundestad, an “empire by invitation”, based on voluntary association and the sense that contributions and benefits would balance out over the long run.

Central to the success of the US was its greater ability vis-à-vis its ideological competitors, like the Soviet Union or China, to deploy soft power. That is to say to win over the hearts and minds of global audiences by convincing them that aligning with the US, even if this meant some responsibilities and burdens, was the better long-term option. So, in addition to deploying hundreds of thousands of troops permanently beyond its borders, the US also contributed 48% of foreign humanitarian aid through its Agency for International Development and around 20% to the budget of the United Nations and its various agencies. It also financed a number of media outlets that sought to counter the powerful Soviet and Chinese propaganda machines. Run by the State Department, radio stations like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia (set up later in 1996) certainly conveyed a positive view of US diplomacy and society; but they did not do propaganda, lies and distortions. They organised debates, allowed space for different views and carried out opinion polls and in-depth research and data collection that was trusted by the academic community. Later, an Arabic language TV station, Alhurra, was added to counter the anti-Western messaging frequently emanating from Gulf-sponsored media such as Al Jazeera, Al Manar or Al Arabiya. Radio Martí sent programming into Cuba to undermine the vitriolic anti-US rhetoric of the Castro regime while Radio Farda did something similar towards the Ayatollahs in Iran. The philosophy behind US public broadcasting was that the US was a sufficiently self-confident country, at ease with itself and its values, to accept criticism and to allow the truth to be told. US public broadcasting was also not the mouthpiece of a particular administration, to be manipulated for its own public relations purposes, but available to represent all the mainstream political and civil society groups active inside the US itself. Editorial independence was guaranteed despite government funding. During the Cold War, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty worked steadfastly to overcome persistent jamming by the Soviet Union and Communist China to reach audiences otherwise subjected to relentless state propaganda. Radio Free Asia was particularly important in penetrating the firewalls of authoritarian states in China, Myanmar, North Korea and Vietnam. The Cold War may be long over, but with democracy in retreat, disinformation rampant and authoritarian regimes pouring more and more resources into their own self-serving propaganda and influencing social media platforms, the need for the US to maintain its own public broadcasting network was as strong as ever. The money invested seems modest in comparison to the results achieved in laying the groundwork of global public support for US foreign policy. Voice of America, for instance, broadcasts in 48 languages and has an average audience of 360mn every week. The entire budget for all the broadcasting outlets in 2024 was US$886mn, a fraction of one percent of a Pentagon budget in excess of US$800bn, and with a total staff of journalists and contractors of just 3,384 employees.

Yet, the opposite has happened. Following hard on the heels of the disbandment of the US Agency for International Development, accused of wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer money, the Trump administration has now shuttered the US international broadcasting outlets. Last Saturday, 1,300 staff at Voice of America, including its director, Michael Abramowitz, as well as hundreds of journalists at the other stations, received emails telling them not to return to the office and to hand back all their passes and office-issued equipment and devices to their administrators. Loss of job and income is bad enough for most of us, but in the case of the US international media outlets, the consequences for many employees will be even more serious. Deportation from the US after work visas are withdrawn or journalists working under the radar in many authoritarian states losing their protections and now fearing for their safety. Yet another Executive Order from the White House last Friday declared that the US Agency for Global Media, the parent body for the various outlets, is “among the elements of the federal bureaucracy that the president has determined are unnecessary”. The head of the Agency, Kari Lake, a former Arizona TV anchor who was unsuccessful in her bid for a Senate seat, made no effort to defend the Agency and the value of its mission, but said that federal grant money “no longer effectuates agency priorities”. More crudely, a White House press officer, Harrison Fields, wrote “Goodbye” on X in 20 languages, mocking the internationalism that was the basis of America’s public diplomacy efforts. Musk and other Trump acolytes even accused Voice of America of conducting “radical propaganda”, displaying once more their fundamental ignorance of the activities they are now terminating. Michael Abramowitz acknowledged that the public broadcasters might benefit from reforms in the manner that much of the broadcasting effort in recent years has been directed away from central and eastern Europe (now in NATO and the EU) and towards Russia and Asia, more in the shadow of authoritarian regimes and subject to information bubbles. Yet, he could not understand what purpose would be served by abolishing or eviscerating the public broadcasters altogether. A similar message came from the President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Stephen Capus, who described the shutdown as “a massive gift to America’s enemies”. Journalists’ associations, although their job is not usually to be indulgent towards state-financed media, were also taken aback. Reporters Without Borders condemned the shutdown which “threatens press freedom worldwide and negates 80 years of American history in supporting the free flow of information”. The ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Gregory Meeks, issued a joint statement with senior Democratic Congresswoman, Lois Frankel, drawing attention to the “lasting damage” the halt to US international broadcasting would inflict on US “efforts to counter propaganda around the world”. Yet, will these protests do any good?

Certainly, in some instances, the courts have blocked the firing of federal employees without due process and ordered their reinstatement. The Trump administration has also backtracked frequently when it has realised the damage its scattergun onslaught on the US government machinery risks causing, as with nuclear safety engineers, national park wardens, the coastguard, air traffic controllers or those administering Medicare or Medicaid payments, vital to many elderly Trump voters. Unfortunately, public broadcasters are unlikely to be in the category of essential workers supporting the daily functioning of the American economy. Yet, as with the Agency for International Development, the Agency for Global Media was established by an act of Congress. So we could assume that Congress would want a say in the future of US international broadcasting. But as with so many other areas of the ‘Trumpian great unravelling’, Congress has been quiet and submissive. Despite having a wafer-thin majority in the House, Republicans have been surprisingly united in supporting Trump’s moves. The divisions have been more in the Democratic camp, leaderless and rudderless in policy terms since losing the election last November. Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, recently broke with his Democrat colleagues to vote with Republicans to extend temporary government financing for another six months and to avoid a government shutdown. Faced with Trump’s tactic of “flooding the zone” with one dizzying initiative after the other and Trump’s total domination of the media and news cycle, Democrats have not known how to respond; whether to select certain issues that would cut through to the electorate or do nothing and wait for the Trump administration to collapse under the weight of a failing economy or its own contradictions. Democrats held a retreat last week at Leesburg, Virginia to define a new strategy vis-à-vis Trump, but don’t expect any effective opposition to emerge anytime soon. Democrats are ideologically split between those who interpret their defeat last November as a sign that they need to embrace at least part of Trump’s populist and protectionist agenda, oppose immigration and move closer to the working class and its economic concerns; and those who want to stay committed to free markets, a progressive agenda based on inclusion and minority rights, combatting climate change and supporting traditional alliances. Until they know what they stand for, and more importantly what America stands for, Democrats will not produce a coherent approach to US international broadcasting. So, the opposition to the shuttering of Voice of America and the other outlets will come mainly from the US allies and partners overseas who better understand the value these services provide. For instance, the Prime Minister of Czechia, Petr Fiala, has expressed his dismay that Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, based in Prague, will no longer receive US funding from the end of March. He has called for EU talks on the issue. Certainly, the Warsaw Pact is long gone, but Radio Free Europe, as I know from my own time as NATO Spokesman, has still had a major role to play in those parts of eastern Europe that have a lack of trained, professional journalists, an immature and inflammatory media culture where disinformation and conspiracy theories often come before facts, state media is dominated by party interests and where independent reporting can still be a risky and even dangerous occupation. The Western Balkans are a prominent example, but even EU countries such as Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria have witnessed similar tendencies. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasts to 23 countries in 27 languages and reaches weekly 50mn listeners with a staff of 1,700 journalists and contractors.

To some extent, America’s retreat from public diplomacy reflects a narrowing of the media culture within the US itself. Trump and his cabinet members and officials only ever seem to talk to friendly, softball media, like Fox TV or Breitbart, or to Musk on X, where the questions will border on the deferential and the obsequious. Chatty podcasts where guests are free to expound crazy ideas, such as that of Joe Rogan, are part of this landscape too. Journalists who ask difficult questions or do not go along with Trump’s version of the truth are excluded from the White House briefings, as in the case of Associated Press. The White House Spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, has now taken the role of determining who is allowed into press briefings and who is not away from the White House Press Association, and she clearly favours in this respect the new right-wing social media platforms and podcasts over the traditional media. Trump clearly, and like many modern politicians, prefers to communicate directly with his supporters in his own language rather than to be paraphrased, edited or interpreted through the traditional media. No doubt he thinks that his almost daily and endless press conferences, taken up at the moment by the international media almost as much as by the US domestic media, are a viable substitute for a US Public Diplomacy activity. But he is not trying to win friends and influence people as much as bully and intimidate them by putting the US’ interest before their own. In the case of Canada or Denmark, for instance, the result has been to turn public opinion against the US, where it was traditionally favourable. The other problem with the White House as Communications Grand Central approach is that Trump’s messages are often confusing and contradictory, and that he presents only the small part of American life or activity that he is momentarily interested in. What millions of Americans are doing or thinking in thousands of cities and small towns across the vast country, and how they too are shaping the future of America and its place in the world, doesn’t get reported.

Of course, the shuttering of the US international public broadcasters does not cut the US off from international public opinion entirely. US newspapers, like the international edition of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal or Newsweek, are still on newsstands across the globe and National Public Radio is still available on the internet (but for how much longer, one wonders). TV channels like CNN, CNBC or Bloomberg are still available on cable or YouTube for subscribers. Yet, these media are clearly designed for paying, elite audiences, and in specialised fields. The TV channels are mainly business and stock-market-focused, and are not seeking to plug information gaps in authoritarian states or promote press freedoms or present American life in the round. CNN reached the height of its global influence and audience during the Gulf War of 1991 when it dominated the airwaves; but its scope and audience have declined considerably since then. The US entertainment industry is, as always, alive and well with platforms such as Netflix and Disney, but the scope of these to use popular culture to build international understanding is open to question. The same applies in spades to the US social media platforms, like Facebook, X or YouTube which are now universal. But Mark Zuckerberg’s original vision of Facebook as uniting the whole world in a single community of smiling friends and likes has given way to a much more dystopian vision of disinformation, online bullying, emotional rage and extremist views less and less constrained by fact-checking or anything approaching journalistic integrity. As we have seen with Musk’s acquisition of Twitter or Zuckerberg’s U-turn on fact-checking in Meta, political pressures or commercial interests can rapidly swing a social media platform in a new direction and make the platforms more vulnerable to political manipulation. In short, the US commercial media sector has its role in projecting US soft power, but by far, it cannot replace the trust, balanced reporting and quality journalism and influence built up over time by an independent state-funded public broadcaster.

Trump’s Executive Order is all the more perplexing as it comes at a time when America’s adversaries, as always keen to take advantage of US negligence and lapses, are massively stepping up their public diplomacy and communications efforts. China is offering free access to its press agencies across Africa and the less developed world in contrast to Reuters, AP or AFP, which quite understandably need to use subscriptions to pay for quality journalism. China Global Television Network (CGTN) is rapidly expanding and using well-known Western news anchors and reporters, as well as Western-style roundtables and debates to make it look like a well-established international channel like BBC News or CNN. It mixes some openness of debate, particularly on issues that do not involve China and its leadership directly, with a good dose of the world seen from Beijing to establish its credibility. The Chinese English-language newspaper, Global Times, could not hide its glee that the US was now gutting its own international broadcasting, stating in an editorial that “the monopoly of information held by some traditional media is being shattered”. Russia is allegedly spending around US$70mn each year on its international broadcasting, focusing on the Sputnik news agency and the old Soviet Tass, but mainly on its TV channel RT, now appearing in multiple European languages. RT has been sanctioned or fined in a number of countries and is now outright banned in the EU, Canada and the UK after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine for deliberately spreading misinformation and not heeding the warnings from media watchdogs to correct it. It closed in the US when it faced too many restrictions on its cable operations. RT’s motto “Question More” exemplifies the channel’s philosophy that there is always another side to the story, that Western governments are intentionally hiding the truth from their citizens and that the truth is in any case a vast and ultimately unknowable conspiracy theory. Despite being banned, RT content has been recycled on websites, such as Man Stuff News, that help RT to skirt the official restrictions. Given the public visibility of state news channels, their large infrastructure and the regulations surrounding their operations, it is easier for Russia to influence foreign audiences by planting material on the major social media platforms where its origin can be better disguised behind fake news agencies, bots and fake personalities, fellow travellers in the form of pro-Moscow ‘experts’ and paid local influencers. Moscow’s task in the public diplomacy realm is fundamentally different from the US objective. Its aim is not to build a positive image of Russia as a country and society (that would be a big ask), but to sow chaos and confusion in Western countries – always seen as the adversary in Russian media operations whatever the Kremlin may say publicly from time to time. Thus, it switches audiences, messages and targets according to what will create the most polarisation at any given time. Yet, it is not only Beijing and Moscow that are today trying to out-communicate the US, and often succeeding. A medium-sized power like Türkiye is also spreading its perspective across Europe and the Middle East with its slick and highly professional TRT International centred on London and Istanbul. Iran has its Press TV and the Gulf states, as already mentioned, have long broadcast to the wider Arab world and beyond, particularly the Qatar-owned Al Jazeera, where the content on the English language channel is much more moderate than what viewers see on its Arabic equivalent. So, the global media environment has become much more competitive and also fragmented – a reason for the US to engage more and with more resources, not abandon the field altogether.

So where do we go from here?

President Trump clearly doesn’t regard soft power as a true form of power. But here again, he contradicts himself as when he claims that a few dozen US private sector contractors involved in mining projects in Ukraine will prevent Putin from renewing his military offensive inside the country. For Trump, power is all about constraining and coercing and bending others to your will. Power is about the performative demonstration of power, and for this, there has to be a clear winner, meaning also a clear loser. Outcomes-based on give and take in the short term so that everyone can win in the long run are alien to this concept. So, for the new US administration, the way to project influence and pursue national interests is through the two essential components of hard power, namely military force and economic leverage. Yet in reality, and as Trump may well discover in his second term, both military power and economic leverage are frequently ineffective. Overwhelming military force did not save the US from disaster and humiliation in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. It left three countries in ruins and created fissures in US politics and society. The times when America used its military power together with allies, as in Korea and Kosovo, worked out much better. Similarly, in an era of globalisation and economic interdependence, tariffs and protectionism or beggar-thy-neighbour unilateral measures leading to less trade make us all poorer. Wages stagnate, productivity falls, with less competition businesses grow complacent and product quality suffers and prices go up. To hurt our neighbours, we have to hurt ourselves too. Even Trump now is talking about recession and economic pain as the consequences of his policies although to what ultimate purpose is far from clear. Yet, the world will move on. Canada will reorient its trade towards the EU and Asia, the EU will trade more with China and Latin America, there will be fewer international financial transactions in US dollars, and instead of dictating to the global economy, the US will become more isolated from it.

Ultimately, soft power becomes hard power. Take the example of the Sahel and western Africa, where poor or belated French public diplomacy vis-à-vis the civilian populations created a space for Russian anti-Western propaganda to fill, particularly in the local and social media. France was unsuccessful in using public diplomacy to transform its bad image as the former colonial power into a new image as a benign partner despite the best efforts of President Macron in several visits to the region. Large and persistent anti-French demonstrations over two years led to the departure of French forces and the closure of bases in nearly all the former French colonies in the region, including countries traditionally loyal to France like Senegal and Ivory Coast. What is baffling about Trump’s approach to soft power is that it is an area in which the US has undoubted strengths and advantages. Although the US Information Agency was folded into the State Department as far back as 1999, US embassies abroad have organised cultural and literary events, roundtables and seminars, sponsored think tank research and invited future leaders to spend time in the US. American diplomats and officials have frequently been highly competent communicators. Going back to Watergate in 1973-4 and the Washington Post’s exposure of a cover up at the highest levels of the US government, generations of young journalists have been inspired by the US media’s capacity for muckraking and investigative reporting. Meanwhile, US media organisations have maintained bureaux in most of the major capitals of the world to help the average US newspaper reader or TV viewer make sense of the world. Many US journalists have paid a heavy price trying to get at the truth in authoritarian or war-torn countries, as the experiences of Evan Gershkovich in Russia, Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, Marie Colvin in Syria and James Foley in Iraq remind us. The US capacity for effective public diplomacy – which has even become a field of academic study in the US with a dedicated Public Diplomacy Institute at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles – has certainly helped the US through periods when its politics were not popular either at home or abroad, as with Watergate or George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. So, if Trump truly wants to make America great again, muzzling US global communications and going silent in a world where billions of people are driven by perceptions, emotions, narratives and multiple realities does not seem the wisest place to start.

As with so many other Trump decisions and proclaimed policies, Europeans will hope that the ‘great unravelling’ of US international broadcasting will be a temporary affair and that business as usual will be restored in four years’ time when Trump retires to his Florida golf course. But we cannot be sure. Trump’s clear election victory tells us a lot about a changing US with more isolationist sentiment and where the appetite for US global leadership and financing the liberal multilateral order is diminishing. Trump may rejig the Constitution to run again, or be succeeded by JD Vance or a Trump family member. Dissident internationalist Republicans will fear to raise their heads above the parapet or try to steer the party back towards the middle ground. Quite conceivably, and with their differences over strategy so evident, the Democrats will take more than four years to get their act together and fail to offer the electorate a convincing alternative. So, what is gone may be gone for a long time. This means that public diplomacy in defence of democracy and liberal values, countering the falsehoods of the authoritarian states, like so much else, will fall onto the shoulders of the Europeans. How can they step up?

Firstly, by taking over the financing of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty from the end of March if only on an interim basis. The EU or a consortium of friends of Radio Free Europe could do this while a long-term business plan for the station, perhaps to include a restructuring and reform initiative, is worked out. The European Commission’s audio visual services have financially supported many European broadcasters in the past, which offer a transnational European perspective such as Euronews or the Franco-German ARTE channel. The European Parliament has also contributed to these efforts. Some of the larger European countries have also invested in international broadcasting, even stepping up efforts in recent years to address a more competitive and confrontational geopolitical environment, for instance, the BBC World Service, TV5 Monde in France or Deutsche Welle. Poland too is trying to expand its news channel, TVP Info, into more of an international broadcaster. These channels could come together in a joint venture to operate Radio Free Europe and form a governing board. Content, research and broadcast and online news and analysis and services could be shared. The Czech government already provides facilities in Prague and technical support that presumably could continue on a national basis. But an interim solution is needed urgently before the Radio Free Europe staff disappear and valuable expertise and experience, as well as the listening audience, are lost.

Secondly, the EU needs to perform a gap analysis of the impact of the US withdrawal from public broadcasting. Especially when it comes to getting inside authoritarian regimes in Asia, the Middle East or Africa and helping to foster independent professional journalism. The EU is obviously not the US. Its style, messaging and priorities will clearly be different. But the audiences for Voice of America or Radio Free Asia would most probably be there for quality European broadcasting too. How can they be co-opted? The answer could be an EU channel, but that might come across as too bureaucratic or technical, reflecting the lowest common denominator of EU consensus and policies. A better alternative might be to come up with a plan to expand national outlets that already have privileged markets. For instance, Radio France Internationale specialises in Africa and features a multitude of African voices and cultural traditions. The BBC World Service reaches 19mn listeners daily and has close links to the Commonwealth countries. Due to its partnership with CBS, the BBC also has a significant following in the US, which is a public diplomacy asset for the EU if Brussels can work with London on this issue despite Brexit. Deutsche Welle is strong in eastern Europe and central Asia, while Spanish and Portuguese broadcasters can take on the responsibility for reaching out to Latin America. EU Foreign Ministers need to task the External Action Service, working with the Commission and the European Parliament, to come up with a strategic communications plan to broadcast quality news and information worldwide and to support independent media wherever possible. Brussels needs to see which European broadcasters have the networks and willingness to cooperate in this effort and a senior European diplomat, official or figure from the world of media and journalism needs to be put in charge of driving it through and reporting periodically to the EU Council on progress.

Finally, the EU needs to structure its relations with organisations and groups in the US that are able to continue a constructive transatlantic dialogue on common interests and concerns. Fortunately, not all of these are government financed and likely to be axed from one day to the next. The US has a vibrant think tank and NGO community with prominent personalities, experienced former diplomats and politicians and world-renowned experts that can work with Europe on global public diplomacy strategies and bridge-building with emerging powers like India or South Africa. They too can develop ideas for how to rebuild the US-European relationship when the opportunity arises. Bodies like the German Marshall Fund, the Atlantic Council, the Center for European Policy Analysis, the Aspen Institute, the Carnegie Endowment and the European institutes and centres at leading US universities such as Harvard come to mind. They already have a decades-old track record of bringing people together on both sides of the Atlantic and driving the policy process forward in innumerable joint studies and analyses. Europe has its counterparts too in the form of organisations like the Munich Security Conference, GLOBSEC or the European Council on Foreign Relations as well as the enormous number of American studies departments in European universities. The EU needs a plan for how it can enhance this transatlantic network to keep the younger generations of political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic connected to each other and help the liberal part of America to remain plugged into the rest of the world at this difficult time. If these internationalist bodies in the US come under political or financial pressure from the Trump administration the EU and European governments have to be ready to step into the breach, although Trump loyalists will predictably claim that this makes them “agents of foreign powers”, a tactic used by Putin in Russia and the Georgian Dream in Georgia. But if ever there was a time to be bold, it is now.

The soft power suicide of the US will be incomprehensible to future historians who will be dumbfounded in their attempts to explain why the global leader voluntarily wrecked one of its greatest national assets. Yet, it is a reality that we must live with even if we fail to understand it. But whatever the US chooses to do, the future of the global information order, press freedoms and the ability of people across the world to have access to the truth are too important to die with the burial of Voice of America. What the US refuses to do, Europe must. “ Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more”.