Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
The end of US soft power?
The world’s wake-up call came at 3 a.m.
In the early darkness on Saturday, Feb. 1, USAID was suddenly shut down. “This site can’t be reached,” read its homepage. The end of the great age of American soft power began.
It was shocking, but not surprising. When Elon Musk pulled the rip cord of his verbal chainsaw and declared that USAID was a $40 billion “criminal organization” that “must die,” the deep-cut result was inevitable. President Donald Trump agreed, saying the organization was run “by a bunch of lunatics.”
Today, the website message is more stark. “On Friday, February 7, 2025, at 11:59 p.m. (EST) all USAID direct hire personnel will be placed on administrative leave globally, with the exception of designated personnel responsible for mission-critical functions, core leadership and specially designated programs.”
The remnants of USAID will be rolled into the State Department.
Is this really the end of American soft power and, if so, how should allies respond?
Created by President John F. Kennedy back in 1961, USAID was meant to be the bicep in America’s muscular arm of diplomatic power. According to the Congressional Research Service, USAID “provides assistance to strategically important countries and countries in conflict; leads US efforts to alleviate poverty, disease, and humanitarian need; and assists US commercial interests by supporting developing countries’ economic growth and building countries’ capacity to participate in world trade.”
It was a broad mandate covering over 131 countries and hundreds of programs.
What did they do? At its best, USAID helped fight deadly diseases through programs such as the Malaria Council in Uganda, or the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. It supported NGOs working to stop the spread of Ebola and Marburg virus and to feed hungry people in Sudan.
The hyperpolarized culture wars rang the death knell of proportionality long ago, so when Musk dismissed the entire agency as “a radical left political psy ops” program, it fit the moment. Everything is now either the worst or the best. The middle ground is gone. But for all that, the facts remain and they are worth mentioning.
For example, the White House currently has a website up outlining its claims of waste and abuse at USAID, chronicling things like $70,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland and $32,000 for a “transgender comic book in Peru.” Those are making headlines in the culture war media. There will be other examples of programs the current administration chooses not to fund or accuses of corruption, but how many?
Turns out, the website only gives concrete examples of about $12 million worth of programs they don’t like, along with allegations but no data on “hundreds of millions” of others. Of USAID’s annual budget of $40 billion, that adds up to less than 2%. Is the best answer to a broken toe the complete amputation of a leg? Apparently so.
USAID was an important instrument of what Joseph Nye called “soft power,” achieving national security and goals through attraction, not coercion. “When you can get others to admire your ideals and to want what you want, you do not have to spend as much on sticks and carrots to move them in your direction,” Nye wrote in “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics” back in 2004.
USAID was just that, projecting the ideals of the US in places where chaos, poverty, and insecurity are fertile grounds for malevolent forces that endanger the United States. It did this by supporting multilateral institutions, such as the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Agreement. Soft power is a form of security and is supposed to work in conjunction with hard power. But if you think the cost of soft power is high, try the costs of hard power. Americans know that all too well from experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What is striking about all this is that the Trump administration is not just trying to recalibrate US soft power to promote its own agenda. If that were the case, they would simply reform USAID, not kill it. This is radically different. What is now clear is that the Trump administration doesn’t believe in the value of soft power at all. It simply has no use in their political playbook.
There are no countries happier with the retreat of US soft power than China and Russia. Their influence in developing countries will now grow dramatically. Democracies are in retreat all over the world, as the Freedom House map shows, and the sunset of US soft power will make it worse.
But this is not the only example of the twilight of US soft power. The threat of 25% percent tariffs on allies like Canada is another. There is no closer ally to the US than Canada, with a shared border, a free trade deal, and deeply connected cultures. The tariff threat suddenly upended that, leading to scenes I have never witnessed in my lifetime, such as Canadians booing the American national anthem at hockey games.
The northern sense of confusion and betrayal is being amplified by the election cycles in Canada, with politicians now stoking a patriotism that comes at the expense of affection for the US. It is not a good trend but in context, completely understandable.
At this moment, the ubiquitous soft power of American culture has gone from inspiring to infuriating, the American beacon of freedom is now fried up into Canadian bacon. It will take a long time to reestablish trust between the friendliest of all neighbo(u)rs.
Let’s not overstate things. US soft power is not gone; it’s just diminished. American culture, innovation, and institutions remain resilient to challenges and attractive to billions of people. And for all the talk of diversifying trade, Canada will be economically tied to the US forever. There is simply no escaping geography.
But the end of the golden age of American soft power means that hard power options — militarily and economically – are now the most prominent tools on the table. Trump’s repeated claim that Canada should become the 51st state while threatening to economically destroy the country has gone from a bad joke to an ominous warning. How to respond?
As the US abandons its soft power strategy, its allies are having to develop their own versions of it to avoid punishment. Taking on Trump in a hard power fight is, after all, a lose-lose. A trade war may hurt the US, but it would hurt Canada much more.
The strategy now is to use soft power levers to try to convince the US president that what Washington wants, Ottawa wants too, without giving up too much in the process. So spending $1.3 billion at the border to stop illegal immigration and fentanyl is money well spent if it can help stave off tariffs that would likely push Canada into a recession. Of course, the tariffs aren't solely in response to fentanyl and immigration, but those are low-hanging fruit and, so far, addressing those issues has worked.
Then what? What are the rules of soft power in dealing with President Trump? Don’t celebrate and gloat over a win. Stay cool when threats don’t materialize. Don’t make it personal because with the president the personal is political. This is not a strategy of appeasement but simply using carrots, not sticks. To twist an old David Frost saying, soft power is the art of letting someone else have your way.
Why cutting USAID will hurt American foreign policy
Ian's Quick Take: Hi everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take for today on USAID, the US Agency for International Development, which is in the process of being shut down. Nearly all Washington staff have been put on leave, they're closing missions abroad, the State Department moving to evacuate all staff around the world. Why should we care? Does this matter? This agency was set up back over 50 years ago, 1961, by then President John F. Kennedy, and it was meant to coordinate the distribution of foreign aid for the United States all over the world and differentiate that from military support that was provided by the United States.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the US isn't providing charity, that's not what foreign aid is, that it should be providing support for US national interests. And I agree that it should be providing support for US national interest, but it is important to recognize that actually when USAID was set up, it was set up in part as charity, that President Kennedy's position was that the United States had a moral obligation to support poorer people, and poorer countries around the world. They are fellow human beings, after all, and the United States has historically benefited massively from developing resources all around the world, and frequently, the people that lived in those countries didn't get very much as a consequence, and the US has benefited massively, as have other wealthy countries, from industrialization, and putting carbon into the atmosphere that now poor countries can't do because of climate change, and we're saying, "We need to transition," but the US, of course, has gotten the benefits of that historically.
You know, my view is, I'm okay with charity. I actually think that helping save lives with food and medicine for millions of people and especially babies and children. I mean, even if it did nothing for the United States directly, I would be okay with spending some of the money of American taxpayers on that, especially as opposed to say a war in Afghanistan or the latest sort of bomber program that is expensive and more than the Americans need. So, I push back on the US should never do charity argument. But leaving that aside, you don't need that argument to focus on the importance of USAID.
And I want to, before I get into the national interest side, I do want to say I am empathetic with why it is unpopular. Because at a moment when so many average Americans feel like the US government has not taken care of them, and this is why you see so much backlash against all of the illegal immigrants that have not been addressed by administrations for many years, and why there's so much backlash against the US establishment, whether it's Democrat or Republican, in saying, "What about the average working American? What about our healthcare? What about our public school system? What about things that you should care a lot more about than sending aid to brown people around the world?" Which is essentially what USAID is mostly doing. I get that. And in that regard, it's an easy target for Trump. It's a particularly easy target for Elon Musk. I would ask first, "Why tax cuts for and regulations written by billionaires in the United States before poor people and Americans?" That would be my higher priority if I was really, really angry and antagonized by how badly money is being spent in the US. But that's a different story.
The point is you don't need to make the argument of charity. It is very clear that US foreign aid supports America's economic and national security interests. It is growing markets for consumers, for American businesses and products all over the world. The US has the biggest businesses. It has the biggest market. It benefits the most from other countries around the world having more capacity to sustainably consume and engage with those businesses. America benefits in having more health security by containing disease and pandemics because those diseases and pandemics don't suddenly stop at the American border. The US benefits from aid that reduces insurgencies creating instability that leads to more illegal migration all over the world, many of whom ultimately end up in the United States. It creates more economic opportunity and safety and security in origin countries. And that is a carrot that matters. It's not just about sticks. It's a carrot for economic statecraft that gives the Americans more influence as opposed to say the Russians, or more importantly the Chinese.
Because getting rid of USAID and cutting back on all these programs creates a vacuum. And that is an opportunity for adversaries. I've already seen ministers from large African countries who have their American programs getting cut off, reaching out immediately to their counterparts, ministers in China saying, "Are you willing to send in the programs to replace the Americans that are leaving?" And China doesn't have the economic wherewithal, the Americans do, but they certainly will seize opportunities that are economically useful to them, long-term, because they have a much longer-term perspective on these things than a US administration that's gone in four years. So I worry about that.
I think that USAID has been America's principle interlocutor with civil society in developing countries. And to the extent that we care about those countries having systems that are more aligned with the values and standards that the United States has historically promoted, then you don't want to undermine that and allow the Chinese to come in, which has very little interest in civil society, indifferent to civil society. It's a source of intelligence for the United States. And we've seen that even if it's sometimes uncomfortable for the local governments who aren't necessarily in favor of that. It is true that all USAID projects are probably not going to ultimately be killed, that the State Department is going to take it over and Marco Rubio has said that, "There's a lot of corruption in USAID, and a lot of this money is misspent, and is spent badly, and breaks executive orders," and I am sure that is true, and I am sure that that corruption needs to be addressed. It wouldn't surprise me. The US is an incredibly bloated government system. But shooting first and asking questions later tends to kill innocencts. And that is of course the approach here. And the reality is, that Elon and Trump and their ability to act and be destructive is much greater than the damage control that the secretary of state can do at this moment. And the State Department just does not have the people or the infrastructure to execute on a lot of these programs once USAID is shut down.
And the message that this is really sending to allies is that the United States is an unreliable partner. You cannot count on it. That what they say to you in one administration is not going to be consistent in a second administration, in a way that is not true with other countries, most other countries, around the world. And so I continue to believe, as I did before Trump was inaugurated, that the US is going to see a lot of wins. A lot of countries are going to bend to his will because he's more powerful and he's willing to use that power directly. But that does not mean that the United States will long-term succeed in a law of the jungle approach, an approach which is all stick and no carrot, even when the stick is very, very big, but you can't wield it effectively for a long period of time. And other countries are learning that carrots are kind of smart. I mean, the Chinese originally perfected the all stick and no carrot approach and then saw that the United States was more effective in a lot of countries because they also had economic statecraft. They also had these commercial levers, and so the Chinese started saying, "Oh, we need to figure out how to deliver aid to a lot of these countries, doesn't have to be transparent, can work right with the governments, but ultimately that's going to give us more influence in these countries." And that is something that President Trump and his administration in the early weeks at least seemed to be jettisoning.
So I think this is Pennywise pound foolish. I think it is short-term beneficial to Trump and will look like a win for him and his base and long-term will undermine US power around the world and will of course make the world a less stable place. So on balance, I think this is a problem. It's not something that I think is going to go well. I would love to be proven wrong. I'll be watching it carefully and I think it's a good thing to be debating.
So that's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
A view of the USAID building in Washington, DC, on Feb. 1, 2025.
Musk says USAID is being shut down
The website for the US Agency for International Development, aka USAID, went dark without explanation Saturday following President Donald Trump’s freeze on foreign aid and a cryptic post on X by Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “Watch USAID tonight,” he wrote Friday.
Democrats have been warning that Trump was planning to dismantle USAID and fold it into the State Department — a move they say he lacks the legal authority to make. Murphy called it an attempt to “steal taxpayers’ money to enrich [Trump’s] billionaire cabal,” including Tesla CEO and presidential advisor Elon Musk, who has referred to USAID’s potential dissolution as “efficiency.”
Early Monday, Musk announced on his social media site X that he and Trump were shutting down USAID. The White House has not yet responded, and it remains unclear whether Musk or Trump have the legal authority to take such a step.
The funding freeze has halted billions in US-funded humanitarian, security, and development programs around the world. Hundreds of USAID employees and contractors have been furloughed or put on paid leave, and thousands more jobs are at risk.
DOGE data dump? On Sunday, meanwhile, it was reported that the Trump administration has given Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency access to the federal payments system, which oversees the disbursement of trillions of dollars in government funds, including social security and welfare payments. The system also contains the personal data of hundreds of millions of Americans, raising concerns about potential misuse of the data.The far-reaching impact of Trump’s funding freeze
A judge in the District of Columbia on Tuesday blocked Donald Trump’s move to freeze federal funding until Feb. 3. District Judge Loren AliKhan’s decision dropped just minutes before the order was meant to take effect.
Trump’s directive, issued late Monday, applied to a vast swath of federal funding recipients – including disaster relief, education grants, and transportation funding – putting 2,600 programs under review. And while Medicaid was not supposed to be impacted, states said Tuesday that the online portals that supply Medicaid funding were down briefly in all 50 states.
Tuesday’s decision temporarily blocks the Trump administration’s order freezing federal funding and halting US foreign aid – and will hold through Monday afternoon. In the interim, the Trump administration offered approximately two million federal workers payouts to resign, warning that the majority of federal agencies will be facing downsizing.
Aid groups abroad fear that a halt to US-funded work could have dire and broad-reaching consequences – like NGOs and refugee camps losing funding. The State Department did restart the worldwide HIV program on Tuesday, citing the deadly effects of stopping the distribution of medication in low-income countries.
While critics are sounding the alarm that Trump is overstepping his presidential authority, Eurasia Group US expert Jon Lieber said we need to keep an eye on the legal process. While the president is “exercising a very muscular interpretation of executive power,” many of Trump’s executive orders will be challenged and shut down in the courts, he explained, as seen by the DC court decision. “They will be sued, and the courts will rule on what powers they have to fire civil servants, to cut spending, to upend the federal bureaucracy, etc.”
“The real test for the system will come when they are faced with a court order that curtails their agenda, and they either follow the law or continue to flout it.”
Digital natives: Redefining youth digital literacy
Contrary to the common notion that today's young people are inherently digital-savvy due to their exposure to technology, chief innovation officer of USAID, Mohamed Abdel-Kader says that simply knowing how to navigate social media or use a smartphone does not equate to digital literacy. In a recent GZERO livestream presented by Visa, Abdel-Kader expressed how young people are not innately able to understand the broader implications of their digital actions, including being aware of the consequences of their online posts, critically evaluating information discovered, and navigating a digital world of “fake news.”
Education is the key, says Abdel-Kader. Digital education is essential to prepare the youth for the ever-evolving digital age, to equip the next generation to be active but responsible participants in the growing digital world.
To hear more about the challenges and opportunities that nation-states face when it comes to digitization, and how it could shape a more inclusive and resilient future, watch the full livestream here:
What Ukraine's digital revolution teaches the world
- What Ukraine's digital revolution teaches the world ›
- The Graphic Truth: Twitter doesn't rule the social world ›
- Exclusive GZERO/Maru Poll: With hate speech rising, Americans want a crackdown on social media ›
- Empowering small businesses in the digital age ›
- The weaknesses of a digital economy - GZERO Media ›
Ukraine’s digital lifeline: Diia
In GZERO's livestream event presented by Visa, chief innovation officer of USAID, Mohamed Abdel-Kader shed light, on Ukraine's groundbreaking eServices platform known as Diia. This platform, he emphasized, has significantly strengthened the connection between the government and its citizens—a vital development for Ukraine, particularly amid the ongoing brutal war with Russia. Abdel-Kader say’s Diia has transitioned from primarily serving procurement and basic services to now facilitating reporting of property damage and unemployment status management during crises, which has been vital for providing immediate support to citizens and, equally important, rebuilding trust in government responsiveness.
Mohamed Abdel-Kader also highlighted that 19 million people use Diia and the frequency of interaction depends on individual needs and activities. Some might use it for tasks like obtaining a digital driver's license or paying taxes online. Additionally, Abdel-Kader emphasized the robust security measures in place, highlighting that user information is distributed across multiple servers, not stored on a single device, ensuring data safety, especially in the context of the ongoing conflict.
Lastly, Abdel-Kader noted that Diia's success has sparked interest from other countries looking to adopt a similar system tailored to their specific needs, promoting a global exchange of innovative solutions in the realm of digital governance.
To hear more about the challenges and opportunities that nation-states face when it comes to digitization, and how it could shape a more inclusive and resilient future, watch the full livestream conversation:
What Ukraine's digital revolution teaches the world
What Ukraine's digital revolution teaches the world
The threat of the Russian bear has been putting its neighbors on edge for years, and while plenty has been spent on beefing up their militaries, there’s now a whole other line of defense: digitization. Kyiv has harnessed its digital technology to provide government services to a whopping 19 million Ukrainians, despite daily bombings and devastation.
How has digitization helped Ukraine navigate first a pandemic and now a war? What lessons can be learned by other countries? GZERO asked geotech experts in a livestream event, presented by Visa, about the challenges and opportunities that nation-states face when it comes to digitization, and how it could shape a more inclusive and resilient future. The event was moderated by Goodpods' JJ Ramberg. Watch the full discussion above.
In 2020, Ukraine launched Diia, a mobile application that connects Ukrainians to more than 120 government services – from digital driver’s licenses to business filings to tax payments, says Mohamed Abdel-Kader, who helms the Innovation, Technology, and Research Hub at USAID. He and his teams help countries adopt new technological innovations in effective ways. Since the war, the app – also forged in partnership with UK Aid, Eurasia Foundation, and private sector partners – has also helped address wartime needs. For example, it has helped Ukrainians claim benefits for war-related property damage, and, at times, has been used to broadcast news and video when other networks are down. It has also helped with Ukraine’s mobilization and enabled the reporting of Russian troop sightings.
Unsurprisingly, it was another former Soviet republic, Estonia, that emerged as a pioneer in digitization back in the 2000s. Being so close to that Russian bear – it’s just a three-hour drive from St. Petersburg to the Estonian border town of Narva – helped focus the digital mind. The country was already a digital leader, but in 2007, Estonia withstood a month-long cyberattack that crippled its government systems and digital infrastructure. There was speculation of Russian involvement, but it was a “blessing in disguise,” says Carmen Raal, a digital transformation adviser at e-Estonia, the country’s electronic government services. This is because it forced the country to focus on cybersecurity before it was of critical importance to private and public sectors. The resulting innovations, she adds, have made Estonia a world leader in cyber security.
Today, Estonia offers 99.99% of its services online, Raal says, including universal online banking solutions and super-quick business setups. It takes “less than three hours to establish a company and, of course, it can be done fully online,” she adds.
What’s more, Estonia offers something called e-Residency, enabling individuals from anywhere in the world to apply online for a digital identity with which they can establish businesses in Estonia. “We have over 100,000 e-residents, and they have established over 27,000 Estonian companies,” Raal texted me after the event.
When it comes to digitization, both Ukraine and Estonia offer models of early investment, evolution, responses to security crises, and government-citizen relations, while the Estonian services reflect how governments can help residents (near and far) embrace economic opportunity. But globally, there remains plenty of work to ensure access, equality, and trust.
Digitization, after all, is great for those in the game, but as the rich get richer, governments need to ensure everyone has access. Last year, 60% of global GDP was generated by digitally enabled businesses, and in the last five years, the world has added two billion new internet users.
As the trend of digitalizing continues, with technology transforming businesses and work, says Eurasia Group's Geotechnology Director Alexis Serfaty, “it’s absolutely going to create new opportunities and new wealth, especially, I think, in emerging markets with younger populations and with more robust digital public infrastructure." In other words, there has been record growth in access, but there are still 2.5 billion people worldwide who are not online, and better systems and expanded access could translate into exponential growth – if done well.
Expanding trust in digital systems is also essential – only 62% of those GZERO surveyed before the livestream said they had faith in tech companies protecting their data.
Challenges of building secure public infrastructure that expands participation in inclusive ways, says Priya Vora, CEO of Digital Impact Alliance, are universal, and there’s a lot more work to be done. “I don’t think any country has figured it out yet,” she says.
Digital accessibility and digitization of services, along with digital skills, government oversight, and user trust need to grow in tandem to foster greater economic growth.
Hitting the right balance of government oversight will be key to getting this all right, says Rajiv Garodia, Visa’s global head of government solutions, who works with governments around the globe on digitization. He calls for a sound economic model and infrastructures designed with operational resilience, along with clear roles and responsibilities laid out for both the public and private sectors.
Global crises, like the ongoing war in Ukraine, also present opportunities for innovation and growth. Despite its current plight, Kyiv is making strides in a key sector that’s only becoming more important.
Watch the video above to hear the experts discuss the power of digitization – both amid war and for public and private sector growth.
Laborers offload bags of grains as part of relief food that was sent from Ukraine at the World Food Program.
Ethiopians caught in the middle
Weeks after the US and UN halted food aid deliveries to Ethiopia over the massive theft of supplies, Ethiopians are beginning to die of hunger because of the pause, according to new reports.
Quick recap: Earlier this month, the US announced that it was suspending food and medical supplies to Ethiopia because storage facilities were being looted – including by government officials – and sold on the commercial market.
The move was a huge blow for Addis Ababa as the US is by far its largest humanitarian donor, doling out $1.8 billion since the beginning of 2022. Confirming the findings, the UN World Food Programme promptly followed suit.
What happens now? The US says it is looking at food aid reforms in the country, though it is unclear when shipments will resume or if the central government will play ball, considering that some of its own have been implicated in the scheme. The Ethiopian government has agreed to conduct a joint probe with the US, while the UN is conducting its own.
Indeed, this is a catastrophe in a country – burdened by a civil war in the northern Tigray region that broke out in 2021 – where 20 million people rely on food assistance.
For the US, this also highlights the dilemma of delivering aid to countries grappling with endemic corruption and poor governance. On one hand, continuing to hand out goods sends a message to the bad guys that theft is permissible. It also makes it harder to convince taxpayers at home that it is worth aiding countries embroiled in drawn-out crises (hello, Ukraine!). On the other hand, the humanitarian argument for continuing to provide supplies that will reach at least some needy Ethiopians is clear-cut.
What do you think the US should do? Write to us here.