Soft power at a crossroads: The implications of USAID’s closure

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of American soft power, fostering global development and humanitarian assistance since its establishment in 1961. However, recent decisions by the Trump administration to shut down USAID have sparked significant debate regarding the future of U.S. diplomacy and foreign relations. The end of USAID also triggers debate on the future of ‘soft power’, which has been one of the critical tools of international relations and public diplomacy over the last few decades. 

USAID as a soft power instrument

Soft power, a term coined by political scientist Joseph Nye, refers to the ability of a country to influence others through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion. USAID has been a pivotal tool in this regard, administering approximately 60% of U.S. foreign assistance and disbursing $43.79 billion in fiscal year 2023 alone. Its workforce of 10,000, with about two-thirds serving overseas, assisted around 130 countries.

USAID’s main official role has been to alleviate poverty, promote democratic governance, and respond to humanitarian crises to create a positive image of the United States abroad. As a soft-power tool, USAID fostered long-term relationships with other countries by training future decision-makers and elites worldwide and creating business interdependence between the U.S. and local companies. 

While USAID has been widely praised for its contributions to global development, it has also faced criticism over the years. Critics, including Elon Musk, have accused the agency of inefficiency, bureaucratic bloat, and lack of transparency. For example, a 2018 report by the Heritage Foundation argued that USAID’s programmes often fail to achieve their intended outcomes. Similarly, a ProPublica investigation highlighted instances of mismanagement and fraud within the agency. These criticisms have fueled debates about the need for reform or restructuring of U.S. foreign aid programmes.

The decision to shut down USAID

At the start of his administration, President Donald Trump, with the support of Elon Musk, announced plans to dissolve USAID, citing concerns over inefficiency and mismanagement. Trump described USAID as “run by a bunch of radical lunatics,” while Musk labelled it a “criminal organisation” in a tweet that sparked widespread controversy. Musk has been a vocal critic of government aid programmes, arguing that they are often inefficient and prone to corruption. His criticism aligns with the Trump administration’s broader “America First” agenda, which refocuses international aid as a primary tool for promoting national interests. 

The administration proposed merging USAID’s functions into the State Department to align foreign assistance more closely with the “America First” policy. This move has been criticised both nationally and internationally. For example, World Vision, a faith-based humanitarian organisation, warned that the closure could undermine decades of progress in global development.

Implications for U.S. diplomacy and foreign policy

The closure of USAID carries several potential consequences for U.S. diplomacy and foreign relations. 

Firstly, by dismantling USAID, the U.S. risks losing a vital instrument of soft power. The agency’s development programs have been instrumental in building goodwill and fostering alliances. Without these initiatives, the U.S. may find it more challenging to influence global affairs through non-coercive means. 

Secondly, analysts warn that the withdrawal of U.S. aid could create a vacuum that other nations, particularly China, are eager to fill. China’s development agency, China Aid, has already begun stepping in to fund programs previously backed by USAID. 

Thirdly, the sudden halt of USAID operations has led to the cessation of critical assistance programmes worldwide, including landmine clearing in Asia, aid for refugees, and help to civilians in war zones. The abrupt termination of these programs directly endangers vulnerable populations while significantly undermining the U.S.’s standing as a global leader in humanitarian aid. 

Finally, the end of USAID will impact the U.S. approach to humanitarian assistance, a complex and carefully developed network involving government, major foundations, faith communities, businesses, rich donors, etc. It remains to be seen if this network will be dismantled, further developed, or replaced with something new. 

USAID has been a significant component of American soft power, contributing to global development and enhancing the U.S.’s influence worldwide. Its closure represents a substantial shift in U.S. foreign policy, with potential repercussions for international stability, humanitarian efforts, and global power balance. 

Implications for the future of ‘soft power’ and digital diplomacy

The closure of USAID raises critical questions about the future of ‘soft power,’ an approach that has long shaped international relations:

• What does ‘win hearts and minds’ people today?
• Will soft power lose its relevance in an era increasingly driven by realpolitik and hard power?
• What role will public diplomacy and governments play in promoting ‘soft power’ in the future?
• Who will shape global narratives on critical issues such as military conflicts, economic development, human rights, and environmental protection—and how?
• Will the EU, China, India, Russia, and Gulf countries step in to fill the ‘soft power’ vacuum, particularly in Africa and Asia?
• How will digital networks evolve as tools of ‘soft power’ and public diplomacy?

Join the discussion

Diplo’s faculty and alumni have begun exploring these questions on soft power and more. We invite you to join the discussion and share your reflections and insights.