The USAID’s closure: Soft power at a crossroads

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 US diplomacy and foreign relations. The end of USAID also triggers a 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 US foreign assistance and disbursing USD 43.79 billion in 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 USA 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 US 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 mismanagement and fraud within the agency. These criticisms have fueled debates about the need to reform or restructure US 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 US Department of State to align foreign assistance closer 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 US diplomacy and foreign policy

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

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

Secondly, analysts warn that the withdrawal of US 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 programmes 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 programmes directly endangers vulnerable populations while significantly undermining the USA’s standing as the global leader in humanitarian aid. 

Finally, the end of USAID will impact the US approach to humanitarian assistance, a complex and carefully developed network involving governments, 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 USA’s influence worldwide. Its closure represents a substantial shift in US foreign policy, with potential repercussions for international stability, humanitarian efforts, and the global power balance. 

Implications for the future of ‘soft power’

The closure of USAID has ignited a crucial conversation about the evolving role of soft power and digital public diplomacy in a world increasingly driven by hard power and realpolitik. Jovan Kurbalija’s analysis delves into the heart of this debate, raising pressing questions that could reshape international relations and diplomacy:

Is soft power losing its relevance?

As hard power resurges on the global stage—marked by militaristic strategies, territorial disputes, and economic coercion—how can soft power, defined by Joseph S. Nye as “the ability to influence others through attraction rather than coercion,” remain impactful?

In a global environment where sovereignty, territorial integrity, and strategic interests frequently overshadow humanitarian and ethical concerns, do values like justice, solidarity, and fairness still have the capacity to influence global public opinion and policymaking?

Who will fill the soft power void?

If the United States retreats from or significantly diminishes its traditional soft power outreach, which global actor—China, the European Union, India, or another rising power—stands best positioned to assume leadership in regions like Africa and Asia?

Regional powers are already stepping in. China’s Belt and Road Initiative blends infrastructure investment with cultural outreach, while India leverages its diaspora and digital public goods. The EU’s “Global Gateway” aims to counterbalance China with democratic values. Meanwhile, Russia and Turkey use media (RT, TRT World) to shape narratives in Africa and Asia.

What does this mean for the global balance of power?

If soft power diminishes in favour of a more transactional, security-driven diplomacy, how might this recalibrate global alliances and reshape the strategic calculus of both established and emerging powers?

Implications for the future of digital public diplomacy

USAID has been a key contributor to the digital aspects of U.S. soft power, supporting projects on information integrity, digital networks, and social media. With this segment of USAID’s work facing criticism from the Trump administration, the impact on digital public diplomacy is expected to be significant. Kurbalija’s analysis sparks a timely discussion on the future of digital public diplomacy, focusing on critical questions:

Will traditional diplomacy eclipse public digital diplomacy?

As traditional diplomacy often operates behind closed doors, will social media campaigns—once heralded as key tools for “winning hearts and minds”—be sidelined in favour of direct negotiations and covert channels?

Who will shape public diplomacy narratives?

With the decentralization of both traditional and digital media, who holds the power to define narratives on critical issues such as human rights, climate change, and economic development? Will state actors, international organizations, NGOs, or grassroots movements become the primary shapers of global discourse?

Will the ‘hearts and minds’ battle move from social media campaigns to in situ diplomatic engagement?

In an era of heightened disinformation and growing scepticism toward the impartiality of digital platforms, will traditional public diplomacy—through cultural exchanges, art diplomacy, and on-the-ground community engagements—experience a renaissance? How might diplomats, NGOs, and civil society utilize cultural tools to rebuild trust?

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.