Trump Card: Dismantle Our Influence
Are You Curious About Talks of the US Withdrawing Its Foreign Influence? I'll Explain
“This isn’t MAGA policy, this isn’t toddler syndrome, this isn’t even incompetence, this is too much, too soon, too holistic, this isn’t an abdication of American power, this isn’t mismanagement, this is a deliberate disassembly of the building blocks of American power, security and safety.” – Peter Zeihan
It’s a startling idea, right? The notion that the United States, long considered the anchor of global stability, might actively choose to dismantle its own influence. So why are we hearing murmurs about the U.S. pulling back from its foreign programs, shedding what many call “soft power,” and leaning toward isolation?
In this post, I’d like to look at how the United States came to wield such vast global influence in the first place, how it forged relationships, fostered alliances, and secured prosperity for its citizens. Then I want to explore why, under the Trump administration, we’re seeing a concerted push to scale all of that back. If you’re curious about whether this shift is as dramatic as some commentators (like Zeihan) say, or if it’s overblown rhetoric, I hope to make sense of it all.
Before We Begin, Let’s Understand Soft Power
The United States has long leveraged soft power (the ability to shape others’ preferences through attraction and persuasion) as a cornerstone of its global influence1. Unlike hard power (military and economic coercion), soft power flows from the appeal of American culture, values, policies, and institutions. Over the past 80 years since World War II, U.S. soft power has been pivotal in establishing an international order aligned with Western ideals. Harvard professor Joseph Nye, who coined the term “soft power,” notes that America’s liberal democratic politics, free-market economy, and advocacy of human rights made others want to follow the U.S. lead2.
The first half of this post is going to be a summary of America’s soft power influence (as condensed as possible.) If you’re more interested in what the Trump Administration has started moving towards, jump ahead to the section: The Dismantling Begins. However I’d encourage you to look into the full picture of American influence first as it will help us understand the importance and impact.
Buckle in!—this is going to be more information dense than my usual posts and all the references will be provided throughout the post with links to the appendix. A lot of this post is using information from these sources, so credit to them for their amazing research. My goal here is to highlight and compile all the relevant information. This is a complex topic that requires an understanding of political decisions made over many years.
Cultural Influence
One of the most visible vehicles of American soft power is its culture, which has permeated global society. Hollywood in particular became a powerful transmitter of American values and lifestyle worldwide. Since the mid-20th century, U.S. films have dominated international box offices, allowing Hollywood to “broadcast American values and geopolitical stances worldwide,” effectively acting as a tool of U.S. soft power3. During the Cold War, popular movies and TV shows often subtly promoted ideals like freedom and individualism, contrasting with authoritarian narratives4.
Economic Dominance
Economic strength has been another pillar of U.S. soft power, particularly through leadership in the global financial system and trade architecture. In the aftermath of World War II, the U.S. spearheaded the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, which cemented the U.S. dollar as the world’s primary reserve currency and led to the creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank5. Under Bretton Woods, major currencies were pegged to the dollar (which was convertible to gold), effectively making the dollar the backbone of international finance6. “The dollar remains the currency of choice for international trade,” with key commodities like oil priced in dollars and even other nations pegging their currencies to it7. This dollar dominance gives Washington enormous influence: it can impose financial sanctions, stabilize markets, and run trade deficits with less immediate pain. The stability and liquidity of U.S. financial markets (e.g. Treasury bonds) have underpinned trust in the dollar, reinforcing U.S. economic clout8. As a result, global businesses and governments have often had to align with U.S. financial norms and policies – an attractive proposition when those policies promised growth and open markets.
The U.S. also shaped global economic institutions and trade rules in its image. It emerged from WWII with half the world’s GDP and used initiatives like the Marshall Plan (massive aid for Europe’s reconstruction) to bind allies into a U.S.-led economic order. American architects of the system promoted free trade and open markets. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947 – later succeeded by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 – was “created as part of the U.S. and Europe-led post-World War II effort to build a stable, open global trading system.”9 Over decades, U.S. trade policy pushed tariff reduction and globalization, which not only benefited American exporters and corporations but also encouraged other nations to adopt capitalist, export-oriented models integrated with the West. Meanwhile, the U.S. as the largest shareholder in the IMF/World Bank has guided their lending priorities and development strategies, often tying funding to free-market reforms. Through these institutions, Washington could promote economic norms like free enterprise, fiscal discipline, and globalization10. Decisions which would lead to the relief of economic pressures for many developed and developing nations, with the ability to engage in robust free-trade.
Political and Diplomatic Strategies
American soft power has also been exercised through diplomacy and political leadership in international institutions and alliances. After WWII, the U.S. took the lead in founding the United Nations in 1945, positioning itself as a guarantor of a new collective security system. Washington forged enduring alliances like NATO (1949), binding Western democracies together under U.S. leadership and protection. Such alliances not only deterred common threats but solidified America’s political influence: allies coordinated policies with Washington and supported U.S. positions, in part because they trusted U.S. leadership. Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. presented itself as the leader of the “Free World,” championing democracy and liberal values in contrast to Soviet communism. American diplomacy and foreign aid often aimed at democracy promotion – for example, supporting post-colonial nations with development aid and educational exchanges, or aiding democratic transitions (as in post-Soviet Eastern Europe). These efforts, when aligning with local aspirations, greatly boosted U.S. standing. Many saw the U.S. as not just powerful, but legitimately so due to its values: “If a state can make its power seem legitimate in the eyes of others, it will encounter less resistance… if its culture and ideology are attractive, others will more willingly follow.” This insight proved true when dozens of countries shifted to democracy and liberal economics by the end of the 20th century, effectively choosing the U.S.-led model.11
The U.S. also cultivated diplomatic influence through active engagement in multilateral organizations. Beyond the UN, it led efforts to create and expand bodies like the IMF, World Bank, and later the WTO, which embed U.S. preferences in global governance12. American diplomats have often played key roles in brokering international agreements, usually emphasizing principles of openness, rule of law, and human rights that align with Western ideology. Moreover, U.S. foreign aid and development programs have served as a form of soft power diplomacy – for instance, the Peace Corps (established 1961) sent Americans abroad to help in education and health, winning goodwill at the grassroots level. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) likewise has funded humanitarian and governance projects worldwide, often tying communities to American generosity and ideals.
Technological and Scientific Leadership
American primacy in technology and science has significantly bolstered its soft power, as U.S. innovations have transformed global life and showcased the country’s ingenuity. Since the mid-20th century, the U.S. has led in major tech domains – from the invention of the semiconductor and personal computer to the internet revolution – largely due to heavy investment in research and a thriving private sector. The rise of Silicon Valley exemplifies how technological prowess translates into influence. Breakthrough companies like IBM and Microsoft set early computing standards, and later firms (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon) built platforms used by billions worldwide. This dominance means foreign societies use American-designed technology daily, often adopting U.S. standards and being indirectly exposed to American business culture and norms (such as openness and entrepreneurship). The U.S. government also funded cutting-edge research with global impact (e.g. ARPANET, the precursor to the Internet, and biomedical research leading to treatments and vaccines). As of 2021 the U.S. was still the top R&D spender, accounting for roughly one-third of global research investment, helping it remain at the forefront of innovation13.
In addition to commercial technology, scientific achievements in aerospace and defense-related tech have had immense symbolic value. The U.S. space program is a prime example – the Apollo moon landings of 1969 were not just a scientific feat but a soft power victory in the Cold War. As one historian noted, Project Apollo “represented a form of soft power, the ability to influence other nations through intangibles such as an impressive show of technological capability,” granting the U.S. international prestige and “gravitas”14.
Military Presence
While military strength is traditionally seen as hard power, the global U.S. military presence has also indirectly enhanced American soft power in several ways. Since WWII, the U.S. has maintained an unparalleled network of overseas bases and security commitments – from Europe and East Asia to the Middle East – which has provided a security umbrella under which its allies have prospered. This security guarantee fostered stability, allowing allied nations’ cultures and economies to flourish alongside American involvement. U.S. troops stationed abroad often acted as informal ambassadors of American culture: postwar generations in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and elsewhere were exposed to American goods, music, and ideals via GIs and base communities, deepening cultural ties. Militarily, the U.S. has also engaged in “military diplomacy,” using training, joint exercises, and disaster relief missions to build goodwill. For instance, U.S. forces have frequently led humanitarian responses (such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami relief), showcasing American generosity and logistical prowess in times of need.
Crucially, U.S. military presence has helped underwrite the soft power projection of the United States by securing the environment for it. American bases and naval power keep international sea lanes open, enabling global trade and communication that spread American influence. In regions like Africa, even a modest deployment yields significant influence: a study noted that “a comparatively small U.S. military investment in Africa buys an outsized share of U.S. influence and crucially enables American soft power” to shape the region’s trajectory15. By training and equipping partner militaries, the U.S. not only counters rivals but also promotes American values of professional, apolitical armed forces. Military alliances (backed by U.S. troops) make allies more receptive to U.S. diplomatic initiatives – for example, NATO partners often support U.S. positions in international forums, in part due to the trust built through security ties. Moreover, the presence of U.S. forces can lend credibility to U.S. commitments. Countries are more inclined to follow the U.S. lead if they believe it will stand by them in a crisis. In sum, hard power has often created a foundation for soft power: the U.S. military’s role in maintaining peace and offering assistance has enhanced America’s image as a protector and partner. By securing allies and interests, the military has allowed the “softer” facets of U.S. influence – culture, commerce, and ideas – to take root around the world with far less resistance.
The Dismantling Begins
The Trump administration’s “America First” approach has markedly pulled the United States back from its traditional diplomatic engagements. In his second term (2025), President Trump is doubling down on withdrawing from international agreements and questioning alliances that long underpinned U.S. global leadership16. Major treaties and accords were abandoned: for example, the U.S. had already pulled out of the World Health Organization (WHO), and walked away from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) despite Iran’s compliance17. In effect, the U.S. – not Iran – became the party violating a UN-endorsed agreement, a move that “badly hurt Washington’s credibility” and trust among allies18. European partners, who struggled to uphold the Iran deal, were dismayed when the U.S. not only exited but also re-imposed sanctions with no exemptions for EU companies, underscoring an American willingness to override allies’ interests.
Alliances have similarly been strained. President Trump repeatedly cast doubt on U.S. defense commitments, especially to NATO. He refused to unequivocally endorse NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense guarantee and warned allies that if they didn’t increase defense spending, the U.S. might “absolutely not” defend them. In early 2025, he even suggested he would “encourage [the Russians] to do whatever the hell they want” if NATO countries didn’t pay more. Such statements sent shockwaves through Europe – experts warned NATO might not “survive a second Donald Trump administration…with the United States as a committed ally and alliance leader”, a scenario that would pose dire security challenges for Europe19. Long-time allies in Asia felt similar uncertainty: U.S. demands for exorbitant host-nation funding from countries like South Korea and Japan, and abrupt decisions like canceling joint military exercises, signaled a weakening of American reliability.
Trump’s diplomatic posture also involved an unprecedented tilt toward autocrats at the expense of democratic partners. Notably, Washington’s support for Ukraine against Russian aggression wavered. A late-February 2025 Oval Office meeting with Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy “ended in shouting”, exemplifying fears that the U.S. is “abandoning its role as a defender of democracies and aligning with autocracies like Russia”. In United Nations forums, the Trump administration even sided with Russia on key votes regarding the Ukraine war20. Such actions undermine U.S. moral authority and signal to adversaries that U.S. commitments can be undone on a whim. M. Steven Fish, a political scientist, observed that Trump’s isolationism and affinity for authoritarian rulers mark a “seismic shift” that leaves allies questioning whether the U.S. can ever be trusted the same way again. Indeed, “it’s hard to see the United States ever recovering its power and prestige” if it squanders the alliances and credibility built over decades21.
Economic Impact
Trump’s trade and economic policies have further eroded U.S. global influence. Rejecting multilateral trade leadership, the administration pursued protectionist tariffs and one-on-one deals that alienated partners and disrupted the rules-based trading system. Within days of returning to office in 2025, President Trump announced sweeping new tariffs – a 25% import tax on Mexico and Canada (America’s two largest trading partners) – as leverage over unrelated disputes. These tariff threats weren’t limited to rivals like China; they targeted close allies as well, straining relationships built on economic cooperation. The administration has even floated the idea of “universal tariffs” on all countries, signaling a desire to “dismantle the entire global trade system” in favor of bare-knuckle bilateralism.22
Such moves have raised alarms about a global trade war. The Director-General of the WTO cautioned in 2025 that tit-for-tat retaliation to Trump’s tariffs could recreate a 1930s-style economic catastrophe, with double-digit drops in global GDP. “That’s catastrophic. Everyone will pay,” warned WTO Chief Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, drawing parallels to the protectionism of the Great Depression. This concern is compounded by the fact that the U.S. has paralyzed the WTO’s dispute resolution mechanism: since late 2019, Washington’s repeated vetoes of appellate judge appointments have “incapacitated [the WTO’s] top appeals court”, leaving countries few avenues to peacefully resolve trade grievances. In effect, the U.S. is undercutting the very trading framework it helped create, diminishing its leadership role in setting global trade norms.23
Meanwhile, America’s withdrawal from trade agreements has ceded economic influence to others. Trump’s first act in 2017 was to pull the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); by 2018 the remaining 11 Pacific Rim nations forged ahead with a revised pact (CPTPP) “leaving the U.S. role in the Asia-Pacific in question.”24. Longstanding allies who counted on U.S. economic engagement are now pursuing alternative arrangements. In Asia, countries have responded to a wavering U.S. by seeking deeper ties with China or regional partners: for instance, China promoted its own Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), and nations like the Philippines and Vietnam have hedged by inking new trade deals and improving relations with Beijing25. Even Europe has explored greater economic “strategic autonomy” in response to U.S. tariffs and uncertainty26. The net effect is a loss of U.S. economic clout: Washington is no longer seen as the linchpin of free trade, and competitors are filling the vacuum by crafting trade rules and supply chains that exclude or sideline the United States.
Protectionist policies have also boomeranged to hurt some American industries and soft power. U.S. exporters and farmers suffered under retaliatory tariffs during Trump’s trade wars, and allies grew frustrated with being treated as economic adversaries. The withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, for example, not only had diplomatic fallout but also threatens America’s future competitiveness in emerging industries. Analysts note that if the U.S. “retreats in the race to renewables, electric vehicles and other clean technologies, its competitors in China, Europe and the rest of the world can only make gains.” One study estimated that re-imposing Trump-era climate and clean energy rollbacks could cost U.S. companies $50 billion in lost export opportunities, while creating $80 billion in new opportunities for foreign firms to capture global market share27. In short, by turning inward and prioritizing short-term economic nationalism, the administration is forgoing long-term economic leadership – a shift that may allow other powers to dominate the industries of the future.
International Organizations
As briefly mentioned earlier, Trump’s disdain for multilateral institutions has translated into a U.S. retreat from global organizations. On February 4, 2025, he signed a sweeping executive order mandating a review of “all international organizations” and “all international treaties” involving the United States, with the express aim of withdrawing from those deemed contrary to American interests. This order essentially puts the entire post-1945 international architecture on notice. In principle, it could lead the U.S. to abrogate thousands of treaties and exit hundreds of organizations, undoing decades of American global engagement in one stroke.
Even more startling are hints that Washington might go so far as to withdraw from the United Nations entirely. Influential advisers argue that an “America First” foreign policy could require “pulling the United States out of the UN – and kicking the UN out of the United States.”28 This idea, once fringe, is now entertained by Trump’s nationalist base, who claim (spuriously) that the UN infringes on U.S. sovereignty29. The mere fact that America’s commitment is in doubt gravely erodes U.S. authority. The UN has been a foundational pillar of the “world order” America built; a U.S. exit would be seismic – akin to if the architect of a house decided to burn it down. Short of outright withdrawal, the administration has many ways to undermine international bodies “without formally leaving them”30 – for example, by withholding dues, vetoing budgets, or ignoring mandates. We already see this in play: the U.S. is withholding funding and cooperation across a range of agencies, from the WHO to peacekeeping operations. In 2020, Trump stopped U.S. payments to the WHO and initiated a withdrawal over claims of pro-China bias; upon regaining office, he reaffirmed that withdrawal, removing the United States from the world’s primary health coordination agency even as global pandemics remain a threat31. During the COVID-19 crisis, this absence meant the U.S. did not participate in global vaccine efforts and ceded influence in global health governance. Experts warn that China’s influence in the WHO will only grow as the U.S. exits32, allowing Beijing to shape health norms and responses in America’s stead.
Trump has also targeted the pillars of the international economic order. While he hasn’t formally quit the World Trade Organization, his policies have effectively neutered it. By levying tariffs in blatant violation of WTO rules and blocking the Appellate Body, the U.S. signaled that WTO commitments are optional. Officials now talk of replacing multilateral trade rules with purely “reciprocal” bilateral deals – “signaling the death knell of the ailing World Trade Organization,” as one analysis put it. This antagonism extends to international justice mechanisms: the Trump administration imposed sanctions on top officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in an attempt to intimidate and delegitimize that body.33
Cultural Influence
As the U.S. retreats, others are rushing to fill the void. American cultural influence through aid and outreach is being replaced by Chinese and Russian efforts. Beijing in particular has seized on USAID’s collapse as an opening to expand its own influence. “If USAID is packing up and moving out, China seems all too happy to move in,” Politico reports34. In Nepal, for example, Chinese officials quickly signaled willingness to replace U.S. aid with Beijing’s money35. In the Pacific Islands, local leaders expect that China will step in to fund projects after USAID’s withdrawal36. Even in Latin America (e.g. Colombia, which received hundreds of millions in U.S. aid annually), Chinese representatives are showing interest in “helping fill the void” with their own development financing37. These developments show how Trump’s budgetary and rhetorical choices – slashing humanitarian programs and espousing an isolationist narrative – are eroding the reservoirs of goodwill that once gave the U.S. a persuasive edge. America’s cultural and ideological appeal has traditionally been a force multiplier, attracting others to its side.
Long-Term Consequences
All these trends point to a notable decline in U.S. soft power and a more fragmented international order. Although future administrations may attempt to reverse course, trust and credibility—once lost, are hard to regain. So, let’s do a quick summation of what we see the long-term consequences being:
Permanent Erosion of U.S. Credibility: Allies and adversaries alike have learned that American commitments can be fleeting. European officials now openly strategize around reducing dependence on Washington, fearing that voters could again choose an isolationist leader who abandons alliances. In Asia, longtime U.S. partners feel compelled to hedge by engaging more deeply with China or pursuing self-reliant security strategies.
China Filling the Leadership Void: Beijing has seized the opportunity to build influence through foreign aid, investment, and international institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Where America once shaped trade and development, China’s Belt and Road Initiative is gaining ground, especially in regions Washington has left behind.
Russia and Authoritarians Gaining Influence: Russia benefits when U.S. support for democracy falters. With a weaker NATO and less vocal American advocacy for human rights, leaders like Putin have greater freedom to expand their influence. The broader result is growing disillusionment with liberal democracy, once championed globally by the U.S.
Loss of Technological Edge: Pulling back from international collaboration, especially on emerging industries like renewable energy or AI, could undermine America’s future competitiveness. Countries that maintain global partnerships and invest in cutting-edge research may outstrip the U.S. in key sectors, creating dependencies on foreign technology that were once unthinkable.
Allied Reorientation: Traditional U.S. allies are busy forging new coalitions to compensate for waning American reliability. Europe is pushing for “strategic autonomy,” exploring defense structures independent of U.S. oversight, while Asian democracies collaborate in new or expanded partnerships that don’t always include Washington.
In short, the United States is dismantling much of the influence it spent decades building. Immediate consequences include lost credibility and strained alliances, but the long-term impact could be far more significant. If the trend continues, the “American Century” many assumed would endure may be drawing to a close.
Peter Zeihan closed his thoughts on all of this with the following statement:
“I would love to say this is hypothetical, but I’ve already got a dozen examples including the ones I just shared with you, about how that is already happening. So buckle up, because for the first time since I started doing this, 25 years ago, I’m actually worried for the United States.”
Understanding the full picture it’s without a doubt that what is going on right now in America is unprecedented and will almost certainly have a lasting affect on our world influence. Not for better or for worse, in this case it is only for worse, there’s no denying that.
Concluding Thoughts
Even now, as the pillars of our influence seem to crack and our alliances falter, we can remember that hope doesn’t simply crumble because one administration chooses to turn away. Our founding ideals stand ready to be reclaimed, ideals that once guided generations of Americans to look outward with curiosity rather than fear, to extend a hand rather than raise a fist.
For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. — Ronald Reagan, 1989
We need not resign ourselves to becoming that cautionary tale. When America is at its best, it reaches across borders to nurture democracy, invite shared prosperity, and defend human dignity. These efforts go beyond mere politics; they’re an expression of the deeper character we aspire to embody. If we can muster the will and the wisdom to rebuild the bridges we’ve burned, we just might kindle that light on the hill again, illuminating not only our own path, but guiding a world still looking to us for hope and inspiration.
