Early on a Sunday morning in the summer of 2003, I drove into the center of a small South African beach town along the Indian Ocean to collect the Cape newspapers. Local newsagents still followed the English tradition of displaying front pages on A-frame stands along the sidewalk. It was during the initial months of the Iraq war, and from two blocks away, I could clearly see the headline in large block type: "WHY BUSH IS WORSE THAN BIN LADEN."
Witnessing this headline so far from home was profoundly disheartening, yet it reflected a familiar pattern: American favorability worldwide tends to swing dramatically with wars, particularly those initiated by the United States, and with changes in the US presidency. Within weeks of the American attack, the immense international support the US enjoyed after the September 11 attacks had been completely squandered.
The Historical Ebb and Flow of American Global Favorability
In 2003, following the invasion of Iraq, American global favorability reached a modern low, hovering in the 30-40% range. Previously, it had remained above 50% during the administrations of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush, and soared into the 70% range under Bill Clinton. Some military actions proved more popular than others; George H.W. Bush's Gulf War to liberate Kuwait enjoyed widespread global support. After the decline precipitated by the Iraq war, American favorability surged once more with the election of Barack Obama, whose approval reached 75-80% in numerous countries.
The foreign policy term for this favorability is soft power: the ability to influence other nations through cultural appeal and popularity rather than military might. The US government traditionally bolstered this with substantial foreign aid and international broadcasting initiatives like Voice of America. However, cultural influence consistently outperforms government programs; Beyoncé invariably triumphs over bureaucracy. It represents the power of influence, not merely the influence of power.
The Delicate Balance Between Hard and Soft Power
American soft power often mirrors the nation's use of hard power: influence declines when military force is employed and increases during periods of restraint. In the absence of military action, Taylor Swift holds more sway than Tomahawk missiles. Typically, culture dominates policy, except during wartime—like the present moment.
I served as the under secretary of state for public diplomacy in the Obama administration, essentially acting as the soft power czar. In many respects, I considered myself the chief marketing officer for "Brand USA." The mission involved shaping and promoting America's international image. During the Cold War, we dispatched cultural ambassadors like Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald to Eastern Europe to demonstrate American broad-mindedness and commitment to freedom. Concurrently, we established Voice of America and Radio Free Europe to broadcast news in regions where information was suppressed or distorted.
Naturally, these efforts were not entirely innocent. Many were financed by the CIA. Sending Black American entertainers to Eastern Europe served to counteract Soviet allegations about racial segregation and voter suppression in the American South, which were largely accurate. American influence campaigns in Guatemala, Iran, and Italy, among others, represented the darker facets of soft power.
The Trump Administration's Impact on American Global Standing
I firmly believe that due to Donald Trump and his war in Iran, American popularity will plummet to depths unseen this century and may never recover to the median levels observed during the Carter and Reagan administrations. Forget about achieving Barack Obama-era numbers—they are now entirely out of reach. Confidence in Trump's ability to manage global affairs already stood at a mere 30-40% prior to the invasion of Iran. That figure will likely become the new ceiling. "The world is watching," Trump declared in his recent White House address. Indeed, it is.
Our allies and adversaries alike have long been perplexed by the perpetual pendulum of American presidential politics, where conservatives are replaced by liberals, who are in turn replaced by conservatives, in an endless cycle. Joe Biden's confident proclamation after his election that "America was back" and that the nation was once again a reliable ally was met by our friends with a skeptical question: "For how long?" It was a perfectly reasonable inquiry. The Biden administration operated under the assumption that Trump represented an authoritarian anomaly, bookended by two liberal internationalists. It now appears that Biden may be the aberration.
Since Woodrow Wilson, American presidents have actively engaged in democracy promotion. That era may now be conclusively over.
The Resurgence of the Ugly American Archetype
With the war on Iran, US actions in Venezuela, and increasingly bellicose rhetoric concerning Cuba, the Trump administration is reviving the old trope of the Ugly American, but this time without the once-obligatory praises of democracy. That antiquated image of America as a narcissistic and culturally insensitive bully has returned with a vengeance. "A Reckless Imperial Error," declared a headline about the Iran war in Le Monde. Die Zeit proclaimed: "How Trump is turning the U.S. into a source of chaos." Le Monde further noted: "Trump's outbursts no longer reassure financial markets."
However, the Ugly American archetype also portrayed someone naive and occasionally well-meaning. The perception was that these clumsy, crew-cutted Americans simply failed to comprehend the world. Trump has transformed the Ugly American into the Immoral American—a prototype of a predatory sociopath who is entirely transactional and likely knows better. The Immoral American is more unscrupulous and corrupt than the Ugly American and, unlike his predecessor, cannot be reformed but only replaced.
Projecting Trump's venal persona onto the American character will inflict years of damage upon the nation's global image.
International Perceptions and Diplomatic Fallout
In Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, and France, support for the war languishes in the twenties. One in five Europeans views the United States—not Iran—as the principal threat to world peace. Consider the position of an ally. When the US president hosts the prime minister of Japan in the Oval Office and, after an incredibly gauche reference to Pearl Harbor, requests assistance in the Strait of Hormuz, what should she do? Support for the Iran war in Japan stands at a mere 10%. Trump consistently forgets that foreign leaders must answer to their own domestic constituencies.
"America first" has largely translated to America alone. Repeatedly, we have witnessed unilateral US actions without consultation with allies, followed by administration complaints when those allies withhold support. Trump's assertion that America does not need allies may serve as rhetorical red meat for his base, but it is objectively incorrect, as demonstrated by the Strait of Hormuz situation. Even during the Iraq war, the Bush administration painstakingly enlisted allies and presented its case to the United Nations.
The Gamification of Warfare and Its Consequences
The 1950s-era macho language of Trump ("the big one is coming soon") and his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth ("we'll negotiate with bombs"), reinforces the image of an America obsessed with violence and careless in its application. The defense department's release of Top Gun-style videos interspersed with clips from Braveheart, Breaking Bad, and video games like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto appears both juvenile and like spiking the football. The success of these video games constitutes a significant component of America's global soft power. However, the gamification of warfare does not.
I fear there exists no soft power action—no movie, no song, no video game—that can compensate for an errant Tomahawk missile that kills dozens of children at a girls' school.
Regional Variations and Long-Term Moral Fallout
Certainly, there remain a handful of nations where America can do no wrong. In Israel, Poland, Nigeria, and the Philippines, American popularity consistently resides in the eighties. A swaggering, muscle-bound, tough-talking hegemon will only grow more popular in those regions. However, the moral fallout from the war on Iran will reverberate for decades. In numerous regions worldwide, this conflict is perceived as equivalent to Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. The decades spent attempting to ethically distance ourselves from Putin are now concluded.
Trump's hardline authoritarianism proves devastating to American soft power. He functions as a one-man wrecking crew for values that presidents from both parties historically sought to promote. America the generous? He eviscerated USAID, America's foreign aid agency. America the democratic beacon? He pardoned the January 6 rioters and deployed ICE to Minnesota. America the welcomer of immigrants? He has cut off visas from so-called "shithole" countries and expelled undocumented immigrants. America the beacon of free speech? He arrested graduate students who speak out against the government. Attempt to convince someone overseas that America remains a shining city on a hill.
Transactional Diplomacy and the Erosion of International Institutions
Simultaneously, numerous countries welcome an America that refrains from preaching democracy and transparency—an America that is transactional rather than judgmental. India, Turkey, China, Russia, and Middle Eastern nations have always chafed under American diplomats lecturing them about human rights. I witnessed this repeatedly. They comprehend a system where the son-in-law also rises and a politician's family and friends amass wealth. Now, many nations, when negotiating with the Trump administration, have learned to incorporate lucrative side deals that promote business interests indirectly or directly benefiting Trump and his family. That is an America they know how to engage with.
The world will happily continue purchasing iPhones without accompanying lectures on democracy. Yet so much is being lost. This administration has actively and deliberately dismantled American connections with international organizations including the World Health Organization, UNESCO, the Paris Climate Agreement, and the UN Human Rights Council. It has imposed countless tariffs—a tax on other nations that pushes them away. It criticizes our closest allies for minor free-speech violations but remains silent about the 1.5 billion people in China with no free-speech rights whatsoever, or about countries like Russia and Turkey that routinely imprison journalists.
The Systematic Dismantling of American Global Media and Education
The administration has also eviscerated US global media, essentially terminating Voice of America, Radio Europe, and even the VOA Persian service, which would undoubtedly prove invaluable now. At its peak, US global media reached over 300 million people worldwide—significantly more than Fox's 2.5 million primetime viewers. These represented among the few soft power levers we once could pull.
The Trump administration's visa policies have severely damaged one of America's other greatest exports: its university system, which is almost universally admired globally. New international enrollment has fallen by up to 20%, and foreign students contribute more than $40 billion to the domestic economy while supporting over 350,000 jobs. International tourism to the US has declined by approximately 7%, resulting in an economic loss of about $10 billion. Foreign STEM scientists and graduate students working and studying in America are now being actively recruited by China and our European allies.
The Limits of Government in Promoting Favorability
As America's soft power diplomat, I observed the limitations of what the government can achieve in promoting favorability. The truth is that American public diplomacy has always maintained a mixed record. If you already dislike the United States, no communication from the US government will alter that perception. When we discuss freedom and the rule of law abroad but fail to demonstrate them at home, we are rightly viewed as hypocrites. We must exemplify domestically the values we advocate internationally.
Today's unprecedented disengagement from diplomacy and our allies diminishes Brand USA. To label it a suicide pact may be excessive, but it represents a deliberate, conscious unraveling of the very elements that genuinely made America great.
The Parallel with Great Britain's Historical Decline
What Trump is doing to America constitutes a deliberate, slow-motion version of how Great Britain, one of the world's great powers in the 20th century, devolved into little England after the Second World War. Within fifteen years, an imperial hegemon transformed into a medium-sized, more inward-focused European nation preoccupied with domestic economic recovery rather than foreign influence.
That is essentially what Trump is accomplishing with America. Post-Trump, America will emerge as a more domestic, inwardly focused nation—a country with fewer international connections and allies, yet possessing an outsized, muscle-bound military, always prepared to do anything to turn a profit. This is the fortress America of the 19th century, protected by two oceans and contentedly self-absorbed and insular.
No, we were never quite the shining city on the hill we imagined ourselves to be. However, post-Trump, the United States will become little America: smaller, meaner, and considerably less shiny.
