Hard talk on soft power: Use it, Trump, or we’ll lose it

New York Post - Mar 23rd, 2025

President Donald Trump has initiated a significant shift in the United States' approach to international diplomacy by making deep cuts to soft-power institutions such as the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM). These agencies have historically used cultural and economic means to influence other nations, but Trump argues that they have become wasteful and misaligned with American values. Senior adviser Kari Lake emphasizes that soft power should reflect American principles and align with national policy, rather than promote progressive ideologies. This restructuring aims to realign the US's international influence with a more traditional set of aspirational values.

This move comes amidst criticisms that American soft-power efforts have been co-opted by identitarian grievance politics, leading to initiatives that contradict the perceived foundational values of the nation. Trump's administration seeks to remove such projects, aiming instead to focus on fundamental support like food and medical care, while promoting constitutional liberties and optimism. The implications of this strategy are profound, as it represents a chance for the US to redefine its global image and influence, positioning itself as a powerful yet generous leader on the world stage. This overhaul could potentially reset America's role in supporting global citizens who are aligned with its core values.

Donald Trump Foreign Policy Usaid Kari Lake Usagm Soft Power American Values Cultural Diplomacy

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a clear and engaging perspective on President Trump's approach to soft power, emphasizing a return to traditional American values. However, it falls short in several critical areas, particularly in terms of accuracy, balance, and source quality. The lack of evidence and one-sided presentation limit its reliability and credibility, while the absence of diverse viewpoints reduces its overall balance. Despite these weaknesses, the article addresses timely and relevant issues in U.S. foreign policy, with the potential to engage readers and provoke discussion. To enhance its impact and public interest, the article would benefit from more substantiated claims and a broader range of perspectives.

Accuracy

The story makes several claims about President Trump's approach to soft power and his administration's actions, such as cuts to USAID and USAGM. While Trump's preference for hard power over soft power is a commonly noted aspect of his foreign policy, the article lacks specific evidence or quotes that directly support this claim. Additionally, claims about 'leftist rot' and waste within these agencies are not substantiated with concrete examples or data, which raises questions about their verifiability. The assertion that USAID and USAGM have been involved in progressive initiatives that are at odds with American values also lacks detailed evidence or sources. Overall, while the article presents a perspective that aligns with known elements of Trump's policy rhetoric, it does not provide sufficient factual backing for many of its claims.

Balance

The article predominantly presents a viewpoint that is supportive of Trump's approach to soft power, focusing on criticisms of previous administrations' policies and the influence of progressive ideologies. It lacks a balanced representation of differing perspectives or counterarguments that might highlight the potential benefits of the initiatives it criticizes. For instance, the article does not explore the positive impacts of soft power efforts that align with progressive values or the complexities of international diplomacy. This one-sided presentation may lead to a skewed understanding of the issues at hand.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and direct style, making it relatively easy to follow. However, the tone is somewhat informal and opinionated, which may detract from its perceived neutrality. The structure is logical, with a progression from discussing Trump's approach to soft power to specific criticisms of current policies. Despite this, the lack of evidence and heavy reliance on opinion can make the arguments seem less coherent and persuasive.

Source quality

The article does not cite any sources or provide evidence to back up its claims, which undermines its credibility. The lack of attribution to authoritative sources or data means that readers cannot easily verify the information presented. The piece relies heavily on the author's opinions and interpretations without supporting documentation or input from experts or stakeholders involved in the agencies discussed. This diminishes the reliability of the information and suggests potential bias.

Transparency

The article does not disclose the basis for its claims or provide any methodology for how conclusions were reached. There is no mention of potential conflicts of interest or the author's background, which could help readers understand the perspective being presented. The lack of transparency regarding the sources of information and the reasoning behind the arguments weakens the article's overall trustworthiness.