For decades, the United States possessed an unparalleled form of global influence that extended well beyond its military and economic strength. Universities, technology companies, democratic institutions, Hollywood, humanitarian leadership, and alliances collectively formed what political scientist Joseph Nye famously described as “soft power”—the ability to shape international outcomes through attraction rather than coercion.
However, recent international opinion surveys, including the latest Pew Research Center study reported by France 24, suggest that this advantage is facing significant challenges. The survey found that in many countries, Chinese President Xi Jinping now receives more favorable international ratings than U.S. President Donald Trump. While this does not necessarily indicate greater global trust in China’s political system, it does highlight growing dissatisfaction with the direction of American foreign policy and leadership.
This report argues that the United States is not losing influence because China has become universally admired. Rather, Washington’s increasingly transactional foreign policy, frequent geopolitical confrontations, and uncertainty surrounding alliance commitments have weakened America’s traditional soft power advantages.
Soft Power Is Built on Trust, Not Military Strength
Military superiority can deter adversaries, but it cannot create admiration.
Throughout the post-Cold War era, America’s global leadership rested on a combination of security guarantees, international institutions, economic openness, scientific innovation, cultural influence, and democratic values. Countries partnered with Washington not only because of its power but because they believed the United States offered a predictable international order.
Today, that perception is under growing strain.
The latest Pew findings indicate that many respondents express greater confidence in Xi Jinping than in Donald Trump regarding handling international affairs. The poll reflects changing public perceptions rather than a simple endorsement of China’s governance model. Instead, it suggests that many global audiences increasingly view American foreign policy as less predictable than in previous decades.
From Global Leadership to Transactional Diplomacy
One of the defining characteristics of recent U.S. foreign policy has been its increasingly transactional approach.
Traditional alliances have frequently been evaluated through immediate economic or defense contributions rather than shared strategic values. NATO allies have faced repeated pressure to increase defense spending. Trade disputes have affected long-standing partners in Europe and Asia. Tariffs have become regular instruments of diplomacy.
Although such policies are intended to protect American interests, they also carry reputational costs.
Partners that once viewed the United States as a dependable strategic anchor now increasingly prepare for greater geopolitical uncertainty by diversifying diplomatic and economic relationships.
The Middle East and the Image of Selective Engagement
American policy in the Middle East continues to shape global perceptions.
Washington’s support for Israel during successive regional conflicts, including recent tensions involving Iran, has generated criticism across large parts of the Global South. Many governments and observers argue that the United States applies international law inconsistently—strongly defending rules-based norms in some conflicts while appearing more selective in others.
Whether or not this criticism is accepted, perception matters in international politics. Soft power depends less on how a country views itself than on how others interpret its actions.
As humanitarian crises dominate international media coverage, America’s moral authority has become more contested than at any time since the Iraq War.
China’s Alternative Strategy: Infrastructure Before Ideology
China has pursued a markedly different international strategy.
Rather than competing directly with the United States through military alliances, Beijing has invested heavily in infrastructure financing, trade, industrial cooperation, and development partnerships through initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative.
Many developing countries increasingly evaluate major powers through tangible economic benefits rather than ideological alignment.
Roads, railways, ports, digital infrastructure, and investment projects often generate more immediate political goodwill than military deployments or security guarantees.
This does not mean China’s projects are free from criticism. Concerns remain regarding debt sustainability, transparency, environmental impacts, and strategic dependence. Nevertheless, Beijing has successfully positioned itself in many regions as an economic partner rather than primarily a security actor.
The Global South Is Becoming More Strategic
Perhaps the most significant geopolitical shift is occurring outside Washington and Beijing.
Countries across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East increasingly reject binary Cold War-style alignments.
Instead, they pursue strategic autonomy.
Many governments now cooperate economically with China while maintaining security relationships with the United States. Others seek investment from Gulf states, technology from Europe, and defense cooperation from multiple partners simultaneously.
This multidirectional diplomacy reduces the leverage traditionally enjoyed by any single global power.
Alliance Fatigue and Strategic Uncertainty
European allies have also begun preparing for greater strategic independence.
Debates surrounding defense spending, energy security, industrial competitiveness, and strategic autonomy have intensified as European governments recognize that future U.S. foreign policy could become increasingly unpredictable regardless of electoral outcomes.
Similarly, Indo-Pacific partners continue strengthening regional security cooperation while simultaneously expanding economic engagement with China.
These developments illustrate a broader trend: allies increasingly seek resilience against uncertainty rather than dependence on any single external power.
Digital Diplomacy Has Changed Global Narratives
Soft power is no longer shaped exclusively by governments.
Social media platforms, digital creators, independent journalists, artificial intelligence, and online influencers increasingly influence international perceptions faster than traditional diplomacy.
Images from conflict zones, humanitarian crises, sanctions, trade disputes, and political rhetoric spread globally within minutes.
Consequently, foreign policy decisions now generate immediate reputational consequences that are difficult to manage through conventional public diplomacy.
Winning international narratives has become nearly as important as winning military campaigns.
Can the United States Rebuild Its Soft Power?
America retains extraordinary structural advantages.
Its universities remain among the world’s best. Its innovation ecosystem continues to dominate emerging technologies. The U.S. dollar remains central to global finance. American companies continue shaping artificial intelligence, biotechnology, entertainment, and digital platforms.
These strengths provide an enduring foundation for international influence.
However, rebuilding soft power requires more than technological leadership.
It depends upon restoring confidence among allies, demonstrating consistency in foreign policy, supporting international institutions, and showing that American leadership benefits partners as well as domestic interests.
Soft power cannot simply be demanded; it must be continually earned.
Policy Outlook
The United States is unlikely to lose its position as a leading global power in the near future. Yet international influence is becoming increasingly competitive.
China has narrowed the perception gap by emphasizing economic partnerships and presenting itself as an advocate of multipolarity, while the United States has increasingly relied on sanctions, tariffs, strategic competition, and military deterrence.
Future influence will likely depend not only on economic size or military capability but also on credibility, consistency, and the ability to build international trust.
America’s soft power challenge
The latest international polling should not be interpreted as evidence that the world has decisively shifted from Washington to Beijing. Rather, it reflects a more nuanced geopolitical reality: many countries are reassessing how they engage with major powers.
America’s soft power challenge is therefore largely self-inflicted. Frequent shifts in foreign policy priorities, growing reliance on coercive economic tools, contested military engagements, and uncertainty surrounding alliance commitments have all affected international perceptions.
The central policy question is no longer whether the United States remains the world’s strongest military power. It almost certainly does.
The more important strategic question is whether future generations will continue to see American leadership as the preferred model for international cooperation. In an increasingly multipolar world, credibility, trust, and consistency may prove to be the most valuable strategic assets of all.
