The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Andrew I. Rudman is a senior associate with the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C., and a former director of the Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute. He is a Colby graduate and a Bangor native.
Soft power, a term coined in the late 1980s by Harvard’s Joseph Nye, refers to a country’s ability to influence others without resorting to coercive pressure. Others have used the term “endearment,” meaning to be liked or esteemed, to express the same concept.
In practice, soft power is the use of art, literature, films, visits by public and private figures, educational exchange programs, and scholarship to explain and advance national ideals and objectives. Not only is soft power less expensive than hard power (war or economic sanctions), but it also tends to build rather than rupture ties between nations leading to shared pursuit of common objectives. The United States’ use of soft power following World War II allowed our country to win the Cold War and generate national wealth and prosperity.
Both Republican and Democratic-led administrations have relied on tools such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Voice of America (VOA), and the Fulbright Scholar Program to endear the United States to other nations. Of note are the 42 heads of state or government and 62 Nobel Prize laureates who studied in the U.S. under the Fulbright Program.
These soft power tools generate greater awareness and appreciation of American values such as free speech, rule of law, and the defense of human rights. Yet virtually all of these programs and entities have been shuttered by the Trump Administration under the guise of government efficiency and spending reductions.
To cite one example, earlier this month the Trump Administration decided to defund and reduce to its statutory minimum the number of personnel at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The Wilson Center was established by Congress through the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 as a “center symbolizing and strengthening the fruitful relation between the world of learning and the world of public affairs.”
The Wilson Center’s fiscal year 2025 appropriation of about $14 million represented roughly 30 percent of its total budget. Over its 50-plus year history, the Wilson Center established itself as a world-renowned source for scholarly, independent research into global public policy challenges of concern or interest to the United States. Wilson hosted presidents, prime ministers, presidential candidates, and senior officials from around the world to share their ideas and plans while learning from policy makers and subject matter experts in a congenial, solutions-oriented environment.
In 2019, the University of Pennsylvania named Wilson the world’s No. 1 think tank for regional studies. Global distribution of the center’s research through its mailing lists and its network of former research fellows provided well-researched analysis and served as a model for open and informed public policy debate.
The Trump Administration’s decision eliminates an important locus for connection and understanding among Americans and between Americans and representatives of other nations. It denies policymakers, including Congress, a place to build community and to pursue answers to shared problems.
The Mexico Institute, which I led for three years, addressed a wide range of issues including migration and labor, water usage, women’s political participation, North American competitiveness, and efforts to reduce U.S. and Mexican dependence on Chinese-made pharmaceutical ingredients, among others. These challenges, and those addressed by Wilson’s 14 other programs, are not unique to the United States and would benefit from greater international cooperation.
Eliminating soft power tools, including the Wilson Center, weakens the U.S. ability to build alliances, articulate policy preferences, and defend national interests without resorting to armed conflict. Over a decade ago, former Secretary of Defense General James Mattis noted that reduced spending on diplomacy (to which I’d add soft power) would require him to “buy more ammunition.” The closure of institutions like USAID and the Wilson Center may slightly reduce spending in the short term but increases the likelihood of far greater costs, in terms of money and potentially lives, in the future.