I recently read a column in The Hill arguing that America is losing its global influence because other countries supposedly don’t like us anymore. The argument leaned heavily on phrases like soft power, moral authority, and appealing culture. The idea is that America leads the world because people admire us. But that raises a pretty simple question. Does American leadership really depend on everyone liking us?
Here’s a snippet from the article:
For decades, America’s true strategic advantage lay in something less tangible but more potent: its capacity to attract. Its ideals, openness and professed commitment to universal values conferred a moral authority that made alliances easier, its influence deeper and its leadership more legitimate. That advantage is now being squandered.
The current focus on the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran should not obscure a larger reality: The damage the second Trump presidency is inflicting on U.S. soft power — on the very credibility that made American leadership possible — is profound and likely to outlast the administration itself.
The concept of soft power, a term coined by the late Harvard scholar Joseph Nye, rests on three pillars: an appealing culture, political values that a country actually upholds, and a foreign policy imbued with moral authority. Today, each of those pillars is being eroded. – Brahma Chellaney, The Hill
Full transparency here, my eyes rolled as soon as I read “Harvard scholar Joseph Nye.” This Harvard scholar didn’t just write about foreign policy—he also worked in the Pentagon during the Bill Clinton administration.
Leadership Isn’t a Popularity Contest
This idea that America’s leadership depends on everyone liking us feels more like a classroom theory than real life. Nations follow power and interests. They always have. The United States still protects the oceans, still anchors global alliances, and still drives a huge share of the world’s economy. That matters far more than whether foreign policy experts approve of a president’s tone.
Countries don’t make decisions based on feelings. They make decisions based on security, trade, and stability. If a nation depends on American military protection or economic ties, it is going to work with the United States regardless of whether it approves of our rhetoric. That has been true for decades, through presidents of both parties.
We are seeing a foreign policy doctrine develop that will change the country (and the world) for the better: 1) clearly define an American interest; 2) negotiate aggressively to achieve that interest; 3) use overwhelming force if necessary. pic.twitter.com/zQQzdJlzus
— JD Vance (@JDVance) June 24, 2025
But here’s where arguments about “soft power” usually start to get fuzzy. Writers begin throwing around phrases like appealing culture, political values, and moral authority without ever explaining what those words actually mean. They sound impressive, but when you stop and think about them for a moment, they are surprisingly vague.
One blunt way to put it looks like this:
The public has been conditioned to believe foreign policy is about spreading “goodness” rather than securing interests.
OK. This was fine for a bit when our leaders would manipulate them into thinking we were pursuing “goodness,” but now the public has lost interest in all…
— Brett MacDonald (@BrettAMacDonald) January 4, 2026
Let’s Fill In the Blanks
So allow me, as a blogger, to speculate a little. When commentators leave their arguments this open-ended, readers are left to fill in the blanks.
Maybe by “appealing culture,” The Hill writer means an America that avoids strong nationalist language and tries hard not to offend anyone on the international stage. Maybe “political values” means immigration policies that appear more open or leaders who speak in the polished diplomatic tone that global conferences prefer. And when writers talk about “moral authority,” perhaps they mean a foreign policy that earns approval from international organizations and foreign policy elites.
But none of that really answers the larger question. Does America’s influence actually depend on winning approval from foreign policy experts and global institutions? Or does it depend on something much simpler?
For most of modern history, America’s influence has rested on a few very real things. The United States maintains alliances across Europe and Asia. It protects major shipping routes and trade lanes. It fields the most capable military in the world and anchors a global economic system that countless countries rely on.
Those realities matter far more than whether America’s tone satisfies commentators.
Power, Not Popularity
The truth is that global politics has never worked like a popularity contest. Countries cooperate with the United States because it remains central to their security and economic interests. They may criticize American leaders one day and negotiate with them the next. That’s how international politics has always worked.
None of this means reputation or diplomacy are meaningless. Of course they matter. But the idea that American leadership collapses the moment other countries stop liking us is a pretty thin theory.
Power still matters. Alliances still matter. Economic strength still matters.
And as long as those things remain in place, America’s role in the world is not nearly as fragile as some commentators would have us believe.
