by Max
Hard power, or stereotypical power, is achieved through spreading fear. Before globalization and the connectivity that came after World War I, this was the traditional way to succeed as a country. However, when contact between countries was standardized through better technology, and relationships between countries grew more complex, another way to gain power was taking over. Soft power is achieved through diplomacy and propaganda rather than military force; it is a necessary tool for building a global reputation and maintaining global relationships. As the United States matured and left its juvenile stage, the US decided that it needed to create a concrete base to operate from to oversee (and carry out) ways to increase our country’s soft power.
Following World War I, the United States needed to somehow show stability when it came to foreign affairs. This is because after World War I, the economy became significantly more interconnected between countries. The alliances that were built necessitated a strong image of efficient foreign affairs operations. The Rodgers Act established “Foreign Service officer[s]’ as “permanent officers” of the United States Government (HR 6357, May 24, 1924, section 2). By addressing the specifics of what a foreign officer is, the Act inaugurates the Foreign Service as a real branch of government that is to be respected and recognized. This expectation of recognition is a direct example of the institutionalization of soft power: the use of non-military force to manipulate other countries’ view of the United States. In this case, the creation of the Foreign Service shows that the United States is dedicating itself to being a permanent player on the international stage.
The government’s understanding of soft power became clearer during World War II, so in 1946, Congress revised the Act with the new Foreign Service Act. The Act emphasizes that it must “draw its personnel from all walks of American life and appoint persons to the highest positions in the service solely on the basis of their demonstrated ability,” which rises out of America’s opposition to the Nazis (HR 6967 Aug 16 1946 section 111). The Act establishes the United States as a place of equality, and the Foreign Service as a direct representation of that. However, the 1980s version (the Foreign Service Act of 1980) is much more direct in its purpose; it literally states that it “enable[s] foreign service to serve the interests of the United States effectively and to provide the highest caliber of representation in the conduct of foreign affairs.”
The Cold War began right after World War II ended, with World War II ending in late 1945, and the Cold War beginning in early 1947. The highest points of cultural intensity in the Cold War arguably took place during the 1950s and the 1980s. Propaganda during these points was also reaching its most notorious, and culturally, it was at its most important.
At the height of the Cold War, in the 1960s, USAID was established in order to compete with the USSR. From the arms race, to GDP, to who was the most culturally important and “better,” the USSR and the United States had been competing in nearly everything, so the United States competed to broaden its moral argument for global primacy. Since World War I, foreign aid from the United States has been given to countries that are not technically allies, though they were being exploited by the US, but it still meant that we would essentially control their economy. While the Foreign Service had been (and been using) a form of soft power throughout the 20th century, USAID was a powerful new approach. Not only were we using USAID to compete with Russia, but it was also something that we could use in the media in other countries to show how kind and generous the United States can be.
However, on paper, USAID’s intent is to provide economic aid and strengthen democracies in third-world countries. This is not inherently for the other countries’ benefit; it is simply an example of the United States using soft power over another country to ensure that they will give the US their resources in the future. However, they do actually strengthen democracies. In the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, USAID helped them to become solid members of NATO and the European Union, though most of the effort was actually done by said states (Cepoi, Corina, 2026). There is a definite focus on lifting the populations of other countries out of poverty and into good health. This is partially for the United States’ benefit, but it truly does help these other countries. The act of helping other countries, even in the global south, demonstrates a commitment to the well-being of people from “all walks of life.” Some of it is for our benefit, but that does not minimize the help that USAID has provided.
Although the oversight of USAID is imperfect, over the past 20 years, USAID has saved over 92 million lives. Recently, though, the reactionary right has attacked the mission of USAID and other soft power tools, so they have been entirely dismantled. USAID was whittled down to 15 people and reabsorbed into the Department of State. The dismantling of USAID is likely to spawn a threefold increase in deaths related to HIV/AIDS, double the number of deaths from malaria, and from neglected tropical diseases. There is also going to be very measurable increases in deaths relating to “tuberculosis, nutritional deficiencies, diarrhoeal diseases, lower respiratory infections, and maternal and perinatal conditions.” It is estimated that the desecration of USAID will cause 14-19 million deaths by 2030 (Cavalcanti et al 290).
As this essay is being written, the United States and Israel have just struck Iran, with the reasoning of “freeing the Iranian People.” Iran, in the past, has broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the United States cites fear of a nuclear attack as one of the reasons that it bombed Iran. Yes, Iran has threatened to withdraw from the NPT, but it does not pose enough of a threat to the United States, or Israel for that matter, to warrant bombing Iran’s most populated cities. The United States has just proven that if any country even moves in the direction of threatening them, then they will bomb their cities and kill their leaders. This is a poor choice to put it lightly, and the United States, if it still had more of the Foreign Service, could have entered into talks with Iran and settled this in a non-violent way, instead of starting a war over practically nothing. This act proves how broken the United States is with a diminished Foreign Service. It reeks of imperialism, and it demonstrates that the United States does not value the lives of the citizens of other countries.
By pulling back from the world and reducing the size of the Foreign Service, the United States removes itself from the status as a reliable partner, and it breaks the promises made in the Acts that brought the Foreign Service together. The United States is losing the trust of the countries that we have helped and the world at large. In losing this trust, the United States is giving up the opportunity to receive future goods and services, trade opportunities, tourism, and cultural influence. The United States is losing its role as a leader in the world economy and world culture, and the US may see a dark age in the near future. Already, travel advisories are being placed on the United States, the rise in tariffs is destroying the reputation that they have built with other countries, leading the US into trade wars, and the media that comes out of the United States is beginning to be critiqued in a way that has never been seen before. The US is being called a dictatorship by the public of other countries. If the US wants to regain its status as a world leader, it will need to reinstate USAID and funnel even more resources into it at the very least.
Works Cited:
United States Congress. United States Statutes at Large, vol. 43, 1924, pp. 140. Office of the Law Revision Counsel.
United States Congress. United States Statutes at Large, volume 60, 1946, pp. 999. Office of the Law Revision Counsel.
United States Congress. United States Statutes at Large, volume 94, 1980, pp. 2071. Office of the Law Revision Counsel.
Cavalcanti, Daniella Medeiros et al. Evaluating the impact of two decades of USAID interventions and projecting the effects of defunding on mortality up to 2030: a retrospective impact evaluation and forecasting analysis. The Lancet, Volume 406, Issue 10500, pp. 283-294.
Cepoi, Corina. “USAID Spent More than $1 Billion to Build Democracy in Moldova: What Happens Now?” Harriman Magazine, 2026, pp. 16–21.
Goodman, Mark, and Monte Mallin. “Is Nuclear Testing Needed?” The Foreign Service Journal, 2026, pp. 39–41.