Shakthi De Silva
‘Respect’ for a nation entails recognition – of status, contribution, and standing within the international community. When that recognition falls short of a nation’s self-perceived economic power or military capability, it often feels compelled to respond – strategically and sometimes emotionally. In the United States, the sense of having been disrespected has become a powerful political narrative. This grievance, deeply rooted in perceptions of unfair trade practices and the exploitation of its security guarantees, was a key driver behind the ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs and many other measures taken during President Trump’s first and second tenures. The underlying message – that America has been taken advantage of while others grew rich at its expense – now animates U.S. policy and public sentiment more than ever before. However, as Washington doubles down on reclaiming ‘respect’, a critical question arises: is it doing so at the cost of its most enduring asset – its soft power?
Professor Joseph Nye Jr., who passed away recently, coined the term ‘soft power’, defining it as the ability to influence others through attraction rather than coercion or payment. According to Nye, a country's soft power stems from three primary sources: its culture, when it is appealing to others; its political values, when they are attractive and consistently upheld; and its foreign policies, when they are perceived as abiding by international norms and reflecting a genuine consideration for the protection of the global commons. He emphasised that a government’s actions to protect democratic freedoms at home, work through multilateral institutions to resolve disputes peacefully and address global challenges such as climate change, and strive to uphold human rights – shapes how others view it. In short, when policies are crafted with sensitivity to global interests and when values are practised consistently at home and abroad, a nation becomes more attractive in the eyes of others, thereby strengthening its ability to lead through example rather than imposition.
Days before his death, Nye expressed his concern that “Trump doesn’t understand soft power”. President Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on America’s trading partners – such as Vietnam, which faced a staggering 46% tariff on its exports, and Sri Lanka, which was just beginning to recover from a grueling debt restructuring process following its 2022 default, faced a 44% tariff on its exports – drew widespread concern. Although a 10% baseline tariff was later placed on most countries a few days later, the ripple effects of this initial move were significant – as illustrated by the sharp sell-offs of U.S. assets including stocks.
Trump suspended most of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s activities (USAID), and disbanded the U.S. Agency for Global Media – the parent company of Voice of America and Radio Free Asia. Tensions with close partners - including Colombia, Mexico, Denmark, and several European nations – reflected a shift in tone and approach that unsettled long-standing bilateral ties. Remarks about Canada potentially becoming the 51st state, the idea of purchasing Greenland, and a more assertive posture toward Panama following its deepening of ties with China, were interpreted by some observers as signs of a more unilateral and somewhat transactional U.S. approach towards the world. Incidents such as the Oval Office exchange with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also drew concerns, particularly among Southeast Asian nations that depend on US assistance against the backdrop of an increasingly volatile geopolitical environment. These measures, taken together, paint a U.S. administration that demands respect through the adoption of a more confrontational stance, a willingness to upend diplomatic relations in the pursuit of immediate economic and political gains, and a clear departure from its long-standing role as the standard-bearer for the ‘Liberal’ International Order.
These shifts in policy and rhetoric have had a noticeable impact on global perceptions of American leadership. Studies suggest that growing awareness of hate crimes and divisive political discourse in the U.S. directly diminishes the appeal of American democratic values abroad. At the same time, Washington’s increasing reliance on regulatory levers – such as the extraterritorial export controls targeting Huawei’s AI chips – has raised questions about whether U.S. influence is being exercised more through coercion than co-option. While such measures may be intended to restore respect and protect U.S. national interests, they also risk undermining the image of the U.S. as a cooperative global leader and a defender of multilateralism – a reputation it has carefully cultivated since the end of the Second World War. In this context, the erosion of soft power is not merely symbolic; it could limit America’s ability to build coalitions, shape norms, and maintain a consent-based international leadership rooted in moral and intellectual authority.
In a bid to reassure allies and partners of America’s commitment and shore up its image, Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth travelled to the Philippines in March to reaffirm the United States’ “ironclad” security guarantee to Manila, before continuing to Japan to signal the Trump administration’s resolve to deter China from continuing its aggressive activities in the region. The shockwaves caused by tariff escalations and abrupt policy shifts, however, have not only raised questions about U.S. credibility but have also prompted smaller Asian states to hedge against the risks of a volatile Washington – deepening ties with regional partners like India, Japan, and South Korea, as well as the European Union.
The broader repercussions of the Trump administration’s policies have begun to surface in shifting regional attitudes toward the United States. Previews of the 2025 Lowy Institute poll showed a sharp 20-point drop in Australian trust in the U.S., with only one-third of Australians expressing any level of confidence – the lowest since the poll’s inception. A YouGov.UK survey conducted in February 2025 across seven European countries similarly recorded a 6 to 28 percent drop in favourable views of the U.S. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney declared in March that the era of deep economic integration and close security coordination with the U.S. “is over,” while Singapore’s defence minister, in a candid address, remarked that America’s global image had shifted “from liberator to great disruptor to a landlord seeking rent.” These reactions suggest that balancing assertiveness and collaboration remains a key challenge for sustaining the U.S.’s global influence.
Will this quest for respect pay off if it harms America’s soft power? Crystal ball gazing is always a difficult endeavour, but history shows that lasting influence is rarely achieved through coercion or unilateral demands alone; it requires building trust, demonstrating shared values, and engaging cooperatively with the international community. Ultimately, sustaining America’s leadership in a multipolar world, increasingly dominated by Asian powers who had espoused non-aligned postures during the Cold War, will depend on not only the strength of its military and economy, but also its capacity to inspire and persuade.
