Was Trump Right to Be Hard on Soft Power in the Middle East?, A DebateWas Trump Right to Be Hard on Soft Power in the Middle East?, A Debate

For decades, the United States has balanced military strength with soft power-influence through culture, diplomacy, and foreign assistance-across the world, and especially in the Middle East. Federally funded entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and media outlets such as Alhurra and Radio Sawa have aimed to promote democratic values, counter extremist ideologies, and shape America's presence in the troubled region. In early 2025, however, President Donald Trump (R) moved to defund these entities and base U.S. foreign policy more on economic leverage, military partnerships, and strategic disengagement. Does this effort to reduce soft power signify an advance or retreat in U.S. influence in the Middle East? Those defending the Trump administration's changes argue that soft power has failed to produce measurable gains in the region and that billions of dollars in aid have not led to lasting stability. The United States should abandon soft power, they contend, and focus on clear, transactional outcomes to achieve geopolitical goals. Those opposing the Trump administration's changes argue that reducing soft power will undermine America's image and sway in the Middle East and cede influence to China, Iran, and other nations hostile to the United States. Such an approach will benefit autocrats and dictators, they contend, and allow authoritarianism and extremism to spread unchecked. Was Trump right to be hard on soft power in the Middle East?