Since taking office in January, the Trump administration has adopted a heavy-handed approach to cutting any perceived wasteful spending in the US government.
One of the more recent institutions targeted by Trump’s team, Voice of America, holds a potentially staggering implication: the end of American soft power.
Soft power earned the US government a significant amount of goodwill over the course of the 20th century, with Voice of America one of the most effective conduits. Taking VOA off the airwaves could signify a new era in geopolitics.
A short history of Voice of America
The Voice of America (VOA) has been in operation for over 80 years and was one of the first major campaigns conducted by the American government to promote positive sentiments towards the US as a leader of the free world.
The government-funded radio station began as a method of keeping US troops informed during the Second World War and was administered by the Office of War Information.
After WWII, Congress passed the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which aimed to promote a “better understanding” of the US around the world and to “strengthen cooperative international relations”.
This act put the VOA under the domain of the United States Information Agency (USIA). It became one of the US government’s many assets in combating Soviet propaganda during the Cold War.
The VOA was essentially a method of generating soft power, an invaluable tool in international diplomacy made famous by the American political scientist, Joesph Nye.
As Nye believed, a nation can use military intervention (“hard power”) to achieve its foreign policy aims, or it can create familiarity with other nations by promoting its culture, educational institutions and ideology (“soft power”).
During the Cold War, VOA broadcasts were an invaluable method of cultivating soft power. People all over the world relied on them as a source of news and commentary, especially in countries where the media was state-controlled.
Additionally, Voice of America effectively became an advertisement for the American way of life. The Music USA program, for instance, took Western popular culture to a global audience. This was especially effective in the Eastern Bloc, where jazz, in particular, became incredibly popular.
Voice of America and the other US-funded radio stations operating during the Cold War, such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, had their share of critics. The majority came from the Eastern Bloc. Some, however, were American.
In the 1970s, Senator William J. Fulbright, for instance, maintained that radio broadcasts such as VOA hindered diplomacy with the Soviet Union by disseminating American propaganda. He called them “Cold War relics”.
They were not mere propaganda mouthpieces, though. Although these stations and many of the other radio outlets under the control of the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) were funded by the American government, they demonstrated a reliance on journalistic integrity.
The VOA has also not shied away from reporting on negative aspects of American society. This is likely one reason why Trump has been so critical of its mandate.
The end of US soft power?
The short-term implications of Voice of America’s potential demise are worrying. Many journalists are out of work and a respected institution promoting international diplomacy hangs in the balance.
The long-term geopolitical implications, however, could be far greater. First, Voice of America and other stations managed by USAGM have long provided an alternative to state-run media in countries such as Russia and China.
Outlets like Russia’s Sputnik news organisation, which was recently removed from the airwaves in Washington for promoting antisemitic content and misinformation about the war in Ukraine, will now face fewer challenges reaching a global audience.
Taking VOA off the air also signals the Trump administration is done with soft power as a diplomatic tool and has little regard for the harm this will cause America’s reputation on the global stage.
If the US abandons the principles of appealing to other governments through soft power, it could resort to other means to achieve its geopolitical aims. This includes hard power.
One soft power advocate, General James Mattis, told Congress in 2013 when he was overseeing US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.”
The Trump administration’s rejection of soft power as a diplomatic tool could also allow China, in particular, to take its place.
As Nye himself pointed out in a recent Washington Post essay, polling in 24 countries in 2023 found the US was viewed much more positively than China. Another survey showed the US had the advantage over China in 81 of 133 countries surveyed.
Nye concluded: “If Trump thinks he will easily beat China by completely forgoing soft power, he is likely to be disappointed. And so will we.”
Ben Hammond has received funding from the Harry S. Truman Foundation and the Dwight D. Eisenhower foundation.
