US Foreign Policy under Trump 2.0: Rejection of Soft Power or Application of Realpolitik?
Context The uncertainty characterizing the future of international society, impacted by both destructuring and restructuring factors, has found an echo in the new directions of American foreign policy since President Donald Trump's return to power. Indeed, these largely diverge from the foreign policy of his predecessor, President Joe Biden – with a few exceptions – whether in terms of doctrine, public diplomacy, pax democratica, influence relationships, interpretation, and projection of power.
By La Rédaction · Port-au-Prince · · 14 min read · Updated 24 April 2026
Translated from French — AI-assisted and reviewed by the editorial team. The French version is authoritative. Read the original · About our translation policy
Context
The uncertainty characterizing the future of international society, impacted by both destructuring and restructuring factors, has found an echo in the new directions of American foreign policy since President Donald Trump's return to power. Indeed, these largely diverge from the foreign policy of his predecessor, President Joe Biden – with a few exceptions – whether in terms of doctrine, public diplomacy, pax democratica, influence relationships, interpretation, and projection of power. Thus, the question of a possible American renunciation of their soft power (power of persuasion and attraction) has challenged the largest political forums and chanceries worldwide since recent events at the beginning of 2026, notably the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, which constitutes aggression under Resolution 3314 (XXIX) “Definition of Aggression of December 14, 1974, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, which defines aggression as “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations”. Added to this are President Trump's ambitions to annex Greenland, threats of additional customs duties against Canada or certain European states, his proposed Board of Peace, whose missions recall those of the United Nations, and the military operation “Epic Fury”, launched on February 28, 2026, by the United States and Israel against Iran. In a context of influence warfare and political confrontations for the control of critical resources, this article aims to analyze the realignment of American foreign policy under Trump 2.0 to determine if this repositioning can be interpreted as a transformation/readaptation of American influence. In other words, is it a rejection of American soft power, or should it be seen as an application of realpolitik? What are the implications for Haiti in a context of drastic reduction in international aid and geopolitical conflicts?
Henceforth, American influence primarily relies on power dynamics embodying hard power.
B. Hard Power: Coercion by Force
The new American posture, prioritizing power dynamics and coercive measures, has manifested itself in various ways, notably:
● American withdrawal from multilateral institutions:
The moral authority of the United States is significantly weakened by its gradual disengagement from inter-state organizations operating in various sectors, such as trade, health, and the environment, like the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Health Organization (WHO), or climate agreements. Moreover, while the reevaluation of American funding granted to international organizations, including the United Nations and certain UN agencies, raises fears of a budget deficit for these organizations due to the weight of US funding, it also indicates a reconditioning of funding towards political objectives aligned with the interests of the current American administration.
● Transactional diplomacy:
Transactionalism has become the new norm guiding negotiations between Americans and their trade partners. These bilateral negotiations prioritize the immediate interests of the United States under the slogan “America First.” This approach capitalizes on a cost-benefit logic that simultaneously rejects universal values largely stemming from International Law, adopted by states in the conduct of international relations. Similarly, by resorting to partial or general additional customs duties – deemed illegal by the US Supreme Court – to compel state trade partners, including historical allies within the Western Bloc (Canada, member countries of the European Union and/or NATO), to align with their position, the seductive power of the world's leading power is weakened, particularly among its traditional allies.
● A unilateralist approach (realpolitik/Hard power):
The United States is returning to a geopolitics of “spheres of influence,” notably through unilateral actions in Venezuela, by displaying its ambitions regarding Greenland, and by launching a war against Iran since the beginning of 2026. These actions recall the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, adopted by President Theodore Roosevelt, which advocated American interventions, acting as a true gendarme of the American continent considered their backyard. The use of an economic and legal arsenal by the United States to pressure other states/trade partners constitutes a form of “weaponized law” that echoes patterns akin to realpolitik. Furthermore, American foreign policy reflects internal political dynamics, migratory issues, electoral considerations, and a personalization of power in the person of President Trump (as evidenced by his Board of Peace project), which weakens traditional alliances, particularly within the Western Bloc. While some recent interventions have sparked controversy and damaged their brand image (soft power) and moral authority, such as conflicts (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) or internal crises (the attack on the Capitol in 2021 by Donald Trump's supporters), the United States nevertheless retains hard power attributes (military, economic, technological capacity) that make it the world's leading power.
● Suspension of USAID:
Since January-February 2025, the new American administration has decided to suspend USAID operations in over 120 countries, including Haiti. This decision demonstrates President Trump's and his collaborators' stated desire to not only restructure the US State Department but also to reexamine/reorient foreign aid provided by redirecting American priorities. Historically, the agency served as a lever of influence for the United States, allowing it to attract and influence through humanitarian aid, institutional development, and support for civil societies. It acted as a vector of American soft power, its governance model, solidarity, and democracy. In doing so, the United States opts for political realism integrating security calculations and prioritizing economic sanctions, legal pressures, informational influence (sharp power) instead of a diplomacy of seduction using soft power levers like the USAID agency.
● American predominance on the American Continent / Influence war with China: Far from the relative restraint in his political conduct that characterized his first term, President Trump no longer acts in half measures. He imposes his vision of the international scene. This vision makes the United States the undeniable power, the sole master on board, on the American Continent, engaged in an influence war against China, considered the true adversary capable of challenging their supremacy, as clearly stated in the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) document. Hence the recent international actions primarily targeting China's partners (Venezuela, Iran), or the recent “Shield of the Americas” initiative launched in March 2026 by President Donald Trump, bringing together several heads of state and ministers from the American continent – most positioned on the right of the political spectrum – in Doral (Florida). This initiative, which focuses on military and security cooperation between the United States and several American countries against cartels, transnational trafficking, and migratory threats, appears rather as a new mechanism for containing Chinese influence in the region.
● Sharp Power and transformation:
Sharp power consists of using information for manipulation and coercion. Rather than seeking to attract, as soft power advocates, Sharp Power aims to manipulate, polarize, and delegitimize, particularly via AI, digital platforms, and social networks. With President Donald Trump's return to power, the American Administration prioritizes its own interests while shedding moral constraints or any civilizing ambition to spread, by virtue of a supposed manifest destiny, liberal democracy under the Western label. Thus, the ongoing transformation leads to a strategic reversal of the public diplomacy paradigm. However, American influence on cultural and technological levels remains undeniable.
While it is true that the United States remains the only power capable of simultaneously projecting global cultural, technological, and military influence, the persuasive capacity of its diplomacy and the power of attraction that allowed it to convince without coercing are at an all-time low. This trend is confirmed by votes within the United Nations General Assembly, where the alignment rate with American positions is clearly declining. Ultimately, by adopting sharp power and returning to the fundamentals of hard power and realpolitik, the United States has evidently changed its approach without completely abandoning its cultural and technological influence. Similarly, the evasive language favored by officials and diplomats in their public exchanges and interventions gives way to a raw, more stripped-down discourse, far from the diplomatic jargon that prioritizes restraint and the duty of reserve. And American decision-makers do not even hide it. Henceforth, the United States no longer fulfills the role of the « benevolent leader » of the liberal world but can assume the guise of either a predatory power or a protective power, according to its interests.
From this perspective, Haitian diplomacy must assess the national and international stakes involved. One might be led to question the thesis of American decline. Is it credible or should it be relativized? Faced with China's rapid rise, is this an “empire striking back”?
Luis Evens Sergio ALEXIS,
Jurist and Political Scientist
Email: alexissergio450@gmail.com
Bibliographical References
Articles
Chabourine Véronique, « Quels défis pour le soft power américain sous Trump », La Tribune, published November 19, 2024, consulted January 29, 2026, https://www.latribune.fr/opinions/tribunes/quels-defis-pour-le-soft-power-americain-sous-trump-1011712.html?utm_source=copilot.com
David, C.-P. (2021), La politique étrangère américaine est (désormais) la continuation de la politique (intérieure) par d’autres moyens. Études internationales, 52(1-2), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.7202/1086934ar
Gagliano Giuseppe, « Trump Europe : Une réaction contre le soft power », Centro Studi Strategici Carlo De Cristoforis, published February 17, 2025, consulted February 3, 2026 https://lediplomate.media/analyse-la-doctrine-america-first-et-le-defi-du-soft-power-reglementaire-europeen/?utm_source=copilot.com
Koné Raphaël, Les relations internationales et la géopolitique mondiale à l’ère du président Trump, 2025, hal-05205522
Laliberté Luc, « Trump sacrifie la méthode douce : le déclin du soft power », Le Journal de Montréal, published February 10, 2025, consulted January 30, 2026 https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2025/02/10/trump-sacrifie-la-methode-douce-le-declin-du-soft-power?utm_source=copilot.com
Schaffroth Laura, A critique of the concept Soft Power, Goldsmiths University of London, 2019, consulted February 4, 2026, https://www.academia.edu/44547072/A_critique_of_the_concept_Soft_Power?utm_source=copilot.com
https://major-prepa.com/geopolitique/politique-etrangere-etats-unis-theses-classiques-references/
Ouvrages
Euzet Christophe, Relations internationales, Paris, Ellipses, 2007, 180p
Kennedy Paul, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, New York, Random House, 1987
Nye, Joseph S. Jr. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York : Basic Books, 1990.
Nye, Joseph S. Jr. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York : PublicAffairs, 2004, 191 p.
Roche Jean-Jacques, Théorie des relations internationales, 9ᵉ éd., Paris, LGDJ, 2016. 160 p.
Roche Catherine. L’essentiel du Droit International Public et du Droit des Relations Internationales. Paris : Ellipses, 2018, 256 p.
The uncertainty characterizing the future of international society, impacted by both destructuring and restructuring factors, has found an echo in the new directions of American foreign policy since President Donald Trump's return to power. Indeed, these largely diverge from the foreign policy of his predecessor, President Joe Biden – with a few exceptions – whether in terms of doctrine, public diplomacy, pax democratica, influence relationships, interpretation, and projection of power. Thus, the question of a possible American renunciation of their soft power (power of persuasion and attraction) has challenged the largest political forums and chanceries worldwide since recent events at the beginning of 2026, notably the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, which constitutes aggression under Resolution 3314 (XXIX) “Definition of Aggression of December 14, 1974, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, which defines aggression as “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations”. Added to this are President Trump's ambitions to annex Greenland, threats of additional customs duties against Canada or certain European states, his proposed Board of Peace, whose missions recall those of the United Nations, and the military operation “Epic Fury”, launched on February 28, 2026, by the United States and Israel against Iran. In a context of influence warfare and political confrontations for the control of critical resources, this article aims to analyze the realignment of American foreign policy under Trump 2.0 to determine if this repositioning can be interpreted as a transformation/readaptation of American influence. In other words, is it a rejection of American soft power, or should it be seen as an application of realpolitik? What are the implications for Haiti in a context of drastic reduction in international aid and geopolitical conflicts?
- Hard Power and Sharp Power rather than Soft Power
With the return to more transactional policies embodied by Donald Trump, the current American administration favors direct power dynamics. In this case, hard power and economic power are prioritized over the soft power theorized by Joseph Nye, an American geopolitician considered one of the most influential thinkers in contemporary international relations.
A. Joseph Nye, and Soft Power
This theory advocates the use of soft power as a lever of influence, as opposed to coercion by brute force (hard power), in the conduct of American foreign policy. It is based on three pillars: “foreign policy, the system of values underlying political life, and cultural outreach.” Thus, Joseph Nye establishes a typology that distinguishes three types of power in foreign policy: hard power based on the use or threat of armed force, economic power targeting the resources of targeted countries through coercive or incentive measures, and soft power defined as a capacity for attraction, influence, and cultural sway exerted on the public opinion of target countries or international public opinion, without coercion.
Henceforth, American influence primarily relies on power dynamics embodying hard power.
B. Hard Power: Coercion by Force
The new American posture, prioritizing power dynamics and coercive measures, has manifested itself in various ways, notably:
● American withdrawal from multilateral institutions:
The moral authority of the United States is significantly weakened by its gradual disengagement from inter-state organizations operating in various sectors, such as trade, health, and the environment, like the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Health Organization (WHO), or climate agreements. Moreover, while the reevaluation of American funding granted to international organizations, including the United Nations and certain UN agencies, raises fears of a budget deficit for these organizations due to the weight of US funding, it also indicates a reconditioning of funding towards political objectives aligned with the interests of the current American administration.
● Transactional diplomacy:
Transactionalism has become the new norm guiding negotiations between Americans and their trade partners. These bilateral negotiations prioritize the immediate interests of the United States under the slogan “America First.” This approach capitalizes on a cost-benefit logic that simultaneously rejects universal values largely stemming from International Law, adopted by states in the conduct of international relations. Similarly, by resorting to partial or general additional customs duties – deemed illegal by the US Supreme Court – to compel state trade partners, including historical allies within the Western Bloc (Canada, member countries of the European Union and/or NATO), to align with their position, the seductive power of the world's leading power is weakened, particularly among its traditional allies.
● A unilateralist approach (realpolitik/Hard power):
The United States is returning to a geopolitics of “spheres of influence,” notably through unilateral actions in Venezuela, by displaying its ambitions regarding Greenland, and by launching a war against Iran since the beginning of 2026. These actions recall the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, adopted by President Theodore Roosevelt, which advocated American interventions, acting as a true gendarme of the American continent considered their backyard. The use of an economic and legal arsenal by the United States to pressure other states/trade partners constitutes a form of “weaponized law” that echoes patterns akin to realpolitik. Furthermore, American foreign policy reflects internal political dynamics, migratory issues, electoral considerations, and a personalization of power in the person of President Trump (as evidenced by his Board of Peace project), which weakens traditional alliances, particularly within the Western Bloc. While some recent interventions have sparked controversy and damaged their brand image (soft power) and moral authority, such as conflicts (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) or internal crises (the attack on the Capitol in 2021 by Donald Trump's supporters), the United States nevertheless retains hard power attributes (military, economic, technological capacity) that make it the world's leading power.
● Suspension of USAID:
Since January-February 2025, the new American administration has decided to suspend USAID operations in over 120 countries, including Haiti. This decision demonstrates President Trump's and his collaborators' stated desire to not only restructure the US State Department but also to reexamine/reorient foreign aid provided by redirecting American priorities. Historically, the agency served as a lever of influence for the United States, allowing it to attract and influence through humanitarian aid, institutional development, and support for civil societies. It acted as a vector of American soft power, its governance model, solidarity, and democracy. In doing so, the United States opts for political realism integrating security calculations and prioritizing economic sanctions, legal pressures, informational influence (sharp power) instead of a diplomacy of seduction using soft power levers like the USAID agency.
● American predominance on the American Continent / Influence war with China: Far from the relative restraint in his political conduct that characterized his first term, President Trump no longer acts in half measures. He imposes his vision of the international scene. This vision makes the United States the undeniable power, the sole master on board, on the American Continent, engaged in an influence war against China, considered the true adversary capable of challenging their supremacy, as clearly stated in the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) document. Hence the recent international actions primarily targeting China's partners (Venezuela, Iran), or the recent “Shield of the Americas” initiative launched in March 2026 by President Donald Trump, bringing together several heads of state and ministers from the American continent – most positioned on the right of the political spectrum – in Doral (Florida). This initiative, which focuses on military and security cooperation between the United States and several American countries against cartels, transnational trafficking, and migratory threats, appears rather as a new mechanism for containing Chinese influence in the region.
● Sharp Power and transformation:
Sharp power consists of using information for manipulation and coercion. Rather than seeking to attract, as soft power advocates, Sharp Power aims to manipulate, polarize, and delegitimize, particularly via AI, digital platforms, and social networks. With President Donald Trump's return to power, the American Administration prioritizes its own interests while shedding moral constraints or any civilizing ambition to spread, by virtue of a supposed manifest destiny, liberal democracy under the Western label. Thus, the ongoing transformation leads to a strategic reversal of the public diplomacy paradigm. However, American influence on cultural and technological levels remains undeniable.
- American influence on cultural and technological levels
Despite the weakening of American moral authority in diplomatic circles, their soft power, far from disappearing, retains a preponderance in the private sector on technological and digital, cultural, and academic levels.
● On the digital front: Through the digital and technological leverage represented by Big Tech (Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI), the United States maintains a structuring power over international society. This influence is now exerted through artificial intelligence and algorithms instead of treaties.
● On the cultural front: Hollywood, Netflix, and Disney remain massive vectors of the « American Way of Life », despite criticism or competition from regional hubs (South Korea, India).
● On the academic front: American universities are still highly valued for the quality of their education and their prestige. In fact, they remain the first choice for global elites. However, this prestige is beginning to suffer the repercussions of the current American administration's restrictive visa policies. Moreover, internal tensions affect their international reach.
- Implications of the relative American withdrawal for international affairs
By abandoning its role as a « moral compass », the United States creates a vacuum that tends towards a recomposition of the world order, giving way to a multinormative world and greater unpredictability in international relations:
A. A multinormative world
The emergence of new poles of norms leads to a multinormative world. Indeed, the United States is no longer the sole unique model; other actors like India, China, and the European Union propose new regulations:
● Combining democracy and pragmatism, India increasingly appears as a « consensus power » for the Global South.
● Through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China highlights an effective development model with trade partnerships presented as win-win without political conditionality, strengthening its image as a leader of the Global South.
● The European Union attempts to assert itself as the regulatory power with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the European Artificial Intelligence Regulation (AI Act) due to its economic power and institutional strength. However, not being a major military power, this institution struggles to project credible hard power.
B. Unpredictability of international relations
Contemporary international relations are becoming increasingly unpredictable, leading to an erosion of International Law and causing instability in inter-state relations as well as fragmentation of alliances:
● Erosion of international law: The United States' unilateral use of force and violation of principles and rules underlying the international system discredit multilateral institutions, primarily the United Nations. International law, whose objective is to regulate a supposedly anarchic society, sees its most rudimentary foundations trampled upon. These actions highlight the double standard perceived through American actions and denounced by countries of the Global South. This developing situation paves the way for a more conflictual world where force prevails over law.
● Minilateralism/Regional Blocs: The minilateralism approach favors cooperation among restricted groups of states on specific issues instead of multilateral organizations like the UN or WTO. In this logic, a proliferation of mini-alliances replacing large global bodies is observed, such as AUKUS (cooperation between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States for defense and military technology); BRICS+ (initially formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and expanded in 2024 to new members; or QUAD (grouping Australia, India, Japan, United States for security and cooperation in the Indo-Pacific).
- Perspectives for Haiti
In this geopolitical context marked by transactionalism and the influence war between great powers, particularly for the control of critical resources, Haiti's diplomatic orientations must align with the defense of national interests, with a proactive and pragmatic diplomacy as its programmatic framework.
❖ Strengthen cooperation with the United States in security and technology: This approach will aim to increase the personnel and logistical and tactical capacities of the national security forces (Haitian National Police and Haitian Armed Forces), while seeking new mechanisms to combat illicit arms trafficking from the United States, particularly through the Dominican Republic.
❖ Present Haiti's stabilization as a lever for regional stability: It will also be necessary to present Haiti's stabilization as a lever for regional stability and a drastic reduction in migratory flows from Haiti to countries in the region, particularly the United States, and to seek the assistance of all countries in the region, CARICOM, CELAC, and the OAS to stem the severe socio-political, security, and humanitarian crisis that Haiti is facing.
❖ Diversify Haiti's partners: Opt notably for cooperation with BRICS+ and/or Global South countries, seeking shared experience and their expertise in the fields of security, anti-smuggling, environmental preservation, health, or in promising development sectors such as agriculture, tourism, mining exploration and exploitation, infrastructure, energy autonomy, and new technologies.
❖ Seek aid (development aid/humanitarian aid from other agencies due to the suspension of USAID activities to address the humanitarian crisis: The USAID agency represented one of the main vectors of American soft power and alone provided more than half of the international aid that greatly benefited Haiti, through various programs.
While it is true that the United States remains the only power capable of simultaneously projecting global cultural, technological, and military influence, the persuasive capacity of its diplomacy and the power of attraction that allowed it to convince without coercing are at an all-time low. This trend is confirmed by votes within the United Nations General Assembly, where the alignment rate with American positions is clearly declining. Ultimately, by adopting sharp power and returning to the fundamentals of hard power and realpolitik, the United States has evidently changed its approach without completely abandoning its cultural and technological influence. Similarly, the evasive language favored by officials and diplomats in their public exchanges and interventions gives way to a raw, more stripped-down discourse, far from the diplomatic jargon that prioritizes restraint and the duty of reserve. And American decision-makers do not even hide it. Henceforth, the United States no longer fulfills the role of the « benevolent leader » of the liberal world but can assume the guise of either a predatory power or a protective power, according to its interests.
From this perspective, Haitian diplomacy must assess the national and international stakes involved. One might be led to question the thesis of American decline. Is it credible or should it be relativized? Faced with China's rapid rise, is this an “empire striking back”?
Luis Evens Sergio ALEXIS,
Jurist and Political Scientist
Email: alexissergio450@gmail.com
Bibliographical References
Articles
Chabourine Véronique, « Quels défis pour le soft power américain sous Trump », La Tribune, published November 19, 2024, consulted January 29, 2026, https://www.latribune.fr/opinions/tribunes/quels-defis-pour-le-soft-power-americain-sous-trump-1011712.html?utm_source=copilot.com
David, C.-P. (2021), La politique étrangère américaine est (désormais) la continuation de la politique (intérieure) par d’autres moyens. Études internationales, 52(1-2), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.7202/1086934ar
Gagliano Giuseppe, « Trump Europe : Une réaction contre le soft power », Centro Studi Strategici Carlo De Cristoforis, published February 17, 2025, consulted February 3, 2026 https://lediplomate.media/analyse-la-doctrine-america-first-et-le-defi-du-soft-power-reglementaire-europeen/?utm_source=copilot.com
Koné Raphaël, Les relations internationales et la géopolitique mondiale à l’ère du président Trump, 2025, hal-05205522
Laliberté Luc, « Trump sacrifie la méthode douce : le déclin du soft power », Le Journal de Montréal, published February 10, 2025, consulted January 30, 2026 https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2025/02/10/trump-sacrifie-la-methode-douce-le-declin-du-soft-power?utm_source=copilot.com
Schaffroth Laura, A critique of the concept Soft Power, Goldsmiths University of London, 2019, consulted February 4, 2026, https://www.academia.edu/44547072/A_critique_of_the_concept_Soft_Power?utm_source=copilot.com
https://major-prepa.com/geopolitique/politique-etrangere-etats-unis-theses-classiques-references/
Ouvrages
Euzet Christophe, Relations internationales, Paris, Ellipses, 2007, 180p
Kennedy Paul, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, New York, Random House, 1987
Nye, Joseph S. Jr. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York : Basic Books, 1990.
Nye, Joseph S. Jr. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York : PublicAffairs, 2004, 191 p.
Roche Jean-Jacques, Théorie des relations internationales, 9ᵉ éd., Paris, LGDJ, 2016. 160 p.
Roche Catherine. L’essentiel du Droit International Public et du Droit des Relations Internationales. Paris : Ellipses, 2018, 256 p.
