Reflecting on the recent passing of political scientist Joseph Nye—the scholar who coined the term “soft power”—and the priest and ethicist Fr. Bryan Hehir, who helped shape U.S. moral diplomacy, we are reminded that American influence has never been rooted solely in military might. It has rested, too, on the power to inspire, persuade, and lead by example.

Yet in recent months, the United States has begun quietly retreating from this foundational strength. Programs and institutions long vital to U.S. diplomacy and development—USAID, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation, the U.S. African Development Foundation, and even the Wilson Center—have been defunded, suspended, or placed under threat. The bipartisan Millennium Challenge Corporation has also seen its model of transparent, results-based development come under pressure.

While this rollback hasn’t made headlines, its implications are enormous. The United States is undermining its own capacity to lead through influence, values, and partnership—precisely the attributes that once defined its global role.

For decades, U.S. foreign policy rested on the synergy of “the three Ds”: defense, diplomacy, and development. Defense usually grabs the spotlight and funding, but diplomacy and development have done the hard work of relationship-building, stabilizing fragile regions, and promoting democratic values. Nye’s concept of “soft power” is rooted in this ability to persuade and inspire—not coerce.

This isn’t theoretical. From the Marshall Plan to Kennedy’s Peace Corps and USAID initiatives, soft power has delivered measurable results. President Kennedy once told Congress, “There is no escaping our obligations…our moral obligations as a wise and good nation, and our economic obligations as the wealthiest nation in the world.” He understood that national security and prosperity were tied to global stability. Investments in global health, education, and governance paid dividends in goodwill, peace, and long-term alliances.

That legacy is at risk.

In today’s complex world, diplomacy and development are not luxuries—they’re necessities. Threats like pandemics, climate change, and forced migration cannot be solved with military might alone. They demand long-term engagement and trust-building. Strategic development assistance—such as USAID’s Northern Triangle Task Force, which worked to address the root causes of migration from Central America—isn’t charity. It’s smart, interest-based policy.

I saw the power of this firsthand while working with USAID in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In July 2021, amid political backlash over a law criminalizing Srebrenica Genocide denial, I traveled with colleagues to municipalities in Republika Srpska to gain feedback on the development of a local governance project. This was a region where U.S. policy was often met with skepticism, and given the timing, I expected doors to close. Instead, local leaders welcomed us, praised recent USAID initiatives, and referenced the agency’s support during the 2014 floods.

That reception wasn’t about politics. It was about presence. USAID’s long-standing work—quiet, consistent, and impactful—built real relationships. That’s what soft power looks like.

We reinforced that approach through a conference we co-hosted called “BiH Ide Naprijed” (BiH Forward), which focused on locally led development. It brought together civil society, municipal leaders, and private sector actors to discuss how Bosnians could lead their own development, reducing donor dependency. It wasn’t just another event—it was a challenge to the very authoritarian narratives pushed by Russia in the Balkans, where the Kremlin fuels disinformation and backs nationalist figures like Bosnian Serb separatist Milorad Dodik.

Those malign actors aren’t building local coalitions or supporting grassroots progress—they’re exploiting fragility. The U.S. must be the counterweight. When we withdraw, others step in. And their values are not ours.

Unfortunately, too many Americans don’t see the value in this work. Polls show that the public vastly overestimates what we spend on foreign aid—believing it’s 26% of the federal budget when it’s less than 1%. But when given the actual numbers, support for foreign assistance rises. Perception can change—if leaders make the case.

The returns on soft power are real: USAID helps contain pandemics before they reach our borders. The U.S. Institute of Peace trains conflict mediators. The MCC strengthens infrastructure and governance in countries where American businesses seek to invest. These are not feel-good stories. They are cost-effective ways to prevent crises, foster allies, and reduce the need for military intervention.

In 2023, I supported USAID’s role in the World Bank Spring Meetings. Senior officials met with Ukrainian President Zelensky, discussed global water access, and helped steer conversations on climate finance and gender equity. That wasn’t just soft diplomacy—it was strategic positioning. Pulling back from these global forums doesn’t insulate America. It isolates us.

We must ask ourselves: if America leaves the table, who sits in our place? And are we ready for the consequences?

Once credibility and partnerships are lost, rebuilding them will be far harder—and far costlier. Abandoning soft power doesn’t just diminish our influence abroad; it erodes the very foundation of global leadership that generations of Americans helped build.

The question isn’t whether we can afford to invest in diplomacy and development. It’s whether we can afford not to.