Photo illustration by John Lyman

Welcome to the Disturbing New Era of Technopower

Joseph Nye, a towering figure in American political science and the originator of the term “soft power,” passed away a few weeks ago. His compassion and intellectual rigor will be sorely missed—not only as a scholar but as a voice of principled engagement in global affairs.

His legacy, however, now stands at a crossroads. The very idea Nye championed—soft power—is rapidly losing ground. Across the globe, hard power and coercive statecraft are staging a comeback, with alarming consequences. In many quarters, strongmen are not only tolerated—they are admired. The allure lies in the fantasy that brute authority can vanquish all ills.

Soft power, the capacity to influence others through attraction rather than coercion, is waning. Often dismissed for its indirect impact and lack of immediacy, it remains undervalued in foreign policy discourse. Yet to neglect it is both a strategic misjudgment and a political failing.

Empires, ancient and modern, have never relied solely on military might. The Roman Empire was built not just by legions but by the appeal of Roman citizenship and culture. The British Empire similarly spread its influence not only through force but through the export of its language, legal systems, and education. The United States, too, won hearts and minds—after World War II, its presence in Europe resembled an “empire by invitation,” leveraging soft power to rebuild allies. At the Cold War’s end, the Berlin Wall crumbled not under artillery fire but beneath the hammers of citizens, many inspired by the values and lifestyles of the West. Today, it is increasingly clear that hard power alone will not resolve entrenched conflicts like those in Gaza and Ukraine.

Astute political leaders have long recognized the strategic utility of ideals. If one can persuade others to desire what one desires, coercion becomes unnecessary. When a nation embodies values admired by others, it can save on both incentives and threats. Attraction enhances influence. President Volodymyr Zelensky, for instance, used his background as a performer to elicit widespread empathy. This soft power—casting Ukraine as a democratic underdog—resulted in a cascade of Western arms and aid, bolstering the country’s hard power in its resistance to Russian aggression.

Joseph Nye
Joseph Nye in 2014. (RÈmy Steinegger/World Economic Forum)

The Demise of Soft Power in Trump’s America

Joseph Nye was deeply critical of Donald Trump’s disregard for American soft power. Under Trump, traditional instruments of influence—such as USAID, the Voice of America, and multilateral diplomacy—have been dismantled or undermined. The Trump administration has alienated allies, mocked global cooperation, and belittled existential issues like climate change and global health. Nye saw clearly that as the United States retreated, China moved decisively to fill the vacuum.

The long-term damage to America’s global reputation is difficult to measure. As Professor Samuel P. Huntington warned decades ago, dressing like Americans or watching American films does not necessarily foster affection for the country. The 9/11 hijackers drank Coke and may have enjoyed Hollywood blockbusters—but they were no less committed to their violent mission.

Trump, paradoxically, has his own version of soft power—rooted in cynicism and transaction. His recent trip to the Persian Gulf showed that some foreign leaders see him as the kind of American with whom deals can be made—free of moral posturing. The sentiment is mutual. But this version of influence is a distortion: it is not the attraction of ideals, but the convenience of amorality.

There is nuance here. Trump’s rhetoric has occasionally cloaked itself in values—criticizing Europe over free speech, or South Africa over land rights. But these gestures often rest more on selective indignation than principled foreign policy.

For Trump and his ideological allies—including Vladimir Putin—soft power seems irrelevant: too nebulous, too unquantifiable. But that does not negate its significance. Nye himself found it telling that nations such as China routinely sought his advice on cultivating their own soft power. Meanwhile, the United States, in a posture of withdrawal, has indicated that it plans to shutter embassies, cut global outreach, and slash emergency aid. China, in contrast, extended loans, built infrastructure, and showed up.

Global citizens may not know where their jeans are made—or care that they’re made in China. But they do remember who offers assistance in a crisis, whether that support is financial, diplomatic, or humanitarian.

A nation’s soft power derives from three principal sources: its culture, when it resonates with others; its political values, when practiced consistently; and its policies, when seen as legitimate. A government’s behavior—whether safeguarding press freedom at home, collaborating within multilateral institutions, or promoting human rights abroad—shapes how it is perceived globally. As the adage goes, charity begins at home, but it certainly doesn’t end there.

The Rise of Technopower and the New Utopians

So what force will define global affairs in the years ahead: soft power or hard power? The answer is likely neither. Instead, a new hybrid has emerged: technopower.

In this rapidly evolving techno-polar world, both state and non-state actors wielding technological capabilities are beginning to assume roles once confined to presidents, defense ministers, and national security councils. The geopolitical influence of cloud infrastructure, cybersecurity platforms, satellite networks, and data centers cannot be overstated. These are not mere tools—they are strategic assets.

We are entering an era in which the United States, increasingly techno-polar, sees a few powerful tech executives commanding outsize influence over national security, digital ecosystems, and critical infrastructure—often with the explicit or implicit support of government. In China, the fusion of state objectives and technological prowess is more overt: corporate leaders are expected to align with national priorities.

The looming question is whether these technologies will extend the values traditionally associated with soft power—or replace them. If they supplant them, what new values will they embody? Many of today’s tech utopians are ideologically suspicious of democracy, arguing that freedom is incompatible with progress. They view artificial general intelligence as a means to unlimited economic growth—and even the defeat of death itself. Their faith in technology is messianic, and their concern for its societal impact is often negligible. For them, the ends justify the means.

Caught in the gravitational pull of this new duopoly are the rest of us. Europe dreams of digital sovereignty but lacks indigenous tech giants. The Global South, meanwhile, is being drawn toward one model or the other, depending on how each is marketed. Institutions once capable of mediating this contest—such as international organizations and multilateral bodies—are increasingly weakened, sidelined, or dismantled.

Despite their ideological differences, both American and Chinese models appear to converge around shared priorities: power, efficiency, and control. Consent, transparency, and civil liberties are no longer baseline assumptions. Whether power is exercised by government or private enterprise, democratic accountability is often absent.

This is the paradox of the techno-polar age. The digital revolution, once hailed for democratizing knowledge and opportunity, is now enabling new forms of centralized, unaccountable dominance. Governance becomes more difficult; manipulation, far easier. And as power concentrates, the gap between citizens and decision-makers widens.

In this world, those who control platforms control perception. Narratives—however dubious—are engineered, disseminated, and accepted as truth. The distinction between genuine values and manufactured myths collapses. The future belongs not to those who live by principles, but to those who can best simulate them.

Soft power is not obsolete—but in the age of technopower, it is embattled, contested, and increasingly outpaced.