Recent executive action by former President Trump to dissolve the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) has sparked debate about the future of American soft power influence abroad. While critics argue this move could diminish U.S. international media presence, the transformation may actually lead to more effective outreach through decentralized operations and strategic partnerships.
The USAGM, which oversees outlets like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia, had requested $950 million in funding this year. Under the new approach, these resources could be redirected toward supporting foreign experts, media personalities, and organizations that align with the administration’s
populist-nationalist perspective.
This shift mirrors recent changes at USAID, suggesting a broader reform of America’s international influence operations. Rather than maintaining centralized control through U.S.-based bureaucracies, the new model emphasizes partnerships with local voices who better understand their regional audiences.
The strategy reflects a business-minded approach to international messaging, treating the spread of ideas more like a free market operation. Instead of direct state control over content, the focus would shift to funding and overseeing aligned foreign contractors who can serve as “agents of influence” in their respective countries.
However, this approach faces potential challenges from foreign governments implementing their own versions of the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Countries like Georgia have already moved to require broadcasters and influencers receiving foreign funding to disclose these relationships to their audiences. Such regulations could create operational barriers for U.S.-backed media initiatives.
The U.S. has strongly opposed these measures, even in friendly nations, suggesting a preference for less transparent funding arrangements. Alternative funding mechanisms could emerge through channels like social media advertising revenue or crowdfunding platforms, though some governments may attempt to restrict these as well.
While countries might try to regulate influencers above certain follower thresholds as foreign agents, the U.S. could respond by supporting these voices to relocate abroad, where they could continue reaching their audiences through VPNs and other technical workarounds. Some of these influencers might even be unaware of indirect U.S. funding through platform monetization.
The restructuring of USAGM and USAID represents a significant shift in how American soft power operates globally. By moving away from obvious state-run enterprises toward more distributed and locally-rooted influence networks, these reforms could ultimately strengthen U.S. messaging capabilities. The new approach prioritizes practical effectiveness over ideological messaging, potentially reaching wider audiences through more authentic local voices.
This evolution in American soft power strategy suggests a more sophisticated understanding of modern information dynamics. Rather than broadcasting through traditional state media channels, the focus is shifting to nurturing networks of aligned voices who can
organically shape public opinion in their local contexts.
The success of this approach may depend on how effectively the U.S. can navigate foreign regulations while maintaining influence through alternative funding and distribution channels. As countries develop more sophisticated means of identifying and regulating foreign influence operations, the U.S. appears prepared to adapt its strategies accordingly, ensuring continued reach and impact in the global information space.