Trump is taking a hammer to traditional pillars of soft power

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Trump is Taking a Hammer to Traditional Pillars of Soft Power"

Podcast Information:

• Title: Consider This from NPR
• Host: Mary Louise Kelly
• Episode Title: Trump is Taking a Hammer to Traditional Pillars of Soft Power
• Release Date: March 19, 2025
• Description: In this episode, NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly delves into the Trump administration’s actions that undermine traditional U.S. soft power institutions. Through insightful discussions and expert interviews, the episode explores the implications of these changes on America's global influence.

---

1. Introduction to U.S. Soft Power and Its Dismantling

Mary Louise Kelly opens the episode by highlighting the intertwining of moral and strategic interests in U.S. international aid. She references a 2017 argument by Senator Marco Rubio, voiced by Dan Glickman, emphasizing that U.S. aid initiatives have historically aligned with national interests.

Dan Glickman [00:14]: “I promise you it's going to be a lot harder to recruit someone to anti Americanism, anti American terrorism if the United States of America was the reason why they're even alive today.”

However, the current administration under President Trump has taken a starkly different stance. Kelly points out that Trump has labeled the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) a “left-wing scam.”

Dan Glickman [00:39]: “We're giving billions and billions of dollars to countries that hate us.”

The administration has significantly reduced USAID’s operations, with Secretary Rubio announcing that 83% of its contracts have been cut due to their perceived lack of alignment with U.S. national interests.

Dan Glickman [01:17]: “Tariffs are also a powerful tool of diplomacy and all around the world are moving quickly to bring back peace through strength.”

2. The Shift from Traditional Soft Power to New Measures

The episode elaborates on the broader strategy of moving away from established soft power tools towards more assertive measures like tariffs, which Rubio defends as tools of diplomacy.

Additionally, President Trump has effectively shut down other key soft power instruments, such as Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). These broadcasters have historically provided independent news to millions in authoritarian regimes.

Dan Glickman [01:24]: “Taxpayer funded radical propaganda, says the White House.”

VOA, which broadcasted in nearly 50 languages to 360 million people, has been criticized by the White House for spreading propaganda. Similarly, funding cuts to RFE/RL, initiated by Trump, have sparked concerns about leaving authoritarian governments without access to free press.

Dan Glickman [02:05]: “We're a lifeline to the people who live in those countries and they have no access to information outside of largely government propaganda.”

3. The U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) Under Siege

The focus shifts to the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), a congressionally funded think tank dedicated to conflict resolution and peacebuilding. Trump’s administration has made attempts to dismantle USIP by firing its board and acting president, George Moose.

A dramatic incident involved members of Elon Musk's Doge team breaking into the USIP building, leading to George Moose being escorted out by D.C. police. This event underscores the contentious environment surrounding soft power institutions.

Mary Louise Kelly [04:24]: “Standing outside on the steps of the institute, he had run until just a few days before George Moose told Michelle it was a sad day for the US Institute of Peace.”

4. In-Depth Discussion with Dan Glickman

Mary Louise Kelly interviews former Democratic Congressman and former Agriculture Secretary, Dan Glickman, who was instrumental in founding USIP in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Key Points from Glickman’s Interview:

• Creation and Mission of USIP:

  Dan Glickman [05:12]: “...it was decided that instead of an academy, an institute that would try to promote conflict resolution techniques, try to deal with extremism in the world, and try to do our best to assert American power responsibly along with other soft power aspects...”

• Impact of USIP: Glickman cites USIP’s role in improving governance in South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, collaborating with organizations including the U.S. Military to prevent conflicts.

  Dan Glickman [06:07]: “We work with other governments in this regard... We're spending a tiny percentage of military funding to deal in advance with the causes of conflict.”

• Necessity of Taxpayer Funding: He argues that unlike privately funded think tanks, USIP directly serves U.S. interests by fostering peace and stability, thereby enhancing America’s global influence.

  Dan Glickman [07:40]: “It establishes our influence as engaged in the world... We desperately need our government to have an adequate military, but we also need soft power.”

• Bipartisan Origins and Current Challenges: Glickman laments the loss of bipartisan support in today’s hyper-partisan environment, questioning the feasibility of maintaining nonpartisan institutions like USIP.

  Dan Glickman [09:28]: “I wish that we had a lot of that same environment that we did back then... It can do some good.”

• Consequences of USIP’s Dismantling: He warns that without USIP, the U.S. would lose a critical tool in preventing conflicts, leaving a vacuum that adversaries like China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia could exploit.

  Dan Glickman [08:23]: “...we lose the opportunity to make the case for conflict resolution and peaceful ways to resolve these conflicts before war occurs.”

5. The Legacy of Voice of America

Emily Fang provides a historical perspective on VOA, illustrating its significance through personal anecdotes and its impact during pivotal moments like the Tiananmen Square protests.

• VOA’s Influence in China: Anna Wong reminisces about the illegal yet widespread listening to VOA broadcasts in China during the 1970s and 1980s, highlighting its role in disseminating unvarnished news and fostering dissent.

  Emily Fang [11:08]: “Listening to VOA was illegal Punishable in some cases by the death penalty...”

• VOA During Tiananmen Square: Zhou Feng SUO recalls how VOA’s broadcasts countered state media silence during the 1989 crackdown, providing a crucial information lifeline to protesters and the global audience.

  Emily Fang [12:29]: “It was source of truth when things are changing rapidly.”

• Cultural and Educational Impact: The program not only informed but also educated listeners, with many tuning in to improve their English and gain a broader understanding of global events.

  Dan Glickman [14:22]: “They had a generally positive impression, not because they were getting all good news...”

Despite VOA’s positive influence, Trump's allies criticize it for high costs and alleged biases, threatening its future and the free flow of information in authoritarian states.

Emily Fang [14:08]: “With the potential closure after Trump ordered the agency that funds it to be dismantled.”

6. Conclusion: The Future of U.S. Soft Power

Mary Louise Kelly wraps up the episode by emphasizing the critical role that institutions like USAID, USIP, and VOA play in maintaining America’s soft power. The dismantling of these pillars under the Trump administration poses significant risks to U.S. global influence and its ability to foster peace and stability worldwide.

Dan Glickman [08:15]: “We need soft power. And by the way, this was created in a very bipartisan atmosphere...”

The episode underscores the necessity of preserving and supporting these soft power tools to ensure that the United States remains a proactive and positive force on the global stage.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Dan Glickman [00:14]: “I promise you it's going to be a lot harder to recruit someone to anti Americanism, anti American terrorism if the United States of America was the reason why they're even alive today.”

• Dan Glickman [05:12]: “...it was decided that instead of an academy, an institute that would try to promote conflict resolution techniques..."

• Emily Fang [11:08]: “Listening to VOA was illegal Punishable in some cases by the death penalty."

---

This episode of "Consider This" offers a comprehensive examination of how the Trump administration's policies are reshaping the foundations of U.S. soft power. Through expert insights and historical context, listeners gain a nuanced understanding of the potential long-term impacts on America's role in fostering global peace and stability.

Transcript

[Mary Louise Kelly]

The argument for international aid is in part a moral one, but it has also always been about US Interests. Here's then Senator Marco Rubio making that argument back in 2017.

[Dan Glickman]

I promise you it's going to be a lot harder to recruit someone to anti Americanism, anti American terrorism if the United States of America was the reason why they're even alive today.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

Today, as Secretary of State Rubio sounds more like his boss. President Trump calls the United States Agency for International Development a left wing scam. Here's how he described it in his speech to CPAC last month.

[Dan Glickman]

We're giving billions and billions of dollars to countries that hate us.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

The administration shuttered usaid, which a federal judge said this week may have violated the Constitution. What's left of USAID has been folded into the State Department, and Rubio announced last week that 83% of its contracts had been cut. He said they did not serve and in some even harmed the core national interests of the United States. It's part of a broader turn away from Traditional sources of U.S. soft power and toward new ones like tariffs on allies.

[Dan Glickman]

Tariffs are also a powerful tool of diplomacy and all around the world are moving quickly to bring back peace through strength.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

Trump has also effectively shut down the Voice of America, the editorially independent, government funded broadcaster that brought the news to 360 million people around the world in nearly 50 languages. Taxpayer funded radical propaganda, says the White House. Trump also terminated government funding for Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty. It was launched in the Cold War to bring news to people living behind the Iron Curtain. Without access to a free press, it still serves listeners living under authoritarian governments. President and CEO Steve Kappas said the spending cut is a massive gift to America's enemies.

[Dan Glickman]

We're a lifeline to the people who live in those countries and they have no access to information outside of largely government propaganda and other types of information like that. So we're leaving the information battlefield, if.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

You will, to these countries like Iran, like China. He is suing to get the funding restored. Consider this soft power has been a pillar of American foreign policy. Is the Trump administration giving up on it? From npr, I'm Mary Louise Kelly.

[Dan Glickman]

This message comes from Saatva, the first company to sell luxury mattresses online without the hassle or expense of traditional mattress stores. So Saatva customers have always paid about 50% less than retail. Visit saatva.com NPR today, where NPR listeners save an additional doll. This message comes from Carvana. Discover your car's worth with Carvana Value Tracker. Stay up to date when Your car's value changes. Always know your car's worth with Carvana Value Tracker.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

It's Consider this from npr. The United States Institute of Peace is very explicitly about US Soft power. Its website proclaims it is dedicated to protecting US Interests by helping to prevent violent conflicts and broker peace deals abroad. It's a congressionally funded think tank here in Washington, and Trump is trying to shut it down. He fired most of its board and its acting president and CEO, George Moose, for failing to comply with an executive order that effectively eliminates the institute. That led to a dramatic scene this week. Moose says he was holed up in his office after members of Elon Musk's Doge team broke into the building. D.C. police eventually helped escort Moose out, which where our colleague Michelle Kellerman caught up with them. Standing outside on the steps of the institute, he had run until just a few days before George Moose told Michelle it was a sad day for the US Institute of Peace.

[Dan Glickman]

This building really was built not just as a platform for the work that we do. It was built as a symbol of the aspiration of the American people to be peacebuilders in the world. That's why it is as beautiful as it is. And I have to believe that in the long term, that purpose, that mission will be reaffirmed and that we will in one way or another be allowed to continue it.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

I wanted to talk through that mission with someone who sponsored the legislation that created the usip. So I spoke with former Democratic congressman from Kansas, also former Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman. Secretary Glickman, welcome.

[Dan Glickman]

Thank you, Mary Louise, a pleasure to be with you.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

What went through your mind this week as you watched a hostile takeover of the usip?

[Dan Glickman]

Well, I think the actions of the DOGE Group of the administration were unconscionable in my view. I was very involved in the creation of this organization, not the only sponsor, but the lead House sponsor back in the late 1970s, early 1980s. And in my case, I came from central Kansas, where there were a large number of Mennonites who wanted to see the United States establish a peace academy, kind of like a military academy. So we worked on that for years and years. And ultimately it was decided that instead of an academy, an institute that would try to promote conflict resolution techniques, try to deal with extremism in the world, and try to do our best to assert American power responsibly along with other soft power aspects of the American government, including USAID and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, you know, and other things. And so it worked. I Thought it worked very well.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

I mean, at the risk of oversimplifying, because obviously a lot of things go into what prevents or enables a conflict. But is there a specific example you would point us to where the USIP played a role in helping to avert a conflict?

[Dan Glickman]

I think in South Asia and the Middle east, certainly in the entire continent of Africa, there have been all sorts of ways where we have tried to improve the governance systems of the countries to make it so that there's systems that are much more stable. USIP will contract with various organizations, including the US Military, to try to deal with these problems as they occur.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

So, to the Trump administration's stated concern, take that head on. Why should Congress fund a think tank? I mean, what's the need in a town where there is no shortage of think tanks, plenty of which get by on private funding?

[Dan Glickman]

Well, and those think tanks do a very good job. But this is kind of unique. Imagine, you know, we have this big building in downtown Washington near the State department. It says U.S. institute of Peace, and its goal is to promote peace and conflict resolution around the world. It works with the State Department. But it's a wonderful thing that the United States not only has this great military establishment, the Defense Department does it spectacular job, but also has an entity that deals with the causes of conflict, not just the results of conflict.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

If I'm hearing you wait, your argument boils down to the US should fund this using taxpayer money because it directly benefits the United States.

[Dan Glickman]

It directly benefits the United States. It establishes our influence as engaged in the world. We work with other governments in this regard. It doesn't have the restrictions that a lot of bureaucracies have, and State Department and the Defense Department, but it does work with them as well. And in the big scheme of things, when we're talking about spending close to a trillion dollars a year on our military, that we're spending, you know, a tiny, tiny percentage of that funding to try to deal in advance with the causes of conflict, the causes of extremism, and trying to prevent those bad things from happening which ultimately may lead us into war.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

So, Secretary Glickman, if the USIP is scaled back, if it outright disappears, what might be the impact?

[Dan Glickman]

Well, first of all, I hope it's not disappearing. There is no entity of government that should escape scrutiny. So I want to make that clear. And I think the USIP probably shouldn't escape scrutiny either. But if it's gone, then we lose the opportunity to make the case for conflict resolution and peaceful ways to resolve these conflicts before war occurs before death occurs. And, you know, you're not always successful, but in many cases, you move the ball forward, and it's the United States of America that's moving the ball forward. So you take this usip, you add all the stuff that the Agency for International Development does, you add all the stuff that the Voice of America does to try to project America's influence around the world. This is part of our soft power. We need hard power, too. We desperately need our government to have an adequate military, but we also need soft power. And by the way, this was created in a very bipartisan atmosphere. Remember how it was created? It was added to the Defense Authorization bill. And so it's one of the few things that we've had bipartisanship on in this area.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

It is indeed true that both Republican and Democratic lawmakers pushed to create this institute. It prompts a bigger question, though, which is can the US Institute of Peace, can any institution truly be nonpartisan in such a hyper partisan moment?

[Dan Glickman]

Well, that's a problem we all have right now. I mean, how does the Congress work in this moment that we're dealing with? And, you know, back in the historic period when I was in the Congress, it was more bipartisan and than it is now. And I wish that we had a lot of that same environment that we did back then. But yes, it can do some good. I don't think it does any harm at all. It can do some good. We have potential conflicts around the world. And, you know, this is an area where we have a lot of competitors. So if we're not involved in this, it either doesn't happen or countries like China and North Korea and Iran and Russia are involved. China's influence around the world in the soft power area has grown rather significantly in the last several years. And so in my judgment, it deserves scrutiny like every other agency. But let's do it the right way.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

That's former Democratic Congressman Dan Glickman. He was the principal House sponsor of legislation which led to the creation of the US Institute of Peace back in 1984. Dan Glickman, thank you.

[Dan Glickman]

Thank you for having me.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

As we mentioned, the Trump administration is also gutting the Voice of America. This U.S. funded broadcaster reached audiences in countries the U.S. government deemed autocratic without free media. That includes China. NPR's Emily Fang has this story about Voice of America's legacy there.

[Emily Fang]

Growing up in China in the 1970s, listener Anna Wong remembers how fellow students would secretly tune into Voice of America's shortwave broadcasts. She says listening to VOA was illegal Punishable in some cases by the death penalty. So Wang says later on, even as China relaxed politically, fellow university students surreptitiously listened to VOA under thick blankets in their dorms at midnight.

[Dan Glickman]

The news may be good or bad, we shall tell you the truth.

[Emily Fang]

VOA was seen as so subversive it was nicknamed the Ditai, or enemy channel. In China, it served as a kind of underground transmission for both news and for sharing sounds of resistance, including this song, a song about homesickness and hometowns beloved by students who were forcibly exiled to the Chinese countryside. Starting in the 1950s, VOA broadcast the song, boosting its popularity even when the song was officially banned. And as China entered the political foment of the 1980s, VOA's unvarnished reports in English and Mandarin became even more influential.

[Dan Glickman]

It was source of truth when things are changing rapidly.

[Emily Fang]

This is Zhou Feng SUO who became a student leader in mass democracy protests in Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989. His student union at Beijing's Tsinghua University started broadcasting VOA from its speakers.

[Dan Glickman]

That's the way the news of the.

[Emily Fang]

Protests were shared, because state media refused to cover the protests when Beijing sent in tanks to quell the student demonstrators. These VOA reports on the fatal crackdown in Tiananmen Square were broadcast globally. VOA's focus on highlighting dissent meant it was popular among Republican politicians in the US but but invariably despised by authoritarian governments abroad. And with its potential closure after Trump ordered the agency that funds it to be dismantled. China's ruling Communist Party must be the happiest people in the world right now, says Wu Xiaoping, a Chinese human rights lawyer. By the 1990s, listening to VOA had become less sensitive in China and more and more Chinese people tuned in to learn English. Lucy Horner be a longtime China focused journalist, was teaching in China at the time and one student of hers in particular loved voa.

[Dan Glickman]

His English name was Sydney and he would come to my door and he would say, this is Voice of America.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

And that's how I knew he was there.

[Emily Fang]

Now VOA has come under criticism by Trump allies for being too expensive and, they say, sympathetic to American adversaries. Hornby says the broadcaster positively shaped perceptions of the US abroad.

[Dan Glickman]

They had a generally positive impression, not because they were getting all good news, actually, I think they respected that they were getting what felt like real news.

[Emily Fang]

The impact went both ways. VOA trained generations of Chinese speaking journalists. They covered on the ground news in China to a degree of detail, unmatched by other Western outlets. Many who listened saw VOA as a window for people in China to understand the world and for the world to know what was going on in China.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

That was NPR's Emily Feng. This episode was produced by Erica Ryan, Gurjeet Kaur and Connor Donovan. It was edited by Christopher Inteleotta. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigun. It's Consider this from npr. I'm Mary Louise Kelly.

[Dan Glickman]

On Throughline from npr. The consequences for the country would have been enormous. It would have been a crisis. The man who saw a dangerous omission in the US Constitution and took it.

[Emily Fang]

Upon himself to fix it.

[Dan Glickman]

Find NPR's Throughline wherever you get your podcasts. Oh, man. I mean, that might have been the only time I've really faced myself. I'm Jesse Thorne on Bullseye. George Lopez on the time that he swung a bat at a pinata of George Lopez. You know, like, I wasn't supposed to hit it that many times that hard. Getting very real with George Lopez on bullseye from maximumfun.org and NPR want to.

[Emily Fang]

Hear this podcast without sponsor breaks. Amazon prime members can listen to Consider this sponsor free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get consider this [e-mail] that's plus.NPR.org.