For decades, the U.S. has balanced military strength with soft power—influence through culture, diplomacy, and foreign assistance—especially in the Middle East. Agencies like USAID and media outlets such as Alhurra and Radio Sawa have aimed to promote democratic values, counter extremist narratives, and shape America’s presence in a troubled region. With recent decisions by the Trump administration to defund these agencies and move toward a foreign policy centered on economic leverage, military partnerships, and strategic disengagement, is this a necessary realignment—or a costly retreat from global influence? Those who think Trump should be softer argue this retreat cedes influence to Iran and China, damaging America’s image in the region and allowing authoritarianism and extremism to rise unchecked. Those welcoming the administration’s changes say that soft power has failed to produce measurable gains in the region and billions of dollars in aid have not led to lasting stability. It’s better to avoid entangling, open-ended commitments and focus on clear, transactional outcomes to achieve geopolitical goals. 

With this context, we debate the question: Was Trump Right to Be Hard on Soft Power in the Middle East?