The United States continues to possess enormous economic, military and technological influence, but its ability to persuade other countries is facing a different kind of challenge: credibility.

For decades, Washington’s global influence was built not only on military strength and economic power but also on alliances, international institutions, diplomatic partnerships and the perception that the United States could help shape a predictable international order.

A recent analysis published by EU Reporter argues that this accumulated political capital has been weakened by successive US administrations and by a series of foreign-policy decisions that critics view as inconsistent with the principles Washington has promoted internationally. The article, published on July 23, examines military interventions, international institutions, sanctions, human rights controversies and the changing role of US soft power.

The central question is therefore no longer simply whether America is becoming weaker. It is whether the country can retain its extraordinary hard power while rebuilding confidence among allies, partners and countries outside the Western alliance system.

From Post-War Leadership to a More Complicated World

After the Second World War, the United States played a central role in constructing the institutions that shaped the modern international system.

The Marshall Plan helped rebuild Western Europe, while Washington supported institutions such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank and later a broad network of security and economic partnerships.

That model gave American power an important additional dimension.

Countries did not simply respond to US military capabilities. Many also wanted access to American markets, technology, universities, investment and diplomatic networks.

This combination of hard and soft power became one of Washington’s greatest strategic advantages.

However, the international environment has changed dramatically. China has become a major economic and technological competitor. Russia continues to challenge the Western security architecture. Emerging economies are demanding greater influence in global institutions, while countries across Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East increasingly seek more flexibility instead of aligning permanently with one major power.

That environment makes international confidence particularly valuable.

Military Interventions and the Credibility Question

The EU Reporter analysis points to several US military interventions as an important source of criticism.

The 1999 NATO bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, military operations in Afghanistan and interventions in Libya and Syria have all generated debates about international law, humanitarian intervention and the limits of executive power.

The Iraq War remains especially significant because the invasion was justified in large part by concerns about weapons of mass destruction, which were not subsequently found.

For critics of American foreign policy, Iraq became a symbol of the risks involved when a major power takes military action before achieving broad international agreement.

The Afghanistan withdrawal in 2021 produced another reputational challenge. After two decades of US and allied military involvement, the Taliban rapidly returned to power. The chaotic withdrawal raised questions about long-term strategy and the sustainability of American nation-building efforts.

These episodes do not mean that US influence disappeared. Rather, they demonstrate how military strength can produce different political consequences from those intended.

The Soft-Power Problem

Military power can deter an adversary, but it cannot by itself persuade another country to voluntarily support a diplomatic position.

That is where soft power becomes important.

American universities, technology companies, entertainment industry, financial institutions, development programmes and diplomatic networks have historically contributed to the country's global appeal.

The EU Reporter article places particular emphasis on USAID, describing international development assistance as an important component of American soft power. It argues that reducing such programmes could create space for China and Russia to expand their influence in developing countries.

The debate over foreign aid is therefore bigger than the size of the aid budget.

For Washington, the strategic question is whether development assistance, humanitarian programmes and international cooperation should be viewed merely as expenditure or as long-term investments in diplomatic influence.

Sanctions and the Rise of Financial Alternatives

Another major issue is the expanding use of economic sanctions.

The United States possesses extraordinary financial leverage because of the dollar's central role in international commerce and the importance of Western financial infrastructure.

Sanctions can impose significant costs without requiring conventional military intervention.

However, repeated use of financial restrictions has also encouraged some countries to search for alternatives.

The EU Reporter analysis points to the development of China's Cross-Border Interbank Payment System and Russia's alternative financial messaging network as examples of efforts to reduce dependence on Western financial infrastructure. It also links sanctions and the freezing of Russian central-bank assets to wider debates over financial sovereignty and de-dollarisation.

This does not mean the dollar is about to lose its dominant international position.

The dollar remains deeply embedded in global trade and finance.

But the strategic concern is different: if more countries develop alternative payment channels, reserve strategies and bilateral trade mechanisms, American financial leverage could gradually become less decisive.

International Institutions Under Pressure

Washington's relationship with international institutions has also evolved over several administrations.

The United States has at different times withdrawn from or challenged international agreements and organisations, while other administrations have returned to multilateral diplomacy.

For allies and partners, policy reversals can create uncertainty.

A government may negotiate an international agreement only for a future administration to abandon it. That possibility can make other governments more cautious about relying on American commitments.

The result is not necessarily an immediate loss of alliances.

Instead, countries may begin developing backup strategies.

They may deepen relationships with China, India, Europe, Russia or regional powers while continuing to cooperate with Washington.

That is an important distinction. A country does not have to become anti-American to become less dependent on America.

The ICC and Questions of Double Standards

The debate over the International Criminal Court has further complicated perceptions of American consistency.

The EU Reporter article highlights criticism surrounding Washington's differing reactions to ICC actions involving Russian and Israeli leaders. It argues that such differences can reinforce perceptions of geopolitical double standards.

Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, the broader diplomatic problem is significant.

International rules gain credibility when powerful states appear willing to apply them consistently, including when doing so creates political discomfort for their own allies.

When governments are perceived as applying one standard to friends and another to rivals, international confidence can decline.

China and the Opportunity Created by Strategic Gaps

China is one of the clearest beneficiaries of any reduction in American influence.

Beijing has expanded its economic relationships across Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East through trade, infrastructure investment, technology and development partnerships.

China does not necessarily need to replace the United States completely.

It only needs to provide countries with additional options.

That is already changing the strategic landscape.

A country that previously depended heavily on American financial institutions, Western development programmes or US-led diplomatic structures can increasingly diversify its relationships.

For Washington, the challenge is therefore not simply competition with China.

It is competition for trust, partnerships and long-term strategic relevance.

America Still Has Enormous Advantages

Despite these challenges, predictions of an imminent American collapse would be premature.

The United States remains a global leader in advanced technology, finance, higher education, defence capabilities, innovation and entrepreneurship.

The country's network of formal alliances is also a major strategic advantage.

Its relationships with Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia and many other partners provide a level of global reach that few other countries can currently match.

The issue is therefore less about whether America remains powerful and more about how it uses that power.

Coercion can produce short-term results, but durable leadership generally requires a combination of strength, credibility and persuasion.

The Road Ahead

The debate over American legitimacy is ultimately a debate about the meaning of leadership in a multipolar world.

The United States may remain the strongest individual power for years to come. But the world around it is becoming more competitive, fragmented and less willing to accept any single country's leadership automatically.

Rebuilding trust will require predictable alliances, credible diplomacy, consistent application of international principles and a reassessment of how economic and military tools are used.

The central challenge for Washington is not simply to remain powerful.

It is to remain influential by choice rather than by necessity.

If the United States can combine its economic, military and technological advantages with renewed diplomatic engagement, it can continue playing a central role in the international system.

If it relies increasingly on sanctions, military pressure and unilateral decisions, competitors may find more opportunities to build alternative institutions and partnerships.

America's hard power remains formidable. The bigger strategic question for the coming decade may be whether its soft power and international credibility can keep pace.