Civics Unplugged (CU) is a 501(c)(3) social enterprise and digitally-powered community that provides leaders of Generation Z training, funds, and support to build the future of American communities and democracy.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
A person holding a stack of dollar bills that are flying away.
Getty Images, PM Images
Trump’s Erosion of America’s “Soft Power” Will Have Economic Impacts
Jun 19, 2025
President Donald Trump has championed a strong, often confrontational posture toward many nations, defining his foreign policy as “America First.” This is a new U.S. that the world is dealing with, no longer the chief architect of the multilateral world of markets, democracy, and human rights that the U.S. has been, albeit imperfectly, since World War II.
But since Trump has been in office for only five months, it’s too early to tell the ultimate impacts. However, one thing is becoming increasingly clear. The Trump administration’s posturing is causing an erosion of what is known as “soft power.” And that is starting to result in some negative economic impacts.
Soft power, compared to hard power, is the ability to influence other countries through attraction and persuasion, rather than coercion or force, based on your own country's culture, values, and policies that foster admiration and cooperation. As we learned during the Cold War, it’s a heck of a lot easier to exercise world leadership with willing participant countries. As Joseph Nye, the Harvard professor who coined the term “soft power,” put it: “Seduction is always more effective than coercion.”
The Marshall Plan: A historic example of soft power
One of America’s greatest demonstrations of soft power was the Marshall Plan. As the victor of World War II, instead of enacting vengeance and harsh punishment, the U.S. gave Europe nearly $14 billion in foreign aid (roughly $195 billion today) that would, within a decade, launch that ruined continent on a path toward unprecedented prosperity. That act was good for the U.S. too because it gave American businesses large markets for their exports on favorable terms. It was one of the keys to the unprecedented prosperity of the postwar period.
If the U.S. continues to lose soft power, it could well result in economic and geopolitical consequences that will have long-term impacts. Various studies have found that the loss of soft power can lead to negative consequences such as decreased exports, reduced foreign investment, and diminished tourism. A country's ability to attract investment and trade partners can be severely tarnished when its reputation and reliability are diminished.
Uncertain business environment
So, it’s hardly surprising that, amidst the uncertainty of Trump’s see-saw tariffs, U.S. businesses are starting to struggle. Both imports and exports were down in April but then recovered slightly in May as businesses tried to predict Trump’s meandering policy. This instability creates a challenging environment for the business climate and economic planning.
The same picture is emerging around foreign investment in the United States. One recent study shows foreign investors’ confidence in the U.S. still holding steady, but for how long? Other emerging indicators show that foreign investors may be starting to adopt a "wait and see" approach to investing in the U.S. Even as Donald Trump recently announced a trade deal with China—with vague details being worked out—others are sounding an alarm over a potential slowdown in the U.S. because the damage has already been done.
"I think there's a chance real numbers will deteriorate soon," says Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, the nation's largest bank. Alan Baer, CEO of logistics firm OL USA, says the new tariff on Chinese goods of 55% will put hundreds, if not thousands, of companies and, ultimately, jobs at risk. "Very few firms have the pricing power to absorb the tariffs or raise prices to offset the impact," Baer said. "Ultimately, the consumer pays." And that means prices will soon start going up, even as America’s soft power goes down.
Europe and Canada say no to their (suddenly) unreliable U.S. ally
Other economic impacts from the loss of soft power abound. With Donald Trump proving to be a less reliable NATO and European ally, it looks like that is going to ricochet. Almost two thirds—64%—of the military and arms imports by NATO in Europe over the last five years came from the U.S. That’s far more than even France (6.5%) or Germany (4.7%) supplied. With the dictator Vladimir Putin assaulting Europe’s borders, European leaders have gotten the message from Trump—“don’t rely on the U.S., rely on yourself.”
Lesson learned. Recently, the European Union (EU) announced its ReArm Europe plan. The plan is driven by a goal of greater strategic autonomy from the U.S. The EU intends to make available nearly $1 trillion for military investment and defense, and, unsurprisingly, the plan will prioritize European defense manufacturing and reduced reliance on the Americans. Is the Trump administration concerned? Newsweek’s headline blared that Europe's plan has “spooked the Trump administration.” Not only will this impact America’s defense industry but it will also hurt the many local economies in the U.S. where defense companies build European weapons.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney also has announced, "Given the geopolitical environment ...it’s prudent and in the interest of Canada to review those options" of whether to buy U.S. military hardware.
Decline of international tourists
With international tourists being increasingly harassed and even detained by U.S. immigration, it's unsurprising that tourists are starting to stay away. That will result in another economic hit. The World Travel & Tourism Council, the global body representing the private tourism sector, issued a report titled “U.S Economy Set To Lose $12.5BN In International Traveler Spend This Year.” Travelers from Germany, the UK, and Canada have declined anywhere from 28% to 15%, with all international travel declining 22.5%. The impact will be felt beyond lost tourism dollars, due to tourism’s multiplier effect of creating jobs in communities across the country. And this can’t be attributed to a global decline in tourism—the study found that the U.S. is the only country among 184 economies forecast to see international visitor spending decline in 2025.
…and fewer international students
Another group of international visitors starting to stay away, with additional economic impacts, is university students. The Trump administration’s attacks on Harvard and other universities’ international students have put out the “school is closed” sign. In 2024, the number of international students in the U.S. reached an all-time high of 1.1 million. A big crackdown would result in a major economic hit since international students contribute 28% of tuition revenue but only 4.6% of student bodies. Moreover, international students contributed $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy and supported more than 378,000 jobs, according to one study, because students rent apartments, shop locally, and pay taxes.
The impact could well have a future ripple effect since, following graduation, 41% of foreign students remain in the U.S., including 75% of PhD students. According to the Science and Technology Policy Institute, over 20% of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) graduates from U.S. universities are born outside the country. Many go on to work in hospitals, health clinics, and technology companies. Depending on how widespread the Trump administration deploys its ban, or even if immigration officials just make the U.S. inhospitable, this could well result in a significant “brain drain.”
To the benefit of…China?
Ironically, the biggest beneficiary of the Trump administration’s trampling on soft power might well turn out to be China. With the U.S. no longer a reliable trade partner or an inviting place for foreign investment, tourists, students, or scientists, countries and their businesses have begun looking for new partners and places. Chinese colleges have started offering automatic acceptance to international students and researchers from Harvard and other universities. Wouldn't it be ironic if China became a global education hub and started poaching top-notch researchers and technology professionals from the U.S.?
The students of today grow up to be the leaders of tomorrow. So, geopolitically, this could greatly impact U.S. relationships with future allies, entrepreneurs, and leaders from other countries, which could bring those countries closer into China's orbit.
Conclusion
It seems puzzling and ironic—as China and other nations are rolling out the welcome mat, the Trump administration seems to be shutting its doors. Historically, America’s soft power has been its greatest asset, fostering global admiration and cooperation. That’s what made the United States the “indispensable nation.” But, now, that’s apparently being replaced by a Trump World posture of “Me First” that is turning allies into skeptics.
Steven Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote, and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.
Keep ReadingShow less
artistic animated portrait of Thomas Jefferson
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Jun 19, 2025
Part II: Preambles
The band of brothers that met in Philadelphia to draft a fresh Constitution shared one thing in common: They were children of the Enlightenment. It didn’t matter where they came from or what experiences shaped their lives, America’s Founding Fathers subscribed to the ideals of human reason, the rule of law, government by consent, and the all-important “pursuit of happiness.” The Enlightenment was their collective calling card.
That generational camaraderie found purchase in the immortal words of the preamble. “We the People of the United States,” the famous preface begins, “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Making promises, or at least challenging ourselves to reach a higher political vista, is pure Enlightenment thinking.
The question is, do Americans still believe in the pillars of the Enlightenment?
In Part II of our series on generational constitution-making, we’ll take a look at preambles. These curious introductory statements are filled with exalted language and lofty promises that reflect the objectives of their constitutional drafters. Comparing the seven AI-generated constitutions, what’s clear is that each generation embraces a distinct set of ambitions, a diverse arrangement of aims. The contrast is revealing.
The preamble written for the “Greatest Generation” can best be described as selfless: “We the People of the United States, humbly aware of the sacrifices of those who came before us, and mindful of our duty to preserve liberty, justice, and unity, do ordain and establish this Constitution to promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of freedom, uphold personal responsibility, and strengthen our bonds of community for ourselves and for generations yet unborn.”
Born between 1900 and 1924, the “Greatest Generation” lived through the Great Depression and both World Wars. Unsurprisingly, its priorities are resilience, integrity, work ethic, and patriotism. The language of the preamble suggests a certain expectation of personal honor, as well as a resolute commitment to the nation’s prosperity. Responsibility, burden, rectitude, esteem: these are the noble causes of America’s oldest living generation.
The “Silent Generation” – Americans born between 1925-1945 – felt an obligation to carry on the altruism of the “Greatest Generation,” and to salute the sacrifices of past patriots. Its preamble flows seamlessly from that of its predecessor’s: “We the People of the United States, in acknowledgement of the sacrifices made by our forebears, resolve to preserve the liberty, order, and unity of our nation. In the spirit of duty, respect for authority, and hard work, we seek to build a future grounded in self-reliance, mutual respect, and a deep commitment to the common good. We honor the institutions of democracy and freedom, and we pledge to safeguard these gifts for generations to come.”
But things start to turn here. Those born between the forties and the sixties who collectively mourned the assassination of President Kennedy and who lived out their childhoods in the shadow of Vietnam and Watergate are, predictably, reluctant to trust. These “Baby Boomers” enter the adult world with their eyes wide open. They seek to secure liberty and justice, but now they place “opportunity” and “fairness” adjacent to the more conventional pillars of Enlightenment philosophy. Gone is the pledge to a common good, and in its place is a promise that “every citizen” has certain private (not collective) rights. We, the people of the United States, in recognition of our shared history and common future, do hereby establish this Constitution to secure liberty, equality, opportunity, and justice for all. Grounded in the belief that progress is built upon the foundation of fairness, compassion, and respect for individual freedoms, we seek to promote the general welfare and ensure that every citizen has the right to pursue happiness, fulfillment, and prosperity.”
The children of “Baby Boomers” extend the march away from vows of self-sacrifice and commitments to the community. These “Gen Xers” arrive on the scene just as Jim Crow (legally, at least) departs. The Cold War, the AIDS epidemic, economic recessions, and the realization that resources are finite pervade their lived experience. As such, citizens born between 1965-1979 are even more pessimistic than their predecessors. The “Gen X” preamble reflects a resignation that ours is a country in decline: “We the People of the United States, seeking a freer, fairer, and more sustainable society, do establish this Constitution to protect individual rights, ensure equitable opportunity, promote transparent governance, preserve the environment, and safeguard the freedom of expression and innovation for ourselves and generations to come.”
By the time we reach “Millennials” – those born between 1980-1994 – the original Enlightenment values, not to mention the devotion to self-sacrifice, have all but disappeared. The “Millennial” preamble reads, “We the people of this nation, guided by the values of equality, sustainability, innovation, and compassion, hereby establish this Constitution. As members of the Millennial generation, we recognize the need for a future where all voices are heard, where environmental stewardship is prioritized, and where technology serves the common good. We strive to create a society that is inclusive, just, and forward-thinking, committed to the well-being of all its citizens and the planet.”
What is fascinating is that the vow to posterity is still present in the “Millennial” preamble, but it takes a different form. It’s about protecting the planet now. Technology, as well, shows up for the first time. Millennials are making a pledge that the tools of the digital age are necessary for America’s collective welfare.
The emphasis on environmental inheritance and technological innovation continues in the “Gen Z” Constitution. Born in tandem with the launch of the World Wide Web, and growing up in a setting dominated by the ubiquitous smartphone and the looming climate collapse, “Gen Z” cares about inclusivity, access, and fairness. They want the marginalized to have an equal voice. Its constitutional preamble claims, “We, the People of the United States, in order to build a just, equitable, inclusive, and sustainable society for all, establish this Constitution to secure human dignity, protect our planet, guarantee digital and civil liberties, and build a future where every voice is heard and valued.”
Overall, it can be said that generational constitutions evolve. From the eighteenth-century preamble that chants an Enlightenment refrain to the “Gen Z” preamble that amplifies the very voices the founding generation ignored, it’s evident that each living generation emphasizes different priorities. That’s only natural.
And yet there are threads that connect all preambles. Liberty, in one form or another, finds a foothold in every preamble. Justice, now “established,” is also well represented. And so is the promise to “promote the general welfare.” These connections denote no small triumph, especially in our deeply polarized environment.
But it is the opening chorus that heralds America’s greatest hope. “We the People,” each generational preamble begins. When the Framers set out to constitute a nation 238 years ago, they placed their trust in the collective populace. They forged a republic where the people are sovereign. It was the dawn of the American Enlightenment. Thankfully, the sun on that democratic experiment has not yet set.
Beau Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair in Government at Skidmore College.
Prairie Gunnels just successfully and with honors completed her first year at Skidmore.
SUGGESTION: Following Jefferson: Promoting Intergenerational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Democracy in Action: May Retrospective
Beau spoke about the new series he's leading in the Fulcrum called “Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-generational Understanding through Constitution-making.” "Thomas Jefferson thought that constitutions should be rewritten every generation," said Beau. "Which for him meant every 19 years, we ought to metaphorically go back to Philadelphia and rewrite the Constitution."
- YouTubeyoutu.be
Keep ReadingShow less
Demonstrators hold signs at O Street and 14th Street in Lincoln, Nebraska, during the “No Kings” protest on the morning of June 14, 2025.
Nick Loomis/The Midwest Newsroom
'History has its eyes on us': Thousands rally in Lincoln at peaceful No Kings protest
Jun 19, 2025
On Saturday, June 7, thousands of protesters took over O Street to denounce President Donald Trump’s military parade and policies. Demonstrators waved American flags and held up signs calling for immigration reform, veteran benefits, and access to international education, among other issues. Lincoln was one of 13 cities in Nebraska to participate in the nationwide “No Kings” protest.
Prior to the protest, Gov. Jim Pillen activated the Nebraska National Guard as a precaution due to the number of planned protests that weekend. The day progressed peacefully across the state, though, and there were no reports of the National Guard being deployed or other law enforcement incidents.
There were two planned protests in Lincoln, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. Each lasted over three hours.
Protesters demand change
Shannon Sutherland, a former Marine, marched with a “Veteran against facism” sign. He said he fears that the country is headed toward authoritarianism. After the insurrection on January 6, 2021, the 60-year-old veteran felt that Trump had revealed his personally motivated intentions for the country.
“I did not take my oath to support one man. I took my oath of enlistment to support the Constitution,” Sutherland said.
Hailey Fischer, 28, wrote with green chalk on the corner of 15th and O Street. Fischer, who works at an immigration law firm, said since the election, she finds the recent events regarding immigration “messed up.” Fischer decided to take a stand after the ICE raid on an Omaha meat processing plant,
“America is built upon freedom. We’re supposed to be all about freedom, and yet we are trying to deny people who are just searching for freedom, for love, for safety,” she said.
Fischer said people can draw inspiration from the musical “Hamilton,” which tells the story of an immigrant founding father of the U.S., written and portrayed on stage by an immigrant.
“We were built upon immigrants,” Fischer said. “We were built upon people of color, and we deserve to remember that, and history has its eyes on us. It’s now or never. If we ignore it, it’s only going to get worse.”
Steve Reichenbach, professor emeritus of computer science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, said that Trump is harming universities by restricting access for international students. The 70-year-old said he worries that the barriers for international students will decrease innovation in our country.
“One of the worst things I think Trump has done is made America inhospitable for students from other countries,” Reichenbach said.
Community comes together
Alejandra “Ale” Fernandez organized the “Power to the People” march in the afternoon. More than 150 people marched from 10th Street to 27th Street. Many people from the earlier demonstration stuck around to stand with Fernandez, who is Cuban-American.
“The movement is about people over power. Community over control,” Fernandez said.
Fernandez led the 17-block march while directing chants and guiding the protesters. Local organizers passed out resource sheets to protesters in case of an emergency. Fernandez plans to create additional resources to assist communities in Lincoln and Crete dealing with ICE.
In the 90-degree heat, local vendors supported protesters with water. Fortunato Sanchez, the manager of local Mexican restaurant Cielito Lindo, brought out over two dozen bottles of water for the afternoon protesters.
“It brings me great satisfaction to at least be able to make a small contribution to this movement,” Sanchez said in Spanish.
Erika Cuevas, a daughter of immigrants, carried her “resistance melts ice” sign in red, white, and blue down O Street. Cuevas came out to support immigrants and speak out against the injustices happening in her community.
“I hope it unifies people,” she said of the protest. “I’m so thankful to see all the people that are here in Lincoln, that have come out to support this cause. And I hope it gives hope to those who we are fighting for, that we are here for them and that change is coming.”
Listen to Fertunato Sanchez, manager of Cielito Lindo, a local Mexican restaurant shares his motivation to stand up and speak out in Spanish by clicking HERE.
Jessica Meza is a Journalism & Advertising and Public Relations student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Jessica is the Hortencia Zavala Foundation 2025 summer intern working with NPR’s Midwest Newsroom, the Latino News Network (LNN), and the Fulcrum, as part of our NextGen initiatives.
The Midwest Newsroom is an investigative and enterprise journalism collaboration that includes Iowa Public Radio, KCUR, Nebraska Public Media, St. Louis Public Radio, and NPR.
Please help the Fulcrum's NextGen initiatives by donating HERE!
Keep ReadingShow less
artistic animated picture of Donald Trump
Iran Warns ‘The Battle Begins’—What Role Will Trump Have the U.S. Play?
Jun 18, 2025
The sixth day of escalating tensions between Iran and Israel saw a stark warning from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who declared on social media: “The battle begins.” This came shortly after President Donald Trump referred to Khamenei as an “easy target” and stated that America’s “patience is wearing thin,” demanding Iran’s “unconditional surrender.”
The president cut short his trip at the Group of Seven summit in Canada, citing the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran.
Trump appears increasingly inclined to utilize US military assets against Iranian nuclear sites, moving away from diplomatic solutions to the conflict, according to two officials speaking with CNN. This aggressive stance marks a notable shift in Trump’s strategy, although he remains open to diplomacy, contingent on Iranian concessions.
Analysts note that Trump’s next steps could redefine the conflict and expose divisions within his Republican base.
One faction aligns with his “America First” doctrine, prioritizing domestic concerns over foreign intervention. Another supports a more aggressive neoconservative approach, including military action to influence regime change.
These opposing views are reflected among Trump’s advisers, with confidants like Vice President JD Vance advocating for restraint in U.S. involvement.
Public opinion in the United States leans heavily against direct military action in Iran, with a preference for diplomatic solutions.
According to The Economist/YouGov poll:
- A significant majority, 60%, oppose US military involvement in the conflict between Israel and Iran.
- Only 16% support US military involvement.
- Even among Republicans, 53% oppose US military intervention.
- Majorities across political parties (Democrats, Independents, and Republicans) favor negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, with 56% of all Americans supporting these talks.
President Donald Trump campaigned for re-election, vowing to bring a swift end to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. However, he is now facing the reality of another major escalation.
Despite publicly urging Israel to refrain from striking Iran, in favor of focusing instead on securing a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program -Trump's efforts fell short.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More