Global influence is frequently a topic for conference panels, talk show pundits, and earnest think tank recommendations, but this nebulous measure of soft power has real-world impact for national security, economic strength and political power.  

Today, this battle is unfolding rapidly, region by region, country by country, through security and commercial partnerships, emerging regional groupings, newly established diplomatic outposts, and academic partnerships.  

As conflicts erupt and new trade and political alignments emerge, it’s clear: China is building a dense network of relationships across all pillars of influence while the United States continues to weaken the institutions it traditionally used to compete. The United States should do more than watch China’s intensive investment in building global influence – in diplomacy, in academic and cultural exchanges, in economic partnerships, and in national security pacts. 

Influence is hard to gauge – and even harder to count on. Even the closest of diplomatic partners have sovereign interests and political differences. Historical relationships, either through war-hardened alliances or postcolonial reckonings, can shape perception and sway alignment. However, China’s transactional approach inherently reflects its genuine disregard for human rights, democratic aspirations, and welfare of citizens in other countries. This is China’s weak point, which the United States can leverage to regain lost ground.  

Diplomacy: You Must Show up 

The work of diplomacy is accomplished behind the scenes, by building connections, negotiating agreements, and advocating for businesses. The work of a diplomat is to know the government officials and trade contacts before you make an ask. This allows diplomats to build the trust required to get to agreement before a crisis happens or an ask is made.  

China is succeeding at one of the first rules of diplomacy: showing up. 

The Lowry Institute’s Global Diplomacy Index paints a clear picture. China has 274 diplomatic posts globally, compared with the United States’ 271. The strategic advantage is even clearer in Africa – where China has 60 to the United States’ 56 – and in East Asia, where China has 44 to the United States’ 27.  While the numerical difference is small, the trend is concerning. 

Beijing leverages its growing diplomatic presence as a strategic asset, populating its embassies with commercial, educational, and political professionals. It is gradually making inroads even with the United States’ longtime partners. Just this month, China’s President Xi Jinping traveled to Egypt, where Beijing and Cairo signed an array of agreements, from linking Egypt’s national development plan to China’s Belt and Road Initiative to a pledge to increase trade and investments in their own currencies, moving away from the U.S. dollar. 

For the United States, the trend is going the other way, and that’s worrying. Despite a slate of recent nominations, 93 out of 196 ambassadorial slots remain vacant, according to the tracker maintained by the American Foreign Service Association. And while in many cases there are able professional diplomats serving as chargés d’affaires in these roles, a confirmed ambassador signals seriousness to host governments.  

The State Department has also taken steps to close a number of smaller consulates and shrink operations at other embassies. While there is absolutely a strong case for prioritizing engagement, streamlining operations, and improving efficiencies, the narrative that the United States is retreating from the world continues to spread. 

Academic opportunities and cultural exchanges are important forms of diplomacy and a path to increasing the United States’ global influence. Engaging with the next generations of global talent is a critical investment or opportunity, and China understands this.  

At the 2024 Summit of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), Xi announced 60,000 government scholarships for African students. In addition to opportunities for students, FOCAC commitments will see some 20,000 African regional and city leaders receiving training in China every year, along with African journalists sent to China.  

These programs are far from boondoggles: They enmesh these emerging officials, journalists, and business leaders into Chinese institutions and professional networks. And despite warnings from the United States, China has now established over 500 Confucius Institutes around the world. These institutes are purported to facilitate Chinese education and people-to-people exchanges, but effectively serve as propaganda arms of the Chinese government.  

The United States has extraordinary assets of its own, including an open and free democracy, the best universities in the world, and an innovation economy. Traditionally, U.S. government-supported exchange programs showcase all three.  

From the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP), which identifies rising stars in business, government, security, and media and brings them to the United States to showcase America’s story to world-class State Department programs, including the Fulbright, Gilman, Boren, and Critical Language Scholarships, these programs engage professionals at key junctures in their professional careers.  

A scholarship or an exchange isn’t simply tuition assistance. These academic and cultural programs create alumni who may become government and business leaders in their countries. According to the State Department’s own accounting, over 500 IVLP alumni alone have become heads of state or government since the program’s founding in 1940. Another 12 have won Nobel Prizes, and thousands more have served as elected officials, government ministers, and community and business leaders. 

The United States can benefit from having these leaders as counterparts; they leave these programs with firsthand knowledge and appreciation of America’s economic strength, tech savvy, entrepreneurship, pluralism, and values. 

These programs continue, albeit after some stutters in funding in 2025. Yet there are deep proposed reductions in the 2027 fiscal year’s budget. And there is a long-term cost to making such programs unpredictable. China is rapidly expanding its networks, while the United States is offering uncertainty into its own powerful equivalents.  

Economic Strength: Building Partnerships, Not Transactions 

This isn’t a new trend. Pundits have warned for more than two decades that Beijing is approaching traditional U.S. partners with something tangible to offer.  

Through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), as well as smaller bilateral and regional deals, China has smartly offered financing backed by its government for desperately needed infrastructure projects linked to access to African and Western Hemisphere markets.  

At the most recent FOCAC summit in 2024, Xi announced approximately $51 billion in financial support to Africa over a three-year period. At the 2025 China-Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) Forum, Xi pledged a credit line of more than $9 billion for Latin America, as well as additional bilateral infrastructure investment. According to China’s own accounting in its 2025 BRI Investment Report, agreements that are part of BRI reached over $213 billion in 2025, up 75 percent from the previous year, with about 150 countries participating. 

The United States can compete. The Lobito Corridor, which links Zambia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Angola, provides U.S. support for a critical rail and infrastructure network spanning mineral production to port facilities. Through a $533 million loan from the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), the United States both invested in these countries’ economic development and leveraged this financing with an eye to long-term regional security through employment, investment, and regional integration.  

However, while the United States has (and uses) smart tools like the DFC and Millenium Challenge Corporation, it has stopped some other initiatives. Driven by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the 2025 reprioritization of foreign assistance sidelined early-stage economic development efforts, such as programs for emerging entrepreneurs, small business, and agriculture – including dedicated programs to encourage women in these fields. These and other opportunities were once administered through the now-shuttered USAID and State Department programs. The 2025 foreign assistance restructuring halted these incubator projects worldwide, ending a values-based and long-term approach to economic growth. 

While reform of U.S. assistance was absolutely necessary, the geopolitical cost is clear. When the United States – with its commitment to human rights, democracy, rule of law, and anti-corruption measures – withdraws from a relationship, it is often China that surges to occupy the space. 

Today, faced with the immediate challenge of global leadership in artificial intelligence (AI), the United States must be more than the leader in a technology footrace with China. The U.S. global role and responsibilities will require sustained investment in innovation, talent, infrastructure and trusted partnerships so the United States can continue in setting global standards that shape how AI is developed, governed and deployed. The United States can build on its standards of openness and accountability while ensuring that these emerging technologies reflect both U.S. interests and U.S. values. 

Reclaiming the High Ground

China is intensifying its investment in its initiatives, building a worldwide network of infrastructure, finance, commercial, and political relationships. The United States absolutely has best-in-class competitive alternatives, but Washington must invest in and deepen those ties.  

Many countries, especially across the Global South, see benefits to relationships with both China and the United States, but U.S. strength has traditionally meant that it is the first choice for security relationships, cultural and educational exchanges, and business partnerships. China’s approach has significant and public weaknesses, including debt controversies, debates over its political influence, and allegations of exploitation and human rights abuses in partner countries.  

But Washington has its own work to do to right the soft power ship.  The United States possesses enormous advantages in its world-class academic institutions, technology, alliances, and the sheer love of ordinary U.S. culture. We must remember, though: the United States didn’t become a superpower by looking backward.  

The United States must maintain its influence – and its values of freedom, opportunity, accountability, and compassion – by continuing to show up.