The Demystification of the United States of America

By David Akoji

For generations, the United States of America occupied a unique place in the imagination of the world and so to many, particularly in the developing world, America was more than a country. It was an idea: a land of opportunity, technological supremacy, military power, democratic resilience, individual freedom and economic possibility and truth be told, these elements were reflective of the American Dream.

From the streets of Lagos and Abuja to London, Nairobi, Johannesburg and New Delhi, America was often perceived as the country that could shape events anywhere on the planet. Its passport, universities, corporations, currency, military, entertainment industry and diplomatic influence projected an image of almost unmatched power.

But something fundamental appears to be changing owing to the recent policy options adopted by the US government.

The ongoing war between the United States and Iran has brought into sharper focus a question that has been developing for several years: Is America still the almost unquestioned superpower that much of the world once believed it to be, or is the world witnessing the demystification of American power?

Make no mistake about it, this is not an argument that America has become weak. Far from it. The United States remains the world’s most consequential military, technological and financial powers. Rather, the object for interrogation is whether the perception of American power, legitimacy and reliability is changing.

And increasingly, the evidence suggests that it is.

America: From admiration to ambivalence

The age long traditional perception of America was built on several pillars.

There was its economic power, represented by Wall Street, Silicon Valley and some of the world’s most successful corporations. There was its military capability, demonstrated by America’s ability to project force across continents. There was its soft power, Hollywood, American music, universities, technology, sports and popular culture.

Perhaps most importantly, there was the belief that America represented an international order based broadly on democracy, free markets, human rights, international institutions and the rule of law.

Even when American governments were criticised, many people distinguished between the United States as a country and the policies of a particular administration.

That distinction appears increasingly difficult to sustain.

The second Trump presidency has intensified the international debate over whether American foreign policy is becoming more transactional, unilateral and unpredictable. A 2026 Pew Research Center survey across 36 countries found that only 23% had confidence in President Donald Trump to do the right thing in world affairs. The same research found that 57% expressed an unfavorable view of the United States, while approximately half considered America an unreliable partner. (Pew Research Center)

Gallup has similarly recorded a significant decline in perceptions of U.S. leadership. Global approval of American leadership fell from 39% in 2024 to 31% in 2025, while China’s approval rose from 32% to 36%. (Gallup.com)

These figures do not mean that the world has suddenly turned against America. They do, however, demonstrate that the extraordinary reservoir of goodwill once associated with American leadership is under pressure.

The Iran war and the demystification of American power

Nothing illustrates this transformation more dramatically than the current conflict with Iran.

The United States entered the war with enormous military advantages. Its air power, naval capability, intelligence systems, satellites, precision weapons and global logistics remain formidable.

Yet the conflict has demonstrated that military superiority is not synonymous with political control.

Months into the conflict, Iran remains capable of imposing substantial economic and strategic costs, domestic purchasing power across the world is diminishing, owing to rising energy costs. The continuing crisis around the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted global energy flows, while higher fuel prices are creating economic consequences far beyond the Middle East. Reuters reported on August 14 that gasoline prices in the United States were already significantly higher than a year earlier as the confrontation continued. (Reuters)

The war has therefore exposed a paradox of modern American power: America can possess the capacity to destroy an enormous amount of military infrastructure without necessarily possessing the capacity to dictate the political outcome that follows.

This distinction matters.

For decades, American military interventions, from the Gulf War to Afghanistan and Iraq, created an image of overwhelming American capability. But contemporary conflicts increasingly demonstrate the limitations of military power when confronted by asymmetric warfare, nationalism, geography, domestic political pressures and economic interdependence.

The Iran conflict has therefore become not merely a war between Washington and Tehran. It is also a global referendum, fair or unfair, on the limits of American power.

From unipolarity to a contested world

The world in which America emerged as the sole superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union is disappearing.

China has become a formidable economic, technological and military competitor. Russia retains significant military and geopolitical capabilities. India is emerging as an increasingly important economic and strategic power. The European Union continues to exercise enormous economic and regulatory influence.

Countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East are also increasingly unwilling to view international relations exclusively through a Washington centred lens.

This does not necessarily mean that these countries are becoming anti-American.

Rather, they are becoming less dependent on American approval.

This distinction is crucial.

For much of the post-Cold War era, the United States possessed what could be described as a “default leadership position.” Today, countries have more alternatives. They can negotiate with China, Russia, India, the Gulf states, the European Union, Turkey and other emerging centres of power.

The result is a more competitive international system in which America’s ability to persuade cannot automatically be assumed.

Pew’s 2026 survey found that in several countries people now view China more positively than the United States. This represents a significant psychological change in the global balance of perception. (Pew Research Center)

Trump’s immigration policy: security versus America’s traditional openness

Immigration has always been central to America’s global identity and for many years this stood America out as distinct and excellent among nations of the world.

The United States is, fundamentally, a nation built through immigration. For generations, immigrants have contributed to America’s scientific, economic, cultural and political strength.

The Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement has therefore generated a difficult contradiction.

On one hand, supporters argue that tighter borders, deportations and stricter immigration controls protect national sovereignty, public safety and economic interests.

On the other hand, critics argue that excessively punitive enforcement undermines America’s traditional image as a refuge for people seeking freedom and opportunity the very tenets upon which American Identity is built.

Even within the United States, the issue remains deeply divisive. Pew found in 2025 that 47% disapproved of the administration’s overall approach to immigration compared with 42% who approved. Majorities also opposed several specific measures, including suspending most asylum applications. (Pew Research Center)

Internationally, the consequences are potentially more profound.

America’s universities, technology companies, hospitals and research institutions have historically benefited from attracting some of the world’s brightest minds.

If the United States becomes perceived as increasingly hostile to immigrants, international students, researchers and skilled professionals may begin to consider Canada, Britain, Australia, Europe and emerging Asian centres as more attractive destinations.

That would be a loss not merely of image but of human capital.

Health policy and the erosion of scientific leadership

American leadership in global health has historically been one of its greatest sources of soft power.

The United States has contributed enormously to combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, polio, Ebola and other diseases. The country’s universities, pharmaceutical companies, research institutions and public health agencies have been central to global scientific advancement.

The decision by the United States to complete its withdrawal from the World Health Organization in January 2026 therefore carries consequences beyond institutional diplomacy. The U.S. government argues that the WHO failed during COVID-19 and requires reform. The WHO, however, has emphasized America’s historic contribution to global health and warned that the withdrawal makes both America and the world less safe. (HHS.gov)

More recently, controversy surrounding changes to childhood vaccination policy has generated further international concern. The WHO and other public health authorities have defended evidence based vaccination schedules amid the Trump administration’s push for changes. (Reuters)

Whether one agrees with the administration’s health philosophy or not, there is a larger reputational issue: America’s influence depends partly on the world’s confidence in American science.

When that confidence declines, America’s soft power suffers.

Trade policy: America First or America Alone?

Trump’s trade policy represents another major transformation.

For decades, the United States promoted an international trading system based substantially on reducing barriers, encouraging economic integration and strengthening institutions.

The Trump approach has been considerably more protectionist.

Tariffs are intended to protect American industries, reduce trade imbalances, encourage domestic production and give Washington leverage in negotiations.

There are legitimate arguments supporting this strategy.

But there are also costs.

Pew found in 2026 that 63% of Americans expressed little or no confidence in Trump’s handling of tariff policy. Internationally, Trump’s tariff policies received particularly poor ratings in countries including Germany, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico and India. (Pew Research Center)

The danger is that trading partners may begin to conclude that the United States is no longer committed to predictable economic rules.

If countries respond by diversifying supply chains, currencies, markets and strategic partnerships away from the United States, Washington could eventually discover that economic power is partly dependent on the willingness of others to participate in the American-led system.

Foreign policy: transactional strength versus trusted leadership

Perhaps the greatest challenge to America’s global reputation lies in foreign policy.

America’s traditional strength was not simply its ability to compel. It was its ability to persuade.

The Marshall Plan, NATO, the Bretton Woods institutions, the United Nations system and numerous international partnerships demonstrated a model of leadership in which American power was frequently exercised through alliances and institutions.

The Trump era has increasingly emphasised sovereignty, burden-sharing, bilateral negotiation and transactional relationships.

That approach can produce short-term concessions.

But leadership is not simply about getting others to do what one wants.

Leadership is also about creating confidence that commitments will endure beyond one political administration.

The 2026 Pew findings are particularly significant here. In many countries, confidence that the United States is a reliable partner has fallen sharply since the Biden-era survey conducted in 2022. In eight of ten European countries surveyed, the proportion describing the U.S. as reliable fell by between 28 and 52 percentage points. (Pew Research Center)

This is the heart of the problem.

A superpower can compel obedience. A great power can negotiate. But a genuine global leader inspires voluntary cooperation.

Has Trump improved or diminished America’s stature?

The answer requires nuance.

Trump’s policies have not uniformly weakened America.

His administration’s emphasis on border security resonates with many Americans and some foreign audiences. His insistence that allies contribute more to collective defence addresses a longstanding concern about burden-sharing. His protectionist trade policy has forced renewed debates about American industrial capacity and economic dependence.

His willingness to use American power decisively also reinforces the perception that the United States remains militarily formidable.

But stature is not measured by strength alone.

It is measured by strength combined with legitimacy, predictability, credibility, attractiveness and trust.

On that broader measure, the evidence points towards erosion.

Immigration policies have challenged America’s traditional image as a welcoming country. Health policies and withdrawal from the WHO have raised questions about America’s commitment to multilateral public health. Tariffs have generated friction with allies and trading partners. Foreign-policy decisions have contributed to perceptions of unpredictability. And the Iran war has exposed the limitations of military supremacy in producing political outcomes.

Pew’s 2026 global survey found that Trump received mostly poor marks internationally on tariffs, Gaza, Iran, Greenland and the Russia-Ukraine war. (Pew Research Center)

The consequence is what may be described as the demystification of America.

The world is discovering that America is immensely powerful—but not omnipotent.

It is influential—but not indispensable.

It is rich—but not immune from economic vulnerability.

It is militarily dominant—but not capable of imposing political outcomes without significant costs.

And perhaps most importantly, it is respected by many—but no longer automatically trusted by all.

What should America do now?

The answer is not for America to retreat from the world.

Nor should it abandon its national interests.

America needs something more sophisticated: a renewal of leadership through credibility rather than coercion.

Ten measures could help rebuild its global image.

1. End wars through credible diplomacy

Military power should remain an instrument of national security, but diplomacy should become the principal mechanism for ending conflicts.

The United States should pursue a credible diplomatic off-ramp in the Iran conflict and demonstrate that military intervention has a political endgame.

2. Rebuild trust with traditional allies

Europe, Canada, Japan, South Korea and other long-standing partners should not be treated merely as clients or financial contributors.

They should be treated as strategic partners whose interests matter.

3. Restore predictability to American foreign policy

The world needs to know that an agreement reached with Washington today will not necessarily be discarded tomorrow.

Strategic consistency is itself a form of power.

4. Rebalance immigration enforcement with America’s historic identity

America can secure its borders without abandoning the values of fairness, due process and opportunity.

A sophisticated immigration policy should distinguish between illegal entry, legitimate asylum claims, economic migration, students, skilled workers and refugees.

5. Reclaim leadership in global health

The United States should reconsider its retreat from multilateral health cooperation and restore its position as a champion of scientific research, vaccination, disease prevention and pandemic preparedness.

6. Make trade policy strategic rather than punitive

America should protect critical industries where necessary, but excessive tariffs should not become the default instrument of diplomacy.

Trade agreements should be used to build alliances, not merely extract concessions.

7. Invest aggressively in soft power

American universities, culture, technology, entrepreneurship, sports, media and entertainment remain extraordinarily powerful.

Washington should recognise these assets as instruments of national influence.

8. Make America attractive to the world’s best minds

International students, scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and researchers should be regarded as strategic assets.

America’s greatest competitive advantage may ultimately be its ability to attract talented people from every part of the world.

9. Respect international institutions while demanding reform

The United States should not be afraid to challenge institutions such as the WHO, United Nations and WTO when reform is necessary.

But reforming institutions from within is generally more powerful than abandoning them.

10. Tell a new American story

America needs a new global narrative.

Not the narrative of an America that dominates everyone.

Not the narrative of an America that apologises for its power.

Rather, the narrative of an America that is strong enough to lead without humiliating others; powerful enough to defend itself without constantly resorting to force; prosperous enough to trade with others without fearing them; and confident enough to cooperate without seeing cooperation as weakness.

Conclusion: America is not finished—but the mythology has changed

The demystification of America should not be mistaken for the decline of America.

The United States remains extraordinarily powerful. Its universities remain among the world’s best. Its technology companies shape global markets. The dollar remains central to international finance. Its military remains unmatched in global reach. Its culture continues to influence billions of people.

But the psychological monopoly America once enjoyed is disappearing.

The world is becoming more multipolar, more transactional and more assertive.

The lesson of the Iran war is therefore not that America has become weak. The lesson is that American power has limits, and the world now understands those limits more clearly.

For Nigeria and other developing countries, this transformation offers an important lesson.

The age in which nations could simply align themselves with one dominant power is giving way to an age of strategic diversification. Countries must cultivate relationships with America, China, Europe, India, the Gulf states, Russia and other emerging centres of influence while building their own domestic capabilities.

For America itself, the choice is equally clear.

It can respond to the loss of unquestioned deference with greater coercion.

Or it can recognise that the most durable form of power is not the ability to make people obey, it is the ability to make people want to cooperate.

America does not need to become less powerful.

It needs to become more trusted.

The United States was never truly great because it could win every war.

It became great because millions of people around the world believed that, despite its imperfections, the American experiment represented something worth aspiring to.

If Washington can recover that confidence, the demystification of America may ultimately become something more positive: the beginning of a more mature American leadership, one based not on the illusion of omnipotence, but on the reality of responsible power.