Latest Must-Reads in Public Diplomacy: July 2026

CPD Faculty Fellow Bruce Gregory has compiled a list of the latest must-reads in public diplomacy. Known affectionately at CPD as "Bruce's List," this list is a compilation of books, journal articles, papers and blog posts on a wide variety of PD topics. Highlights from the latest list include AI, soft power, and globalization to reputational security, cultural diplomacy, sports diplomacy, and shifting global perceptions of U.S. leadership.

Daniele Carminati and William J. Jones, “The Nexus Between Globalization and Soft Power: Attraction Runs on Connectivity Channels,”  Journal of Political Power, published online, June 1, 2026. Carminati and Jones (Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand) argue that globalization’s physical and digital connectivity channels are defining and illuminating characteristics of soft power. Claims of deglobalization and the demise of soft power are premature, they argue. Instead, connectivity channels can both enhance and stifle soft power attraction. Visa free policies and free trade agreements build appreciation. Closed borders, unilateral tariffs, and suspension of education visas damage image and reputation. Their article examines core concepts, soft power resources, promotional instruments such as public diplomacy, global reception surveys, and selected outcomes. They conclude with a discussion of recent developments with potential to achieve and lose soft power gains. An example of the former is South Korea’s growing international appeal. Trump’s “America First” policies (trade limitations, border closures), examples of the latter, are assessed as “likely to significantly impact America’s image and reputation for years to come.” More connectivity does not guarantee soft power, they conclude. Channels can be weaponized. Actions that limit or close physical and digital connectivity in today’s great power geopolitics are grounds for pessimism. Middle and smaller powers, however, are achieving more positive forms of soft power competition assisted by globalization. See also Daniele Carminati, “Soft Power and Globalization: Attraction Relies on Connectivity,” CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Corneliu Bjola and Ilan Manor, “Encoding Geopolitical Influence: Soft Power and the Symbolic Politics of Artificial Intelligence,”  Chapter 7 in Naren Chitty et. al., eds. The Anthem Handbook of Soft Power and Public Diplomacy, (Anthem Press, 2026), see Handbook review below. In this original and pioneering chapter, Bjola (University of Oxford) and Manor (Ben Gurion University of the Negev) explore how AI, as a dominant interpretive infrastructure, is changing the conceptualization of soft power and the production and circulation of meanings in diplomatic practice. They draw on German philosopher Ernst Cassirer’s theory that humans access the external world through symbolic forms (language, myth, religion, art, science) that shape how reality is perceived and understood. AI systems are not passive instruments, they argue. They are symbolic infrastructures “curating information, filtering visibility, and shaping the semantic field in which diplomatic engagement and semantic reasoning unfold.” Soft power thus is evolving from the export of institutions, policies, and cultures to include computational-epistemic AI regimes that shape legitimacy, agency, and credibility. To test their argument, Bjola and Manor put identical geopolitical questions (US support for Ukraine and Israel, the security of the Baltic states, and the futures of the EU and UN) to three language models: America’s ChatGPT, Europe’s Mistral, and China’s DeepSeek. Answers revealed different modes of soft power and global narratives shaped by AI-produced symbolic mediation. ChatGPT’s normative institutionalism. Mistral’s technocratic and managerial realism. DeepSeek’s strategic synthesis and historical depth. Much of the chapter explores how AI systems function as forms of soft power and the differences between the three models.

Aman Kamar, “Reputational Security: Refocusing Public Diplomacy for a Dangerous World, by Nicholas J. Cull,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, published online April 14, 2026.  In this largely positive review, Kamar (Jawaharlal Nehru University) provides an overview of Cull’s (University of Southern California) idea that reputational security — the cultivation by states of their positive attributes and policy-based management of their reputational vulnerabilities — is more analytically useful than current understandings of soft power. Reputational security, in Cull’s view, is a core activity of all states across time, whereas soft power has been reduced to promotion of favorable national images and is often seen as an “add-on activity” undertaken by successful Western democracies. A detailed chapter by chapter summary follows. Kamar agrees with Cull’s argument on the advantages of reputational security over soft power and applauds his historical insights, policy recommendations, and contributions to understanding public diplomacy. Kumar’s discussion of the book’s limitations is largely about what it does not achieve: vague linkages between reputational security and IR theories (constructivism, realism, liberalism), the absence of assessment metrics that limits empirical verification, and inattention to the emerging role of AI in shaping reputational security. 

Richard Wike, Laura Silver, Moira Fagan, and Jonathan Schulman, “Trump Gets Negative Reviews Internationally as Fewer Say U.S. Is a Reliable Partner,”  June 23, 2026, Pew Research Center. In a 36-country survey, Pew finds a median of 23% of adults have confidence in President Donald Trump’s leadership in world affairs. Overall ratings of the United States are largely negative. Trump gets mostly low ratings for his handling of tariffs, Gaza, Iran, Greenland, and Russia’s war in Ukraine. Polling shows steep declines in many countries in views of the US as a reliable ally and the health of American democracy. Trump’s highest ratings are in the Philippines, Israel, Nigeria, Kenya, and Ghana. His lowest ratings are in Australia, Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands, Malaysia, Pakistan, Mexico, Sweden, Turkey, and W. Bank/E. Jerusalem. See also “Global Attitudes: An Update on U.S. Views, with Dr. Richard Wike Of the Pew Research Center,” June 15, 2026, Public Diplomacy Council of America.

“Q&A with Nicholas Cull on Propaganda in the AI Age,”  June 3, 2026, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

“Meet the Authors: Kathy R. Fitzpatrick and Bruce Gregory on Diplomacy’s Public Turn,”  June 8, 2026, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Paul Hare, “Cuba’s Public Diplomacy: Can It Be Effective Against Trump’s Threats,”  July 8, 2026, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Ichinkhorloo Khosbayar, “Women in Diplomacy: Insights From Four Women Shaping International Affairs,” [Dr. Vivian S. Walker (United States), Hessa Alyahya (Saudi Arabia), Unurmaa Janchiv (Mongolia), and Ambassador Ina Marciulionytte (EU/Lithuania)], June 24, 2026, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Linda Jisun Lee, “Strategic Heritage Engagement: Bridging Hard Power and Public Diplomacy,”  June 24, 2026, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Ilan Manor, “Public Diplomacy in an Age of Synthetic Intertextuality,”  May 28, 2026, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Leila Nazarian, “Craft Diplomacy: The Subtle Soft Power of Craft,”  June 4, 2026, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Naseem Qader, “Influence Without Persuaion: Public Diplomacy As Legibility Infrastructure,”  July 9, 2026, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

Jian (Jay) Wang, “America’s World Cup Cities: Narratives on a Global Stage,” Part 1,  June 3, 2026. | “America’s World Cup Cities in Conversation: A Snapshot Before Kickoff,”  Part 2, June 10, 2026. | “America’s World Cup Cities in Conversation: Narratives From the Group Stage,”  Part 3, July 2, 2026, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

The full edition of Bruce's List can be found here.