The president of the Rockefeller Foundation warns that the United States is losing its global standing, citing new survey data showing that one in three people worldwide now views America as the biggest threat among Russia, China, and the United States. In a Fortune commentary, the foundation's leader—who previously ran the U.S. Agency for International Development—argues that winning back that standing requires moving beyond traditional, donor-driven foreign aid toward modern, investment-based engagement.

Global Poll Puts US Ahead of Russia and China as Perceived Threat

The Rockefeller Foundation, a philanthropy that believes in following the data, has long supported surveys measuring how people around the world feel about global events. But the results of its latest survey gave the author pause. The poll asked 35,000 respondents 34 countries to rank which country poses the biggest threat—Russia, China, or the United States. The U.S. was the number one pick in half of the countries surveyed. Overall, one in three people around the world identified the United States as a threat—more than chose China. A sample that broad is difficult to dismiss as anecdote, which is why the author treats the finding as a strategic signal rather than a passing headline.

Those numbers, the author writes, mean one-third of the world now fears a country that for most of its existence has considered itself—with evidence on its side—“the last best hope on earth.”

The commentary recalls the author's time running the U.S. Agency for International Development, including drives into villages in remote parts of West Africa, India, and Indonesia. Walking into a schoolhouse in the middle of nowhere, the author would find John F. Kennedy's portrait hanging above a blackboard. People around the planet, the piece notes, admired the United States and leaders like Kennedy because the country willfully established its domestic and foreign policy as a means to universal human dignity.

Today's data show that this standing is slipping, the author argues. The task ahead is to reestablish American foreign policy grounded in the country's values, but in a way that reflects a changed world. The traditional, donor-driven aid programs that once built American moral authority are no longer sufficient. Recommitting to universal human dignity through more modern, politically sustainable investments, the piece contends, would make the United States safer and more secure.

A Standing Built on Dignity, From the Founding to the Cold War

The United States was founded on the principle of universal human dignity—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—an idea woven into national identity by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the commentary recounts. Abraham Lincoln framed the Civil War in global terms, calling the American experiment a hope for the planet. After emerging victorious from World War II, the United States built a set of institutions, most notably the UN, to enshrine dignity as the defining aspiration of the free world.

Throughout the Cold War, even as the U.S. made serious military missteps, it held something the Soviet Union never had: the hearts and minds of people who shared the dream America represented. That is why the imagery of America as a “shining city on a hill”—an ideal that others aspire to—has such enduring power. Nearly every president and presidential aspirant since Reagan has invoked it, with Trump as a notable exception.

America, the author writes, was a superpower both militarily and morally, which made it the safest it has ever been. The so-called “Pax Americana” was sustained not just by military power but by an invisible bond with people around the world who instinctively connected with America's commitment to human dignity. That commitment was more than rhetoric: the United States rebuilt Europe through the Marshall Plan, provided development aid during the Cold War, and funded lifesaving disease-prevention efforts such as GAVI and PEPFAR. These efforts helped vulnerable people and bolstered America's global negotiating position on everything from nuclear weapons to the dominance of the dollar to trade agreements.

The results, the author notes, were tangible: the only time in history NATO has invoked Article 5 was to defend the United States, not any other country, and allies backed every American war—until the current one. Historians have shown how America's distinctive brand of leadership has simultaneously promoted the collective global good and the country's own national interests.

Leading by Fear Rather Than by Example

In recent years, the author writes, America has too often chosen to lead by fear rather than by example. The United States has spent $38 billion on a war of choice that has killed 18 U.S. service members and thousands of civilians, created an ongoing global energy crisis, and squandered what moral authority remained. That is the same amount—$38 billion—that America cut from its global foreign assistance budget between 2024 and 2025.

In effect, the commentary argues, $38 billion has been taken from poor and sick people around the world who rely on U.S. help and spent on an unpopular, seemingly endless war that is raising prices for Americans and for people around the world.

The Consequences Are Already Visible

Analysis supported by the Rockefeller Foundation projects that 9.4 million vulnerable people will die between now and 2030 because the U.S. is pulling back on food security support during famines and on programs fighting diseases in children. The 2030 horizon matters here: it turns these estimates into a trackable benchmark that coming funding decisions can confirm or revise. Boston University researchers estimate that more than 700,000 people have already died because these programs have been dismantled. At the Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya near the Somali border, 150,000 people abruptly stopped receiving the food they needed to survive after the U.S. halted its funding to the World Food Programme. Against that backdrop, the commentary says, poll respondents seeing America as a threat is no surprise.

Most Americans Back Foreign Aid—With Reform

Americans themselves draw a different conclusion. A June 2026 poll found that 72% of Americans believe foreign aid makes the country more secure, reinforcing the argument that leadership through fear rather than respect does not serve U.S. national-security interests. Respondents also agreed the system needs to work better: 81%—including 80% of Trump supporters—would prefer reforming foreign aid and strengthening safeguards rather than eliminating it.

That means, according to the author, the United States cannot simply rebuild the institutions created after World War II. It needs a new, modern approach—one that prioritizes underlying issues such as electricity access, uses new technology like AI chatbots, and leverages a broader set of actors than just the traditional rich countries.

Three Pillars: Energy, AI, and Shared Ownership

First, energy investments can produce gains across many humanitarian challenges. Through Mission 300, the Rockefeller Foundation and its partners have reached almost 100 million people in Africa with electricity access. Access to power allows girls to go to school at night, helps health clinics run better diagnostics, and lets small women-run businesses grow their revenue. Mission 300 is not a traditional aid program but an investment program: for every dollar invested, $15 of new investment runs alongside it. That transition from aid to investment, the piece explains, is why global electrification efforts increasingly focus on ensuring electricity access leads to and economic growth—a virtuous cycle that benefits both recipient and donor.

Second, new technology, including AI, can help communities compete in the modern economy if used responsibly. The Gates Foundation found a 16% jump in diagnostic accuracy at Penda Health clinics in Nairobi after giving clinicians an AI “second opinion” tool. AI and data analytics also hold tremendous potential to detect famine outbreaks before they happen—something humanitarian organizations have long hoped for.

Finally, the new approach must draw on the strengths of many different sectors. Recipient countries are themselves taking greater ownership: the “Accra Reset” is an ambitious effort, led by African countries, to transition away from aid toward country-driven investments in their health systems. The commentary also calls for the expertise and resources of the private sector, the credibility and reach of the public sector, and the first-mover advantage of philanthropies. Technology companies and civil society need to be at the table as well, shaping AI in a way that benefits everyone, while philanthropy can provide meaningful risk capital. For readers tracking whether these ideas move beyond commentary, the piece supplies its own measuring sticks: whether Mission 300 extends its reach past the roughly 100 million people already connected to power, whether the Accra Reset converts country leadership into funded health-system investments, and how the 9.4 million death projection evolves as funding decisions land.

'America Can Lead on This Again'

The data is clear, the author concludes: Americans want to do more. They want their country to stand for universal human dignity—not purely out of compassion, but because they understand the longstanding link between America's moral authority and its safety, security, and prosperity. They just want to do it better. “We have ideas ready to do just that—America can lead on this again,” the commentary states.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune. This story was originally featured on Fortune.com.