Last summer, the U.S. announced that it would withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) by the end of 2026, prompting a wave of speculation on which countries would fill its empty seats. China has been at the top of the list, given its economic power, growing role in global diplomacy, and investment and leadership in AI.
Speculation is now coming to fruition.
On April 3, UNESCO appointed Professor Qun Chen of China as the next Assistant Director-General for Education, who “brings more than 30 years of combined academic and executive leadership experience.” This is just one of many shifts likely to come in a changing world order that the U.S. has led for decades and is now choosing to abandon. From the beginning of Trump’s second term to January 2026, the U.S. has exited 66 international organizations that “no longer serve American interests.” This includes many U.N. institutions focused on education issues such as Education Cannot Wait, which ensures children caught in emergencies—like wars and natural disasters—maintain ongoing access to learning.
This blog provides a brief look at where the U.S. and China stand on soft power diplomacy, education spending, and AI regulation for young people, and what their varied approaches signal for the global consensus on education moving forward.
The US has moved from soft to hard power, while China has expanded soft power
The U.S. has been using soft power as a mechanism for diplomacy long before Harvard professor and policy expert Joseph Nye coined the term in the 1990s. As Nye described, soft power is “the ability to obtain preferred outcomes by attraction rather than coercion or payment,” and includes a range of diplomatic, educational, and cultural efforts to simultaneously shape a positive international image, build goodwill, and foster cooperation. For the U.S., these have included many educational initiatives like American Spaces that provide libraries and internet access around the world, international education exchanges, and global K-12 English language instruction efforts, to name a few.
Hard power, on the other hand, includes using force to achieve a desired outcome—like economic embargos and military operations. Under the current administration, experts claim, the U.S. is moving away from a soft power approach and toward a hard power one, with the withdrawal from international organizations representing one of the key moves in that transition.
China, conversely, has maintained a path of deliberate and sustained soft power initiatives in recent decades, promoting Chinese tourism, arts, and culture. Education has served a lead role in its soft power strategy. The most high-profile—and controversial—element of this strategy has been the expansion of China’s Confucius Institute (CI) network, often in partnership with universities. The Confucius Institutes now operate in over 160 countries including the U.S., though American presence was largely dismantled following 2018-2021 congressional concern around CI’s surveillance and influence. China also extended its reach into K-12 schools in the U.S. through a CI-affiliated program, though its reach was much smaller than that of CI.
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is China’s flagship soft-power vehicle, supporting infrastructure projects across countries in the Global South. The BRI has notable adjacent components that promote soft power through education. For example, the Alliance of National and International Science Organizations for the Belt and Road Regions supports scientific and technical capacity building in BRI countries, including scholarly exchange and educational training opportunities. China has also expanded international scholarship programs and built university partnerships across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, attracting young people and positioning itself as an emerging hub for advanced study.
The US is deprioritizing education while China ramps up
Domestic and foreign policy are often deeply connected. While the U.S. has retracted its diplomatic soft power approach, investment in domestic education and research has also waned. The Trump administration’s FY2026 budget blueprint called for 15% cuts to federal education spending, which the administration described as reflecting an agency “responsibly winding down.” Meanwhile, the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act created a federal private school voucher program, directing new tax expenditures towards private schooling when public education budgets are being cut. Federal research funding, historically a major revenue source for many of the nation’s institutions of higher education, has also been aggressively targeted for cuts over the past year.
These actions will not only ripple across American classrooms and lecture halls. They also diminish the attractiveness of pursuing higher education in the U.S. International students studying in American institutions are simultaneously one of the most tangible expressions of American soft power and one of the country’s largest exports. Rolling up the welcome mat has already hit U.S. university enrollment numbers: Chinese international student enrollment fell from over 372,000 in 2019-20 to nearly 266,000 students in 2024–25. As the U.S. pulls back its investment in education at home and signals hostility to scholars from abroad, it weakens its own institutions and cedes ground to competitors, notably China, who are actively building their soft power networks through educational exchange.
And China’s education moves are not merely foreign relations tactics. It is actively building out its domestic educational system in the hopes of someday challenging America’s dominance. China has steadily expanded its spending on public education over the last two decades, growing from less than 3% of GDP in 1998 to over 4% in 2020; the 4% benchmark is enshrined in national policy and actively monitored (the U.S. spends just over 5% of GDP on public education, though this varies across states). This 4% policy, essentially a dividend directed to public education resulting from economic growth, has allowed China to steadily expand investment in high-growth areas, including STEM specializations and vocational training, that benefit its workforce and build a middle class. Those investments appear to be compounding over time: Between 2021 and 2024 alone, China invested the equivalent of $539 billion in higher education from general public budgets, building what is now the world’s largest higher education system.
The US has avoided digital regulation for youth, while China moves to protect them
Digital regulation for young people, especially in the face of advances in AI capacity, is perhaps one of the biggest areas to watch as both countries’ policies continue to diverge. In the U.S., the debate on what to regulate and how much has been loud and largely unresolved. Many CEOs have been put in the hot seat for their actions (or lack thereof) to protect young users. Bipartisan legislation around online youth safety has stalled in the House despite sailing through the Senate in 2024. With federal action on AI governance for children apparently out of reach, fragmented state actions appear to be the most likely approach (despite Trump’s order to prevent it).
Meanwhile, China has moved with unusual decisiveness to protect children from digital threats. In April 2025, China’s Cyberspace Administration launched “minor mode”—a suite of requirements for mobile device settings giving parents greater control over their children’s online experience, including daily usage limits, a block between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., and content filters for age-inappropriate material. “Minor mode” follows a set of national regulations on the protection of minors in cyberspace, which targeted excessive online gaming. And in recent months, China has moved to restrict the use of AI companions and chatbots, or “anthropomorphic Al,” that simulate the personality of humans. Drawing red lines on AI safety is intended to combat addiction and other harms among both children and adult users.
The risks of retreating from global collaboration in the age of AI
When the U.S. formally leaves UNESCO on December 31, 2026, it leaves an important convening opportunity to share and learn from other countries. America’s go-it-alone approach does not match the reality of the moment, as AI is an unprecedented technology and knows no borders. UNESCO is a critical leader in thinking ahead about AI protections for children, youth, and societies and for establishing responsible frameworks to reap the benefits while keeping kids safe. As Professor Qun Chen takes on UNESCO education leadership, the emerging AI conversation will undoubtedly be informed by China’s experiences regulating tech.
The U.S. should not be afraid to learn from other countries—whether from China’s regulation of chatbot companions, the European Union’s legislation curtailing targeted advertising to minors, or Australia’s social media ban for under-16s. Nor should the U.S. be afraid to learn through convening forums like UNESCO how best to advance American education institutions. Careful global planning and consensus to weigh the risks and benefits of AI for kids can promote a safer environment for learning and development while AI expands its reach, as highlighted in a recent Brookings report. The global community missed the mark on designing social media responsibly for young people, and the impact on their learning, well-being, and other outcomes is concerning. It is vital to learn from the failed social media test.
The future of global education leadership
At the very moment the U.S. is undermining its domestic education infrastructure and retreating from participation in institutions like UNESCO, China is stepping into positions of global educational authority while continuing to invest heavily in its domestic school system. Professor Qun Chen’s appointment is not simply a reshuffling of institutional seats, but a symbolic reorientation of who shapes the global conversation about what education is for, who it serves, and how AI and technology fit into that vision.
Education is, by its very nature, a long game. The returns on educational investments are measured over decades and generations, not in election cycles or presidential terms. The choices being made now will shape who writes the rules of global learning. As UNESCO continues to plan the next steps for the Sustainable Development Goals education agenda after 2030, China will be positioned to play a vital role; the U.S. apparently will not.
