Quark's

Exactly. That would be hard power.

This tracks with the usual definition in international relations.

e.g., International grant funding — whether to UN organizations like WHO and UNDP or directly to other countries and programs through US AID and its counterparts — is generally considered as important ‘soft power’ mechanisms. In principle, the recipients of the grants and loans are in control of their governance but as these are long term relationships, the donor countries have significant strategic influence.

This is why foreign affairs specialists have commented that, beyond the moral and ethical considerations in the elimination of US AID funding — and lesser contractions in international grants by other NATO donor countries shifting budgets to prioritize defence build ups — mean that the US and NATO donor countries are giving up soft power.

Meanwhile, China and the Saudis are reportedly gaining influence through direct and indirect investment, foreign aid grants and loans etc.