CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Public opinion toward the world’s two leading powers has undergone a notable shift. Pew Research Center’s Spring 2026 Global Attitudes Survey reveals significant differences in how countries perceive China and the United States.

The visualization below, created by Visual Capitalist's Iswardi Ishak using Pew Research Center data, compares favorability toward both countries across 36 nations, showing where each holds the strongest public support and where opinions remain closely divided.

How the World Views the U.S. and China

The chart below plots favorable opinions of China and the U.S. using Pew Research Center’s Spring 2026 Global Attitudes Survey.

Regional differences are pronounced. Many countries in Africa, Southeast Asia, and parts of Latin America express more favorable views of China. The U.S. leads in nine countries: Brazil, Ghana, Hungary, India, Israel, Japan, the Philippines, Poland, and South Korea.

The Development Divide

The scatterplot reveals several broad clusters. Wealthier Western democracies generally remain skeptical of both countries, with Germany, France, Sweden, Australia, and the Netherlands posting relatively low favorability ratings for each.

Much of the developing world falls into the opposite quadrant, where China receives majority support while views of the U.S. lag behind. Pakistan stands out with a 90% favorable opinion of China versus 15% for the United States. Large gaps also appear in Malaysia (75% vs. 19%) and Indonesia (72% vs. 29%).

Several African countries, including Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria, express positive views of both powers. This suggests many respondents see value in maintaining relationships with each country rather than viewing them as mutually exclusive.

Why China’s Image Has Improved

China’s improving standing reflects both rising favorability toward Beijing and declining perceptions of the United States. Recent reporting indicates that this reversal has been especially pronounced among several longstanding U.S. partners, including Canada and countries across Europe.

Public opinion rarely hinges on a single issue. Analysts point to expanding Chinese trade and diplomatic engagement, alongside changing perceptions of U.S. foreign policy and reliability. As countries deepen economic ties with Beijing, trade has become an increasingly important factor in international relationships.

Coverage from the BBC and analysis from the Council on Foreign Relations also suggest that many countries are pursuing pragmatic relationships with both powers, balancing security partnerships with growing economic ties to China.

Soft Power Remains a Global Competition

Although China receives stronger favorability ratings across most countries surveyed, the results do not necessarily translate directly into geopolitical alignment.

Instead, the survey points to an increasingly multipolar world in which economic influence, trade, diplomacy, and public perception all contribute to global power. As China expands its international presence and the U.S. works to maintain longstanding alliances, competition between the two superpowers is increasingly measured not only in economic and military terms, but also through global public opinion.

How does public opinion compare with hard power? Explore The U.S. and China Account for 49% of Global Military Spending on the Voronoi app to see how the world’s two leading powers compare in defense spending.

New York City Council Majority Leader Shaun Abreu is calling on the MTA to investigate rideshare platform Empower, arguing the company may be sidestepping New York City's congestion pricing system while gaining an unfair advantage over licensed competitors like Uber, Lyft and the city's yellow taxi fleet, according to the NY Post..

The Post writes that cecause Empower does not hold a Taxi and Limousine Commission license, Abreu contends it has not been collecting the per-trip congestion charges that licensed for-hire vehicles are required to pass along to passengers, allowing the company to advertise lower fares.

According to Abreu, if Empower is facilitating as many as one million rides per month in New York City, the unpaid congestion fees could amount to tens of millions of dollars annually that would otherwise help fund the region's transit system. He has asked the MTA to determine how many Empower trips entered the congestion pricing zone without paying the required toll, calculate any missing revenue and pursue repayment if appropriate.

MTA Chairman Janno Lieber said the agency is already examining the issue and intends to recover any fees that should have been collected, saying companies should not be able to exploit regulatory loopholes.

Empower strongly disputes the accusations. The company says it has repeatedly offered to work with city officials to facilitate payment of any applicable taxes or congestion charges but claims those proposals were rejected. Empower maintains that it is not a traditional rideshare operator because drivers pay a monthly subscription fee to access its platform, set their own fares and keep the full amount paid by passengers, making the company a software marketplace rather than a transportation provider.

The controversy adds to Empower's broader legal challenges in New York. The city has already filed suit, alleging the company is effectively operating as an unlicensed rideshare service while avoiding the regulatory requirements and costs imposed on its competitors. Similar disputes have arisen in Washington, D.C., where courts previously ordered Empower to stop offering rides without proper authorization and later imposed millions of dollars in contempt penalties after the company continued operating.

Building on Bank of America's latest note, which cited Oklahoma State University agricultural economist Derrell Peel's warning that the US cattle cycle is unlikely to improve anytime soon, beef prices are poised to remain elevated through at least next year. But two competitively priced proteins that consumers can switch to today remain largely overlooked.

That overlooked protein is ground pork, with an average of $4.81 a pound in mid-June, compared with $7.95 for ground beef, while pork chops cost roughly one-third as much as beef steak, according to Bloomberg, citing NielsenIQ data.

Still, beef consumption is forecast at a 15-year high, underscoring how stubborn consumers are and how unwilling they are to trade down for their meats.

Processors including Smithfield Foods are responding with precut, marinated and ground-pork products designed to improve convenience and compete with beef and chicken.

Industry insiders see ground pork as the category's biggest opportunity, though ground beef's $17 billion in annual sales suggests any shift will be gradual.

"People don't want to risk something not tasting great when it comes down to it," said Reba Hatcher, chief commercial officer at meat subscription company ButcherBox, who the outlet cited. "Even if it's cheaper when you go to the checkout, it's not cheaper if you end up throwing it away or people end up hating it at the dinner table."

For readers wondering just how long beef prices will remain elevated, the BofA note provides a timeline for when the cattle cycle could turn upward. Spoiler alert: not anytime soon. Read report.

With beef prices unlikely to meaningfully ease anytime soon, the Beck Ranch Carnivore Trio in ZeroHedge Store lets readers stock the freezer with more affordable and premium chicken and pork while still keeping premium ground beef in the mix. 

Get yours here.

The US administration and Department of War has just reduced the total number of American service members killed during the Iran war from 18 to 14.

Removing the four most recent deaths, which occurred in Jordan and in Iraq last week, appears to be politically-driven as a way to keep official casualties lower related to President Trump's decision to go to war. That's what's being widely alleged anyway.

The NY Times, which reported the significant change, wrote that "Three military officials said that one reason behind the change was that the Trump administration decided to remove four service members killed this past weekend from the list — three in Jordan and one in northern Iraq — because their deaths occurred after President Trump declared a cease-fire in the war in April." 

The report lays out that—

• On Wednesday, the Pentagon reported on its casualties website that a total of 18 American service members had been killed during the war in Iran.
• By Thursday, the Defense Department had lowered that number, reporting that 14 American troops had been killed in the war.

The White House is being widely accused of using troop deaths to play cheap political tricks for the sake maintaining image, and ahead of the November midterms and as voters increasingly turn negative on the dragged-out war.

For example, some scathing commentary out of Rolling Stone says the following:

Soldiers die in war. But ever since the death toll in Vietnam broke a generation's appetite for war, the American public has been uniquely sensitive to casualty counts as a result of our military actions abroad.

We venerate fallen servicemembers as heroes, no matter how just the conflict they died in was. But now, Donald Trump's administration is reportedly trying to say that some deaths don't count.

On Thursday, the Pentagon's official roll of servicemember deaths as a result of the Iran war suddenly changed, with four names dropping off the list, bringing the total number from 18 down to 14. The New York Times reported that the change came as a result of a direct action, with the Trump administration declaring that four servicemembers who were killed last weekend at bases in Jordan and Iraq don't count toward the tally of deaths in the Iran conflict, as they occurred after he had declared the conflict to be at a ceasefire in late April.

This kind of paradoxical, absurdist logic is core to the administration's messaging on the Iran war. We are at war, but not technically at war, because there is a cease fire. However, neither side has ceased firing; four American soldiers just died. However, because there was a cease fire, their deaths cannot be attributed to the Iran war, which is not technically an active conflict, despite the conflict being very active.

Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesperson, on Thursday claimed on X that "the site errors on the Defense Casualty Analysis System were due to a temporary data disruption" and the "site anomalies are currently being resolved in coordination with the Military Services."

US defense officials explained that "their deaths occurred after Trump announced a ceasefire in the war in April."

This was after the Pentagon website that informs the public about the dead and wounded had clearly changed with no explanation. But the bottom line is that at the start of the week the four service members' deaths were listed under Operation Epic Fury but by Thursday their names were dropped. By close of Friday the website has remained uncorrected, displaying the lower number.