China Is Now Viewed More Favorably Than America

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.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 21:20

Not Giving The Pentagon $1.5 Trillion Is the 'Greatest Threat' Facing The US, Hegseth Claims

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, during a Congressional hearing on Tuesday, said a failure to appropriate $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon’s Fiscal Year 2027 (FY27) budget constitutes the “greatest threat” to US national security.

Hegseth, joined by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday to discuss the Trump administration’s request for an additional $87.6 billion in supplemental spending.

Hegseth before the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 21, 2026 (DoW)

Most of the money would go to the Pentagon, but approximately $11.1 billion would go to US farmers. The war with Iran has depleted Pentagon funding, and the shock to the oil economy will have a direct impact on the fertilizer market farmers depend on.

On Tuesday, Hegseth defended the supplemental funding and claimed it would be part of the Pentagon’s FY27 budget, not in addition to it. Congress has yet to approve the $1.5 trillion the Pentagon wants.

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted to authorize $1.15 trillion of the massive military budget, but the Senate has yet to approve it.

There is no guarantee the Republican-controlled Senate will sign off on the funding. Democrats have generally opposed the funding on party lines (only six democrats in the House voted for it) and even Republican senators have balked at the massive price tag.

Pete Hegseth: Not funding this department at $1.5 trillion is the greatest threat our nation faces. pic.twitter.com/j2AvDMdpzg

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 21, 2026

Hegseth characterized the full budgetary request as a "generational investment" and claimed the supplemental funding was of the utmost importance:

"As you know, we live in a dangerous world that requires bold and swift action. Hence, this supplemental request for fiscal year 2026. This request is an urgent, necessary injection of resources to address the immediate needs of our department," he said.

The "immediate needs" refers to the ongoing war with Iran, which analysts believe has cost far more than the Pentagon is willing to admit.

On Tuesday, Hegseth told Senators the war has cost approximately $37.5 billion thus far. Credible independent analysis, however, suggests the cost could already be north of $100 billion, a number much closer to the supplemental money the White House has requested.

The Pentagon wants more money than the US spent in all of World War 2 https://t.co/q6nxT8axWK

— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) July 22, 2026

Unprecedented budget ask amid a 'war of choice'...

CNN split screen comparison of what Hegseth was saying months ago on the Iran War and what he said today. pic.twitter.com/YUEBfKsKIU

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 22, 2026

Regardless of the true cost of the war, Hegseth’s commitment to the $1.5 trillion funding target tracks typical military bureaucratic logic, and it marks a major boost in military spending, a nearly 50% increase from this year’s more than $1 trillion military budget.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 20:55

From Porn Star To Politician: Amaranta Hank Sworn In To Colombia's Congress

A former adult film actress was sworn in as a Colombian senator on Monday, and she is vowing to fight for the rights of the country's adult-content creators.

Deyci Alejandra Omaña Ortiz, 33, who performed as Amaranta Hank before leaving the business, took her seat in Bogotá for the left-wing Historic Pact party, La Opinión reported. She won it as the 23rd name on the party's closed candidate list.

Villa del Rosario está presente en el Congreso de la República. Fue en el Templo Histórico donde se firmó la primera Constitución de la Gran Colombia, donde Simón Bolívar tomó posesión como Presidente y donde se abolió la esclavitud. También fue Villa del Rosario donde me crié,… pic.twitter.com/fx0gTLViB4

— Alejandra Omaña (@aleomanao) July 20, 2026

The former journalist turned adult performer turned politician was elected in March to represent the Norte de Santander region, and she is wasting no time. Her signature priority is guaranteeing social-security rights for adult performers, who she says are ripe for exploitation by unscrupulous companies and agencies.

"These women have been unprotected by the state because, due to misinformation, prejudice and double standards, no one has declared to regulate it," she said in a campaign video obtained by the Post.

This is not Omaña's first role in Colombian government. Before her election she served as a deputy minister in the Ministry of Equality under President Gustavo Petro, appointed alongside another former adult performer, Juan Carlos Florián - a pair of appointments that stirred considerable controversy within Petro's administration. Her Senate run, in other words, was a step up rather than a leap from nowhere.

Omaña, who entered the adult industry in 2017 and left two years later, has defended her decision to run despite her past. "My experience allowed me to understand inequality, the struggle for freedom and the popular economy, arguments that I now promise to bring directly into legislative debate," she said, according to the Post. "The problem is that society consumes adult films but denies us the possibility of speaking in spaces of power."

Her agenda extends past the industry that made her famous. Omaña has said she will also push for improved mental-health services and stronger measures to prevent sexual abuse, and has floated designating her home city of Cúcuta a special border, commercial and historic district. Born in Cúcuta and a working journalist until 2017, she has framed her arrival in the Senate as the start of a broader project.

"We can look for a different way of doing politics," she said. The Historic Pact, currently Colombia's strongest political force, won more than 4.4 million votes - 22.7 percent of the Senate ballot - and took 25 seats in the March elections that carried her into office.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 20:30

Over 148,000 Mail Ballots Rejected In California's Primary Election, Data Show

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

Election data that was provided by California state officials for last month's primary elections show that more than 148,000 mail-in ballots were rejected, an uptick of more than 40,000 from the 2024 primary.

Election workers conduct ballot tabulation at the Los Angeles County Ballot Processing Center during California's state primary election in the City of Industry, Calif., on June 2, 2026. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

All in all, 148,241 were rejected in the state's June 2 primary election, according to data released by the California Secretary of State's office, which manages elections. The figure represents 1.73 percent of all mail-in ballots.

According to the data released earlier this month, more than 93,000 mail-in ballots were rejected by officials because they arrived too late. Another 8,300 were rejected because there was no voter signature on the ballot, and nearly 44,000 were rejected due to a non-matching signature.

Meanwhile, some 580 weren't used because no photo ID was provided, more than 740 were rejected because the voter had already voted, around 640 were rejected because the ballot was missing from the envelope, and roughly 450 were flagged as having multiple ballots in each envelope, the election figures show.

The data provided by the office did not list the rejected ballots by party registration.

The rejection rates varied by county, with Tulare County having the highest rate at 3.52 percent. Alpine and Merced counties saw 3.36 percent rejection rates, according to the data. The lowest was reported in Placer County, with a 0.93 percent rejection rate.

Los Angeles County, the county with the highest population and most voters, reported a 1.34 percent rejection rate, while San Diego County saw a 1.37 percent rate, the figures show.

The 2026 primary rejection figures are up from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 mail ballots were tossed, representing a 1.56 percent increase, according to the California Secretary of State's office.

Kim Alexander, the head of the California Voter Foundation, told media outlets this week that ballot rejections during the primary election last month were largely due to them being mailed too late.

"Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count," Alexander told The Associated Press.

Following last month's primary, President Donald Trump criticized California's election system. At one point, he questioned results showing Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt falling to third place behind two Democrats.

"Not possible for Spencer Pratt to have lost the L.A. runoffs after the big lead he had," Trump wrote on social media at the time. "Rigged Elections!"

California Gov. Gavin Newsom's office has sought to counter claims made by Trump that elections are being mismanaged in the state, including a post issued on X last week.

"California law is clear: You MUST be a U.S. citizen to vote state and federal elections," the post said. "Voter fraud is EXTREMELY RARE - and almost always committed by U.S. citizens."

Newsom added that the Trump administration has "provided NO evidence to support" recent claims of non-citizens being registered to vote in California. It came as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said on July 17 that around 250,000 non-citizens were registered in New Jersey, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and California.

The Trump administration has sought to tighten rules around mail-in ballots, issuing an executive order that would create a voter list regarding who could get a mail-in ballot during elections that was blocked by a judge in late June. Trump has long said, especially in the lead-up to and after the 2020 election, that voting by mail leads to fraud and irregularities.

On Thursday, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers called on the U.S. Postal Service to address delays in the state in April.

"Hundreds of absentee ballots received by the Postal Service before Wisconsin's Spring Election were delivered after Election Day, preventing them from being counted," the two Democrats wrote to U.S. Postmaster General David Steiner.

The California Secretary of State's office did not respond to a request for comment on Friday.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 20:05

New York City Says This Rideshare App May Owe Millions In Unpaid Congestion Fees

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.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 19:40

The Manufactured 'Bipartisan' Push For An AI Kill Switch

Authored by Jordan Schachtel via American Greatness,

The AI Kill Switch Act, introduced Thursday by Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas), seeks to hand the government unprecedented authority to order private companies to throttle, suspend, or shut down products in "kill switch" fashion, purely on their own arbitrary determination, with fines up to $20 million a day. Behind this carefully staged rollout is a fanatical coalition that looks like a broad consensus, but it is mostly one funding network with an arsenal of astroturf organizations at its disposal.

The Lieu-Moran bill arrived with endorsements preloaded from five groups: the AI Policy Network, Americans for Responsible Innovation, ControlAI, the Future of Life Institute, and the Alliance for Secure AI. Five organizations may sound like a broad coalition, so let's pull the thread and explore the details.

Americans for Responsible Innovation is funded by Coefficient Giving. Coefficient Giving is the freshly rebranded Open Philanthropy, the vehicle for Facebook billionaire Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna's fortune and the central bank of the far-left Effective Altruism (EA) movement's AI doom apparatus. Dustin Moskovitz was one of the largest individual megadonors supporting Kamala Harris's 2024 presidential election effort, contributing roughly $38 million to the pro-Harris super PAC Future Forward (FF PAC). The Open Philanthropy Action Fund pumped $2.9 million into ARI. ARI's 501(c)(3) sister organization collected another $3 million in general support.

The Alliance for Secure AI is the group built to make all this palatable to the Right. It spent six figures on ads running on Fox News and Newsmax last summer, pitching AI fear to conservative audiences. Who pays for the conservative outreach? In May, the New York Times reported that the Alliance for Secure AI is funded by ... Coefficient Giving. Surprise! You will search its website for that disclosure in vain.

ControlAI, the third member, openly advocates an international prohibition on advanced AI development and swims in the same donor waters. The group's top leaders have been calling for a complete shutdown of AI development since the very early iterations of ChatGPT.

The Future of Life Institute, which has also received millions from Coefficient Giving, is an EA-aligned leftist nonprofit best known for its ruthless insistence that America must force industry to "pause AI" indefinitely.

The AI Policy Network (AIPN) is an AI doomer outfit that is supported by leftist tech bros in Silicon Valley, some of whom are longtime AI panic mongers and influential executives at Anthropic and OpenAI.

This power grab arrives on the heels of the OpenAI sandbox episode, in which the company itself reported a security breach that has not been independently verified. OpenAI has every incentive to inflate the dangers of its own product because a frightening "autonomous" AI is both a better marketing pitch and a better argument for the regulatory moat that keeps its future competitors out. Washington is now being asked to hand a cabinet secretary sweeping authority over private enterprise on the strength of an incident report written by the party that stands to benefit.

So the "broad coalition" is substantially one checkbook, belonging to a left-wing Silicon Valley billionaire, laundered through a series of organizations that act as window dressing for one agenda. This is not bipartisanship, but rather the lobbyist-concocted appearance of bipartisanship.

The bill empowers the Homeland Security secretary with a shutdown trigger that includes a loss-of-control scenario, defined to cover a model behaving contrary to instructions in "another high-stakes context." That phrase is defined nowhere. The company must comply immediately without recourse. Its petition for reconsideration, the statute says flatly, does not stay the order. If the secretary ignores the petition for five days, silence counts as a denial. Court review would, of course, come months later, long after the product went dark, the business was likely destroyed, and all of the customers went elsewhere. Do we really want to grant the government this power?

And the definitions of who is covered? Rewritten by the agency, by rule, every single year, guided by a factor list that ends with "such other factors as the secretary determines relevant." Try executing a successful business strategy when your legal exposure gets redefined annually by government bureaucrats.

Some frontier AI model companies are not yet protesting the bill, largely because this enormous compliance burden could potentially create a wall around the incumbents. The giants can absorb the lawyers, the audits, the whims, and the like. Startups that attempt to catch up could get obliterated in one fell swoop. This kind of regulation is deliberately priced at a level only the largest firms can bear. It is a moat with a safety label.

The AI doomer lobby wants its federal chokepoint, and some of its frontier lab collaborators get a licensing wall between themselves and their future competitors. Everyone in this somewhat complex coalition wins except the American innovators.

What Congress is being sold is a federal "kill switch" button for upstart private enterprise, wielded on undefined standards and immune to timely challenges; and it's all being pushed by a fake "movement" that is mostly one billionaire's philanthropic arm.

Jordan Schachtel is an independent journalist who covers AI, tech, and world politics, and he's the publisher of The Dossier on Substack.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 19:15

Forget Beef. This Protein Is Way Cheaper

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.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 18:50

Health Officials Urge States To End Mercury-Containing Dental Fillings

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Federal health officials on July 22 encouraged state Medicaid officials to stop covering dental fillings containing mercury.

Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. on Capitol Hill in Washington on April 22, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) sent letters to the Medicaid director in each state urging them to phase out mercury-containing dental fillings by restricting or ending state Medicaid coverage for dental amalgam, fillings that combine mercury and other materials to treat cavities.

"Americans should feel confident that the health care they receive is always working in their best interest," CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said in a statement.

"That's why we're urging state Medicaid programs to end the use of mercury-containing dental fillings. This is a straightforward and meaningful step that reflects our shared commitment to safe, higher quality care for all Americans and supports the Trump Administration's broader goal to Make America Healthy Again."

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. added: "Mercury has no place in the mouths of our children or in modern American health care. For decades, we have relied on a material that contains one of the world's most toxic heavy metals when safe, effective mercury-free alternatives are widely available. The Make America Healthy Again agenda means confronting outdated practices that needlessly expose Americans to toxic substances."

The letters to the state officials noted that the Indian Health Service, which provides healthcare to American Indians, announced in February that it would end the use of mercury-containing fillings by 2027, citing "health concerns regarding mercury exposure."

Researchers have found signs that amalgam can cause health problems, including higher mercury concentrations in the blood, and patients attributing health problems to the amalgam.

The Minamata Convention on Mercury, signed by the United States in 2013, advises countries to restrict the use of amalgam and identify alternatives, and some countries have already phased out the fillings.

Certain groups such as the American Dental Association say amalgam fillings are safe.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says there is limited data on long-term health outcomes of amalgam in young children, and advises that populations such as children under 6 may face a greater health risk due to mercury exposure.

Alternatives to amalgam fillings include composite resin, porcelain, and glass ionomer.

The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology says that composite fillings are as durable as amalgam and are the most frequently chosen alternative because the white coloring matches the teeth well, and the cost is moderate.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 18:25