Change in US Gross Federal Debt by Presidency (1790-2026) | Chris Martz

Something happened in 1971.

55 years of bankruptcy fraud.

The Collapse of America's Constitutional Order | Jeffrey Sachs

A president stood at the UN and claimed the right to annihilate a civilization. Congress said nothing. That is the constitutional order collapsing in public. I shuddered then, and I shudder now that a president of the United States can stand at the podium of the UN General Assembly, speaking to world leaders in a language of annihilation of other countries and of sending them to hell. It was ghastly, unprecedented, totally disgusting, disgraceful for the United States. But it is also a measure of how broken the constitutional order of the United States is.

 » Like the worst tyrant or gangster imaginable. «

Annihilation as Presidential Language

Trump basically said, like a madman—which I think, arguably, he is—that he and he alone will decide the survival of Iran. He said that he has a big, big choice to make. Maybe Iran will be a great country. Maybe Iran will be annihilated. Maybe Trump will send it to hell. And not only was the language vulgar in a way that I certainly could never, in my lifetime, have imagined coming from a president of the United States or anybody standing at the UN podium—because what Trump said was odious and completely in violation of every religious, moral, ethical, and legal standard that we have in this world—it was also a measure of the brazen collapse of our Constitution.

Who Has the Power to Declare War?

Is there a political system where one man decides the fate of another civilization? Is that how the American system works? Of course, the answer is no. The Founding Fathers, who rebelled against a mad King George III, were very explicit in the Declaration of Independence, celebrated this year, 250 years after its issuance. We're in the 250th anniversary, one that Trump says is about our freedom. It was explicit that King George took on the authority to put the military above civil rule.

And when the Founding Fathers wrote the US Constitution, they specifically assigned the power to declare war not to the commander in chief, but solely and exclusively to the United States Congress—not by choice, not if they care about it or want to, not if they want to delegate it or not, but solely to Congress. Trump said yesterday he doesn't care what the public thinks. He doesn't care what the vote is. He says, 'It doesn't even cross my mind.' And earlier this year, when he was asked, 'Well, are there any limits on your power?' he thought about it and said, 'Yes, my morality, but it's my will. It's what I want to do. Otherwise, no, there are no other limits.'

When Congress Fails to Act

What did our Congress do? The majority party in both houses simply remained silent. Trump said he was going to have the difficult choice of whether to annihilate one of the most ancient civilizations in the world, 5,000 years old, twenty times older than the United States of America.

What did our Speaker of the House say? Nothing. What did our Senate majority leader say? Nothing. What did the members of the president's party in Congress say? Nothing. That is the institutional failure. Congress has the constitutional authority over war and the power of the purse. Yet when the president claims the unilateral authority to determine whether another country lives or dies, the institutions constitutionally empowered to check that authority remain silent.

The tens or hundreds of billions of dollars that Trump has wasted of American income in this flagrant war of whim—where is Congress to say, 'You have no authority whatsoever to spend that because only we can decide on the spending and only we can declare war'? This is worse than the Roman Empire. There was a Senate that actually still said something. Our Senate says nothing.

Beyond Partisanship

I am not partisan. And a Democratic president who dared to be as absolutely mad and deranged as this president would probably find subservience in that party too. So I'm not even making a partisan point. I'm making a point about the collapse of our constitutional order.

We are so broken that not only do we have a madman in power, but there is no respect for the constitutional limits on presidential power. The president can make statements, as he made yesterday, unprecedented in the chamber of the General Assembly in front of world leaders, speaking like the worst tyrant or gangster imaginable, and not a murmur from the Republican Party, which dominates the House and the Senate.

The Absence of Institutional Restraint

Have we come to a point where one man, who I happen to think is utterly incompetent, utterly sociopathic, actually—when people are killed under his order, not a moment of reflection or remorse when 150 schoolgirls are murdered, and he knows the truth. He says, ‘Yeah, the Iranians probably did it. We'll find out.' No, not any control at all in our system of government.

So, how I feel? I shudder at the last 24 hours, both at what the president said. It made my skin crawl. I was sitting there in the chamber listening to this madness. I mean, it really was psychopathic madness, speaking in this way, with a vulgarity that is unimaginable. But then I've shuddered since at the lack of response by the leaders—the majority leader of the US Senate, the Speaker of the House, Supreme Court justices, anybody—to say no. In our system of government, it's not one person who decides on the fate of another civilization.

The Grim Constitutional Question

We are a country, we say, first of all, of representation, and the American people are aghast at this. They oppose it overwhelmingly. They do not support this war of Netanyahu and Trump, which is a two-person war of murder and destruction and assassination of leaders of another country. They do not support it.

So this is the grim fact. It wasn't just the awful statements. That was my first reaction. But then I thought, what have we come to when one person can make a statement like this and then remain essentially unchallenged in the United States system of government? Annihilation is not diplomacy. Congressional silence is not restraint. A constitutional republic cannot survive if one man claims the power to decide whether another civilization lives or dies.

 

Quoted from:

Jeffrey Sachs (September 23, 2026) - Reaction to Trump's UN Speech, and what Lies Netanyahu Will Tell the UN.

Jeffrey D. Sachs (b. 1954) is an American economist, professor, and author specializing in sustainable development, global economics, and international policy. He is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, has advised governments and international organizations, and served as a special advisor to UN Secretaries-General. A 2011 Economist survey named Sachs, Bernanke, and Minsky among the decade's most influential economists.

Bloated American Fuehrer In Trouble | Grotesque UNGA Nazi-Speech Backfires

 » $atanyahu gave me a golden pager, and said I was the big boss! «

 

» You didn't tell me these were the same Persians who beat the Romans! «

 

» Saudis, Israelis, and Emiratis are all cowards! «

 

» Do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, or do I drive them into
hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations? «

The Great Satan's grotesque Nazi-speech before the world (UNGA, Sep 22, 2026).

 

Took out the trash. Thanks, Iran.

 

See also:
Lt. Col. Daniel Davis (September 22, 2026) - Trump Humiliates America at the UN. (video)
Lt. Col. Daniel Davis (September 22, 2026) - Trump Making America a Global Outcast. (video)

Refilling America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve

 

 Chupóptero.

 

» THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY! «

Bombing. Killing. Hijacking. Looting. Intimidation.

Triumphs of the Orange Ape.

September 4, 2026: The Orange Ape dismisses his six-month war

against Iran as "small potatoes," saying, "It’s not a big thing:

We got Venezuela."

» Trump's dementia is growing, fueled by his excessive narcissism and megalomania. He won't listen to anyone anymore. And the two people who are running the United States government right now are the deputy chief of staff for policy, Stephen Miller, and the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought. That's about as dangerous a situation as you can imagine. The budget director doesn't believe in the Constitution, and the other fellow—it's hard for me to come up with the words adequately to describe his understanding of government. The people who ran Germany in the 1930s come to mind. « — Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, September 4, 2026.

 Quem Deus vult perdere dementat.

  

See also:
Ron Aledo (January 4, 2026) - US Decapitation Operation "Absolute Resolve" in Venezuela.

Jeffrey Currie (July 29, 2026) - Lose Hormuz, Lose the Dollar, Lose Hegemony: Game Over.

SCMP (August 29, 2026) - Trump says US has deal with Venezuela

for control of 65 billion barrels of oil reserves.

Captain Obvious of the Euro-Titanic | Laura Ru

On August 27, at a business forum in Paris, Führerin Ursula von der Leyen stated the obvious: the former advantages of the European economy have all disappeared. The European economic model, she explained, had rested on several pillars: cheap imported energy from Russia, open global trade, growing access to the Chinese market, US strategic protection, and Western technological leadership.

Clearly batting for a team demanding Europe throw itself off the cliff.

 

What von der Leyen chose not to mention was that these advantages did not disappear by accident. They were systematically destroyed by the very institution she leads, through sanctions that severed energy and economic ties with Russia, a trade war against China, and regulatory overreach that suffocated European industry.

Russian officials have watched Europe's self-inflicted wounds with a mixture of bewilderment and dark amusement. Maria Zakharova, the official spokesperson for Russia's Foreign Ministry, responded to von der Leyen's confession with a single, devastating epithet: "Captain Obvious of the Euro-Titanic." From Beijing, the critique is no less damning. Chinese analysts have watched Europe's protectionist turn with growing frustration, arguing that the EU is destroying the very thing it claims to protect: its own industrial competitiveness.

The EU's share of global GDP has plummeted from 30% in 2008 to just 17% in 2025—a decline three times faster than that of China's Qing Dynasty during its collapse. And as one Chinese commentator put it, while the Qing fell to foreign invasion, Europe's decline is "self-inflicted, purely something Europe has brought upon itself."

It is, in the words of one Chinese analyst, "locking protectionism directly into its economic and trade policy system." European decision-makers, Chinese commentators argue, have lost touch with basic economic reality. They are absolutely right. This is a systemic crisis that permeates Europe's decision-making circles. Both Moscow and Beijing see the same tragic irony. Europe has spent years lecturing the world about rules and order, about strategic autonomy and economic resilience. Yet in its rush to punish Russia and contain China, it has torn down the very foundations of its own prosperity.

In Paris, the Führerin zeroed in on Europe's €10 trillion in household bank deposits, branding them "lazy" (paresseuse) capital that must be forced "to the service of European companies" through her Savings and Investment Union. Explicit plan: securitize them, supervise them. Coming for your savings, Europe.

Europe's energy prices are now two to three times higher than in the US and China. Its industrial base, once the envy of the world, is bleeding jobs and capacity. Its share of global markets continues to shrink. And its leaders, having created the crisis with their own hands, can only stand by and admit that the old model is gone. They are clearly batting for another team, one that demands Europe throw itself off the cliff.

 

Reference:
Laura Ru (August 30, 2026) - Europe's Self-Inflicted Collapse.  

Laura Ru (pen name of Laura Ruggeri) is a Milan-born Italian independent researcher, writer, and geopolitical analyst based in Hong Kong since 1997. A former academic in media and cultural studies, she focuses on multipolarity, international relations, US foreign policy, China–EU relations, and European political economy. She publishes long-form essays and commentary on  Substack, Medium, and Telegram.

See also:
Lawrence Wilkerson (August 28, 2026) - CIA, MI6, and Mossad Own Europe's Political Class.

US Treasury Secretary Bessent: "Sanctions Could Disrupt Global Finance!"

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent outlined "Operation Economic Outcast," a phased sanctions campaign targeting Iran’s cryptocurrency, technology, gold, aviation, and shipping sectors, while warning third countries to cut ties with Tehran or risk losing access to the US dollar. 

  

 Currency Collapse Indicator Model: US 2026 worse than Venezuela 2017. Ready for shock therapy?

» Scott Bessent looks to be intentionally crashing the $. I studied currency collapses and found that there were  7 indicators that preceded every major currency collapse in modern history. I then measured the US dollar against those 7. And as of right now, based on what Scott Bessent did last week, we have hit all 7 indicators. No country in modern history has met all 7 and avoided a currency collapse. None. And this doesn't look to be happening to us, it looks to be being done to us, by the people who swore an oath to prevent it. And they are getting rich while they do it. «

Scott Bessent—The Fox in the Henhouse.

He warned that "sanctions could disrupt global finance," arguing that a gradual approach gives nations time to end their dealings with Tehran and avoid broader financial disruption. His remarks drew mixed reactions, ranging from claims that they amounted to an "empire-level economic terrorist" admission to interpretations that they were simply a rhetorical push for compliance, fueling memes and debate over the global impact of sanctions.

» Why would I want to blow up the global financial system? «

Bessent's recent doubling of bond buybacks and sanctions have been cited as potential warning signs, alongside indicators such as high debt-to-GDP, declining reserves, and political interference, with charts comparing the US to historical cases. 

 

 "Let them eat white bread!"

The Reign of the Orange Ape—certainly one for the history books.

 

The US Dollar System.

 

Reactions split between alarm over a potential dollar squeeze—fueled by China's reduced Treasury holdings and increased gold purchases—and pushback emphasizing the dollar’s unique reserve-currency status and the subjectivity of such models. Markets have reflected the debate, with a weaker dollar coinciding with gains in gold and Bitcoin as concerns persist over the official $40 trillion national debt.

 

You don't grow your way out of debt when 

debt is outrunning growth every single year. 

 

Jerome Powell in February 2024, in a 60 Minutes interview

—and still not arrested... 'cause it's the land of the free.

 

Warsh will inflate the US debt away. It was clear

in February 2026... and it should be clearer now.  

 

Well, that official US national-debt number—$40 trillion—is a straight-up lie. The US government uses accounting rules that would get every CEO and entrepreneur arrested. Unfunded Social Security and Medicare promises over the next 75 years: more than $400 trillion. None of it is on the government's headline balance sheet. A public company would be required to recognize future obligations. Washington simply doesn't. And when promises can't be paid honestly, there's always another way to settle the bill: Create the money. Inflate the currency. Make everyone else pay. The $40 trillion isn't the whole bill. It's the number this giga-corrupt criminal regime in Washington chooses to put on the books—and Americans and the rest of the world are expected to pretend the other $400+ trillion of this Ponzi scheme doesn't exist. Inflation is a tax. Seigniorage is fraud. Americans, make these criminals economic outcasts. 

 

See also:

Karl W. Miller (August 26, 2026) - Global Diesel Breakdown: Energy shock will move through fertilizer into food supply.
Michael Hudson (August 20, 2026) - Why Time Is on Iran, Russia and China's Side.

Alex Krainer (August 18, 2026) - Japan's Yen Collapse Threatens to Drag the US Down With It.

Pepe Escobar (July 30, 2026) - Iran's Methodical Gutting of US Power in West Asia. 

Foad Izadi (July 29, 2026) - "Iran Will Make Sure the US Economy Is Destroyed." .

 

Why Time Is on Iran, Russia and China's Side | Michael Hudson

Time is on the side of Iran, Russia, and China and increasingly works against the US and its allies. The longer the confrontation persists, the greater the pressure on highly indebted Western economies. As in Russia's past wars against Napoleon and Germany, the decisive advantage need not come from military strength alone, but from an external force that steadily erodes the enemy's capacity to sustain the conflict. Today, that force is the global financial and economic system.

"General Winter"—Russia's eternal ally against her enemies.

The US has contained the oil price shock by releasing oil from its strategic petroleum reserves and encouraging other countries to do the same, despite the major disruption to Persian Gulf exports. But this buys time, and only by depleting reserves and leaving less room for further intervention. The stakes are high because higher energy prices quickly feed into diesel, aviation fuel, fertilizer, transportation, and food costs. With the US midterm elections approaching, Washington is therefore racing the clock to contain prices as its economic buffers diminish.

Weaponizing Survival: Energy, Food, and Sovereign Debt Pressure

Iran's strategic advantage is to avoid escalation while letting economic pressure accumulate. A similar dynamic is developing around Russia and Ukraine, where disruptions to grain exports risk compounding the energy shock. About 27% of global grain trade moves through the Black Sea; Ukraine's harvest is coming in while warehouses are full, and Russian attacks on shipping and ports threaten both incoming supplies and outgoing grain. Much of Ukraine's grain normally goes to Europe, leaving Europe vulnerable to simultaneous fertilizer, food, and energy-price shocks.

 

Asymmetric warfare against Western full-spectrum aggression:

wrecking the enemy through food, energy, and debt.

The crisis need not involve major military escalation because the US and Europe are already too financially stretched to absorb a sustained increase in energy costs without wider economic damage. Higher fuel prices raise transportation, food distribution, and production costs; industries operating on thin margins can become unprofitable; and higher inflation puts upward pressure on interest rates. The resulting pressure spreads to agriculture, trucking, and the movement of crops, with particularly severe effects in the West, among US allies, and across developing economies in Asia and the Global South.

Base, Apex, and Anchor of Primakov's RIC Triangle 2.0.

 

Higher inflation and interest rates also raise the cost of servicing already-heavy debt burdens. Rising bond yields compound the problem in the US, Japan, and other highly indebted economies, while vulnerabilities associated with Japan's currency and carry trade expose the limits of available policy responses. The fundamental vulnerability is therefore debt: governments must increasingly choose between supporting households and industry and servicing accumulated debt.

Sanctions Threaten America's Financial Power 

This pressure also threatens the financial system that has enabled the US to exercise global power for decades. Washington has relied not only on military force, but also on its control of the dollar, international payments, global banking, and the oil trade. By weaponizing sanctions against Iran and threatening Chinese, Asian, and other banks involved in Iranian oil transactions, the US is encouraging those same countries and institutions to reduce their dependence on the dollar. Financial coercion could therefore undermine one of America's principal instruments of power.

 

» We lie, we cheat, we steal. «

murder, slaughter, genocide: children, women, heads of state; weapon, drug, organ, child

trafficking; well poisoning; pedophilia; hijacking; torturing; counterfeiting; looting; piracy; bribery...

 

The oil trade is particularly important because Persian Gulf and OPEC oil have long been key channels of US financial influence. Oil revenues recycled through US banks, dollar assets, and the American financial system have reinforced the dollar's central position. Driving oil producers, buyers, and financial institutions away from that system therefore risks undermining the very mechanism Washington has used as a global economic choke point.  

 

Trump offered billions to Iran's military. 
Iran: "Leave before it's too late!"

Iran's strategy exploits this contradiction. If its own oil exports are blocked by sanctions and trade restrictions, the implicit threat is that broader oil exports may also be disrupted, forcing other countries to choose between accepting higher energy costs and resisting the sanctions regime. Iran cannot defeat the US militarily, even though it can attack US bases in the Middle East; its leverage instead lies in imposing costs on the wider system and forcing other countries to decide how they will respond.

China and the Emerging Alternative

China is relatively well-positioned to withstand such pressure because of its large oil reserves, coal resources, and extensive investment in solar power and other energy alternatives. The broader question is how China, Russia, Iran, Asia, and the Global South will respond if continued US sanctions keep driving up energy and commodity prices. Their incentive will be to develop mechanisms that insulate their trade from unilateral US financial coercion. 

Zhou Xiaochuan, Governor of the People's Bank of China, presenting his
landmark 2009 proposal, "Reform the International Monetary System," 
to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

Gold provides one possible reserve asset outside the dollar system. Countries have increasingly added to their gold reserves while maintaining relatively stable dollar holdings; the European Union now holds more reserves in gold than in dollars. China and Russia have also developed alternatives to Western payment infrastructure. China's and Russia's independent clearing systems reduce their reliance on SWIFT, while Iran has experimented with cryptocurrency payments despite the US seizure of Iranian cryptocurrency assets.  

 

The issue therefore goes beyond creating a BRICS currency. What is required is an alternative international architecture for payments, reserves, and lending, capable of financing trade without depending on the dollar, SWIFT, the IMF, or other Western institutions. China, because of its enormous financial reserves, is uniquely positioned to provide the financial capacity that such a system would require. Russia and Iran could contribute oil, with Russia also contributing grain.

The Cost of Dedollarization

Such a system could fundamentally reshape the post-1945 financial order. Countries facing rising energy, food, fertilizer, and chemical costs would increasingly face a choice between supporting domestic industry and households and servicing dollar-denominated debt. As balance-of-payments pressures intensify, governments would have to decide whether scarce resources should go toward subsidizing industry, protecting families from higher heating and food costs, or continuing to pay foreign creditors. The incentive to prioritize domestic stability would accelerate dedollarization and weaken the financial mechanisms through which Washington has historically exercised global influence.

More sanctions, guns, butter, servicing debt, or collapse?

 

China, Russia, and Iran could therefore form the foundation of an alternative monetary system: Iran contributing oil, Russia oil and grain, and China financial reserves. Such a system could remove or weaken several of the instruments of influence established after World War II to structure global trade and finance in America's interest, including control over the dollar, oil, food, and seaborne trade. 

Keynes's Alternative to the Dollar System

The alternative need not be another dominant national currency at all. The argument instead returns to John Maynard Keynes's 1944 proposal for an international clearing institution based on a supranational unit of account called the bancor. Keynes proposed a system designed to manage persistent international surpluses and deficits rather than forcing debtor countries into destructive austerity. The institution would manage intergovernmental debts, allowing countries with temporary imbalances to obtain temporary liquidity while preserving their capacity to become economically self-sufficient.

 

Keynes maybe wasn't all wrong.

The critical difference is that surplus countries would also share responsibility for global imbalances. Keynes argued that the persistent accumulation of surpluses and claims by creditor countries necessarily creates corresponding deficits elsewhere. If debts become so large that repayment requires destroying a debtor’s economy, those debts should be written down—and the corresponding creditor claims written down as well. The US rejected this approach in 1944 because it was then the dominant creditor and had little incentive to accept a system that could reduce its accumulated claims.

 

Keynes's proposal was shaped by the German reparations and transfer debates of the 1920s. His central argument was that a debtor cannot repay indefinitely by suppressing wages, transferring resources abroad, and selling its assets without destroying its own productive economy. A loan made without regard to the borrower’s ability to repay ultimately becomes a bad loan. The same logic, he argued, applies internationally: forcing debtors into permanent austerity can produce depression rather than repayment.

 

The proposed international institution would create an accounting unit based on a combination of gold and member currencies rather than a conventional national currency. It would manage international surpluses and deficits and provide liquidity for temporary imbalances. When accumulated claims became impossible to service without undermining a country’s productive capacity, the system would permit debt reduction rather than compel economic destruction.

China's Potential Role

China could potentially build such an international payments system around productive investment rather than creditor extraction. Its investments in ports, railways, infrastructure, and the Belt and Road Initiative could increase borrowers' productive capacity and ability to earn foreign exchange, enabling them to repay principal and interest rather than forcing them into austerity and privatization. The argument is that, unlike Western financial systems, China has the capacity to structure such financing primarily on geopolitical and developmental grounds rather than purely for financial returns or capital gains.

 

The central question is whether China itself could avoid becoming another creditor power with the capacity to weaponize its currency. The historical lesson, however, is that other countries did not necessarily expect the US to weaponize the dollar in the 1950s and 1960s, yet it eventually did. The same concern could apply to the yuan. The proposed solution, however, is not simply to substitute one national currency for another, but to create an international clearing mechanism that limits any single country's ability to accumulate unlimited financial power.

The End of the Post-1945 Order

The broader conclusion is that the post-1945 financial order may be approaching a structural break. The present conflict is no longer simply a military conflict; it is increasingly a contest between competing economic systems: a creditor-driven and highly financialized model and an industrial, state-directed model represented by China and parts of Asia. The existing system may not contain mechanisms capable of managing this transition. Instead, the world could fracture into parallel financial and economic systems, with the struggle over the future economic order ultimately displacing the narrower conception of a military or civilizational conflict.

Reference:

Michael Hudson (August 20, 2026) - Why Time Is on Iran, Russia and China's Side.

Lying to Oneself Means Losing Self-Respect | Esmaeil Baqaei

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei cited a passage from Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov" on X, saying it aptly describes how America’s extreme reliance on lies has corrupted its foreign policy toward Iran and the region to the point where it can no longer distinguish truth from falsehood.

This passage from Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov" aptly describes the situation in which the US system of governance and foreign policy regarding Iran and the region finds itself due to its extreme reliance on 'lies': 

» The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. «

The Brothers Karamazov
Fyodor Dostoevsky

2026 Global Favorability Flips: China Overtakes US | Pew Research Center

The Pew Research Center's "Spring 2026 Global Attitudes Survey" marks a clear inflection point. As stated in its July 15 report: "Views of China have improved in recent years while opinions of the US have worsened, to the point where China is now seen more positively than the US in most of 36 countries surveyed." Across the 20 countries tracked every year since 2023, the median favorable rating of the United States has fallen to 36 percent while China's has risen to 46 percent. The survey of 42,151 adults, conducted February 8–May 13, 2026, shows the reversal is no longer marginal.

 

2026 Updated Scatter Plot – Key Changes from Spring 2025: The Spring 2026 data shows a clear structural shift: The Top-Left "pro-US / negative China" cluster has shrunk. It is now mainly limited to Israel (still very high US favorability), Japan (China only 11%), South Korea, India, and Poland. The Bottom-Right "pro-China / negative or lower US" cluster has expanded dramatically and is now the dominant zone. Canada (China 44% / US 33%) and Mexico (China 59% / US 40%) have fully crossed into this quadrant. Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan (near 90% China), and many middle-income countries sit firmly here. A large group of European and other high-income countries have drifted downward (lower US) and rightward (higher China), filling the lower-middle and bottom-right areas. The old US-centric top-left concentration has eroded, while the pro-China bottom-right has become the new gravitational center of global public opinion.

A scatter of national favorability ratings now places the large majority of countries in the zone where China outranks the United States. The extremes are stark. In Pakistan, 90 percent hold a favorable view of China—a staggering +75-point advantage over the United States. Malaysia posts a +56-point gap, Indonesia +48, and several other Asia-Pacific and Middle Eastern publics show double-digit leads for China. At the opposite extreme, only 11 percent of Japanese adults view China favorably. The United States retains a clear edge in just six countries: India, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Israel (where 81 percent rate the US favorably), and Poland.

 You can choose your friends, not your neighbors.

The shift is driven by simultaneous movements in both directions. Pew notes that "China being assessed more positively than the US is a relatively recent shift in most countries surveyed. This reversal in favorability is often driven by shifting views of both superpowers: improving views of China coupled with worsening views of the US" Canada offers one of the cleanest illustrations: "a majority of Canadians (57%) had a positive view of the US in 2023, while 14% viewed China positively. In 2025, Canadians were equally favorable toward the US and China. Now, more Canadians have a favorable view of China (44%) than the US (33%)." Parallel reversals appear across much of Europe and Latin America. Americans' nearest neighbors—Canadians and Mexicans—"also view China more positively than the US." 

 

How people in 36 countries view the US and China
(5 who have favorable opinion of ...).

 

In many countries, the US-China favorability gap has reversed. 

Regional and demographic patterns sharpen the picture. Views of China are closely linked to national income: people in middle-income countries across Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and parts of South and Southeast Asia tend to hold far more positive opinions, while those in high-income European and East Asian nations remain more skeptical. Within the Asia-Pacific region itself the contrast is extreme—nine-in-ten Pakistanis see China favorably, compared with just 11 percent of Japanese adults. In Latin America, several publics that once clearly preferred the United States are now evenly split or lean toward China.

 

CNN: Global opinion for the US plummets by 79% since it

began its war on Iran. Only country hated more is Israel.  

 

Age divides reinforce the longer-term momentum. In nearly every country surveyed, adults under 35 express significantly more favorable views of China than those over 50. Even inside the United States, younger Americans are markedly less likely to hold "very unfavorable" opinions of China than the oldest generation. The generational gap appears consistently across high-income and middle-income publics alike, suggesting the current shift may deepen rather than reverse.

 
Confidence in the two presidents tracks the same regional and demographic contours. "While many people still lack confidence in Xi, positive views of him have become more widespread, and more overall now say they have confidence in Xi than in Trump." Across the continuously tracked countries, median confidence in Chinese President Xi Jinping now exceeds that in US President Donald Trump. In most European nations, Xi leads Trump by double-digit margins even though absolute confidence remains modest—the highest reading for Xi is just 37 percent in the United Kingdom. In Mexico the disparity is especially sharp: confidence in Trump sits near single digits while confidence in Xi is several times higher. Trump retains an edge mainly among China's immediate neighbors—India, Japan, and the Philippines.

 

POTUS 47—Wrecking Ball to the Empire.

 

In middle-income countries the contrast on foreign-policy roles is sharper still. "People in 17 middle-income countries raise more concerns about the United States' foreign policy than China's. A median of 75% say that the US interferes in the affairs of other countries a great deal or a fair amount, while 45% say the same of China. In nearly every country surveyed, more people see the US as an interferer than China." South Africa illustrates the practical consequence: 72 percent call China a reliable partner versus 46 percent for the United States, and the share saying China contributes to peace and stability has risen from 47 percent in 2023 to 64 percent in 2026. In Pakistan the reliability gap reaches 84 percent for China versus 36 percent for the United States; in the Philippines the reverse holds (81 percent versus 42 percent).

 
One residual American advantage remains on personal freedoms. "More say the US government respects the personal freedoms of its people than say the same of the Chinese government." Yet the gap is closing rapidly. "People in nearly every country surveyed have become less likely to say the US government respects its people's personal freedoms" since 2021. In Sweden the figure has plunged from 61 percent to 27 percent; drops of 25 points or more also registered in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, South Korea, and Spain. In Mexico the numbers have already flipped: roughly one-third say China respects personal freedoms while only 20 percent say the same of the United States.

 

» The reversal is no longer marginal. «

 

While "fortresses" of pro-American sentiment remain—Israel, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, India, and Poland—the Spring 2026 data show a world that has moved decisively from a US-led consensus toward a more fragmented reality. China's economic and diplomatic influence is increasingly welcomed, especially in middle-income regions and among younger cohorts. The extremes of the favorability map now run from 90 percent positive in Pakistan to 11 percent in Japan, with the United States holding majority favorability in only a handful of places.

 

Reference:
Pew Research Center (July 15, 2026) - People in many countries now view China more positively than the US.
Pew Research Center (July 15, 2026) - Views of China and Xi Are Improving Globally. 
Pew Research Center (June 23, 2026) - Trump Gets Negative Reviews Internationally as Fewer Say US Is a Reliable Partner.

See also:

Pew Research Center (July 15, 2025) - Views of the US have worsened while opinions of China have improved.