Gallup Poll says U.S.-born Pope Leo XIV is world's most popular figure
Aug. 5 (UPI) -- A new Gallup survey shows that Pope Leo XIV is the most popular global figure among 14 names in its poll with a "strongly negative" skew for Elon Musk and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The data released Tuesday by the Washington-based firm suggested the pope had a 57% favorability rating and 11% unfavorable in a +46 net-favorable score.
"That's unheard of in today's political climate," Christopher Hale, a Democratic Party figure and nonprofit leader, commented on social media.
It showed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in second at 52% favorability but far below the Roman Catholic Church leader with a 34% unfavorable rate.
Vermont's Independent-affiliated Sen. Bernie Sanders was third at a 49% favorable viewpoint in the Gallup Poll but with a 38% negative rating, too.
"The direction of the American people's sentiments bends towards Bernie," Faiz Shakir, a Sanders adviser and nonprofit newsroom chief, posted Tuesday morning on X.
A large number of survey participants left no opinion of French President Emmanuel Macron and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. AOC's 34% favorable rating was matched with a 38% unfavorable with Macron's own 30% favorability and downside of 31%.
Meanwhile, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sat near the middle of the survey resutls at 42% favorable, a 47% unfavorable but 3% of poll participants with no opinion of him.
At the bottom rung of the 14-name poll was ex-White House DOGE adviser Elon Musk with a 33% favorable but 61% negative unfavorable rating.
Musk was below Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at number 13 with only 29% of those in the survey having a favorable opinion of the far-right leader as the Gaza war continues with Hamas on top of a worsening humanitarian crisis among Palestinians.
The Gallup favorability rating poll indicated that newsmakers viewed more negative than positive included U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio with a -16 unfavorable rating, followed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at -12%.
But tied at an 11% unfavorably were rumored Democratic presidential candidate and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Vice President JD Vance and ex-U.S. President Joe Biden.
Media figure Bill Kristol, director of Defending Democracy Together, suggested the survey means Americans "haven't entirely lost our minds."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
19 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Putin says he hopes to meet Trump as the White House presses for a peace deal on Ukraine
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday he hopes to meet next week with U.S. President Donald Trump, possibly in the United Arab Emirates. The news came on the eve of a White House deadline for Moscow to show progress toward ending the 3-year-old war in Ukraine. Putin's foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov had said earlier a summit could possibly take place next week at a venue that has been decided 'in principle.' Ushakov brushed aside the possibility of Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy joining the summit, something the White House had said Trump was ready to consider. Putin has spurned Zelenskyy's previous offers of a meeting to clinch a breakthrough. 'We propose, first of all, to focus on preparing a bilateral meeting with Trump, and we consider it most important that this meeting be successful and productive,' Ushakov said, adding that U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff's suggestion of a meeting including Ukraine's leader 'was not specifically discussed.' Putin made the announcement in the Kremlin after his meeting with Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the president of the UAE. There was no immediate comment Thursday from the White House and it was unclear how the announcement of the meeting would affect Trump's Friday deadline for Russia to stop the killing or face heavy economic sanctions. Asked who initiated the meeting, Putin said that didn't matter and 'both sides expressed an interest.' Speaking of the possible involvement of Zelenskyy in future talks, Putin said he has mentioned several times that he wasn't against it, adding: 'It's a possibility, but certain conditions need to be created' for it to happen. Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund who met with Witkoff on Wednesday, said a Trump-Putin meeting would allow Moscow to 'clearly convey its position,' and he hoped a summit would include discussions on mutually beneficial economic issues, including joint investments in areas such as rare earth elements. The meeting would be the first U.S.-Russia summit since 2021, when former President Joe Biden met Putin in Geneva. It would be a significant milestone toward Trump's effort to end the war, although there's no guarantee it would stop the fighting since Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart on their conditions for peace. Next week is the target date for a summit, Ushakov said, while noting that such events take time to organize and no date is confirmed. The possible venue will be announced 'a little later,' he said. Months of U.S.-led efforts have yielded no progress on stopping Russia's invasion of its neighbor. The war has killed tens of thousands of troops on both sides as well as more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians, according to the United Nations. Western officials have repeatedly accused Putin of stalling for time in peace negotiations to allow Russian forces time to capture more Ukrainian land. Putin previously has offered no concessions and will only accept a settlement on his terms. A meeting between Putin and Trump on the war would be a departure from the Biden administration's policy of 'nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine' — a key demand from Kyiv. At the start of his second term, Trump was conciliatory toward Putin, for whom he has long shown admiration, and even echoed some of his talking points on the war. But he recently has expressed increasing exasperation with Putin, criticizing the Kremlin leader for his unyielding stance on U.S.-led peace efforts, and has threatened Moscow with new sanctions. Zelenskyy said he planned calls with European leaders Thursday to discuss the latest developments amid a flurry of diplomatic activity. European countries must also be involved in finding a solution to the war on their own continent, he said on Telegram. 'Ukraine is not afraid of meetings and expects the same bold approach from the Russian side. It is time to end the war,' he added. A ceasefire and long-term security guarantees are priorities in potential negotiation with Russia, he said on social media. Securing a truce, deciding a format for a summit and providing assurances for Ukraine's future protection from invasion — a consideration that must involve the U.S. and Europe — are crucial aspects to address, Zelenskyy said. He noted that Russian strikes on civilians haven't eased off despite Trump publicly urging Putin to relent. A Russian attack Wednesday in the central Dnipro region killed four people and injured eight others, he said. A new Gallup poll published Thursday found that Ukrainians are increasingly eager for a settlement that ends the fight against Russia's invasion. The enthusiasm for a negotiated deal is a sharp reversal from 2022 — the year the war began — when Gallup found that about three-quarters of Ukrainians wanted to keep fighting until victory. Now only about one-quarter hold that view, with support for continuing the war declining steadily across all regions and demographic groups. The findings were based on samples of 1,000 or more respondents ages 15 and older living in Ukraine. Some territories under entrenched Russian control, representing about 10% of the population, were excluded from surveys conducted after 2022 due to lack of access. Since the start of the full-scale war, Russia's relentless pounding of urban areas behind the front line has killed more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians, according to the United Nations. On the 620-mile front line snaking from northeast to southeast Ukraine, where tens of thousands of troops on both sides have died, Russia's bigger army is slowly capturing more land. In the new Gallup survey, conducted in early July, about seven in 10 Ukrainians say their country should seek to negotiate a settlement as soon as possible. Zelenskyy last month renewed his offer to meet with Putin, but his overture was rebuffed. Most Ukrainians do not expect a lasting peace anytime soon, the poll found. Only about one-quarter say it's 'very' or 'somewhat' likely that active fighting will end within the next 12 months, while about seven in 10 think it's 'somewhat' or 'very' unlikely that active fighting will be over in the next year.
USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
Prince Harry speaks out after being cleared of bullying in Sentebale charity dispute
Prince Harry is speaking out after being cleared of bullying charges associated with his charitable leadership. Britain's charity regulator said Aug. 6 that it had found no evidence of bullying at a charity set up by Harry but criticized all parties for allowing a dispute to become public. In March, he stepped down as a patron of Sentebale, a philanthropic organization he set up to help young people with HIV and AIDS in Lesotho and Botswana, following a conflict between trustees and the chair of the board. The chair later accused Harry and others of bullying, racism and misogyny. "Unsurprisingly, the Commission makes no findings of wrongdoing in relation to" Harry, Sentebale's cofounder, a spokesperson for Harry said in a statement to USA TODAY. "They also found no evidence of widespread bullying, harassment or misogyny and misogynoir at the charity, as falsely claimed by the current Chair," the statement continued. "Despite all that, their report falls troublingly short in many regards, primarily the fact that the consequences of the current Chair's actions will not be borne by her − but by the children who rely on Sentebale's support." Duchess Meghan applauds Prince Harry for 'beautiful 24 hours' and birthday dinner "Sentebale has been a deeply personal and transformative mission for Prince Harry, established to serve some of the most vulnerable children in Lesotho and Botswana," the spokesperson added. "With the original mission of Sentebale firmly in mind – and in honour of the legacy he and Prince Seeiso began –The Duke of Sussex will now focus on finding new ways to continue supporting the children of Lesotho and Botswana.' In its report, Britain's Charity Commission said it found no evidence of "widespread or systemic bullying or harassment, including misogyny," but it said there had been weak governance. There was a lack of clarity about policies and roles, and no proper process to deal with internal complaints, it argued, issuing Sentebale with a regulatory action plan to address its concerns. "Sentebale's problems played out in the public eye, enabling a damaging dispute to harm the charity's reputation," Charity Commission CEO David Holdsworth said. Harry co-founded Sentebale in 2006 in honor of his mother, Princess Diana, nine years after she was killed in a Paris car crash. Sentebale means "forget-me-not" in the local language of Lesotho in southern Africa. Co-founder Prince Seeiso of Lesotho, as well as the board of trustees, joined Harry in leaving Sentebale in March following a leadership dispute with chair Sophie Chandauka, a Zimbabwe-born lawyer who has refused to step down and sued the charity in order to retain her position, according to the U.K.'s The Times. "Nearly 20 years ago, we founded Sentebale in honor of our mothers. Sentebale means 'forget-me-not' in Sesotho ... and it's what we've always promised for the young people we've served through this charity," Harry and Seeiso said in a joint statement obtained by United Kingdom news outlets Sky News and The Times at the time. The princes resigned "in support of and solidarity" with the board of trustees, who had acted in the best interests of the charity in asking the chair to step down, the joint statement said. "It is devastating that the relationship between the charity's trustees and the chair of the board broke down beyond repair, creating an untenable situation," the statement continued. In a statement shared with Reuters at the time, Chandauka said she would continue to perform her role. "There are people in this world who behave as though they are above the law and mistreat people, and then play the victim card and use the very press they disdain to harm people who have the courage to challenge their conduct," she said. She added that underlying the "victim narrative and fiction" that she said had been fed to the media was "the story of a woman who dared to blow the whistle about issues of poor governance, weak executive management, abuse of power, bullying, harassment, misogyny, misogynoir – and the cover-up that ensued." Harry, who lives in California with his wife, Duchess Meghan, and their two children, stopped working as a member of the royal family in 2020. He has been heavily involved in causes in Africa for many years and visited Nigeria last year. Contributing: Reuters; Taijuan Moorman, Anna Kaufman, USA TODAY
Fast Company
19 minutes ago
- Fast Company
The EPA plans to block limits on vehicle emissions. Will that stop the shift to EVs?
IMPACT The Environmental Protection Agency is looking to rescind the 'endangerment finding,' which says greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health. Customers have embraced electric vehicles; policy changes may decrease that interest but will not eliminate it. [Photo: Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images] BY The U.S. government is in full retreat from its efforts to make vehicles more fuel-efficient, which it has been waging, along with state governments, since the 1970s. The latest move came on July 29, 2025, when the Environmental Protection Agency said it planned to rescind its landmark 2009 decision, known as the ' endangerment finding,' that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. If that stands up in court and is not overruled by Congress, it would undo a key part of the long-standing effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. As a scholar of how vehicle emissions contribute to climate change, I know that the science behind the endangerment finding hasn't changed. If anything, the evidence has grown that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and threatening people's health and safety. Heat waves, flooding, sea-level rise and wildfires have only worsened in the decade and a half since the EPA's ruling. Regulations over the years have cut emissions from power generation, leaving transportation as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. The scientific community agrees that vehicle emissions are harmful and should be regulated. The public also agrees, and has indicated strong preferences for cars that pollute less, including both more efficient gas-burning vehicles and electric-powered ones. Consumers have also been drawn to electric vehicles thanks to other benefits such as performance, operation cost and innovative technologies. That is why I believe the EPA's move will not stop the public and commercial transition to electric vehicles, but it will make that shift harder, slower and more expensive for everyone. Putting carmakers in a bind The most recent EPA rule about vehicle emissions was finalized in 2024. It set emissions limits that can realistically only be met by a large-scale shift to electric vehicles. Over the past decade and a half, automakers have been building up their capability to produce electric vehicles to meet these fleet requirements, and a combination of regulations such as California's zero-emission-vehicle requirements have worked together to ensure customers can get their hands on EVs. The zero-emission-vehicle rules require automakers to produce EVs for the California market, which in turn make it easier for the companies to meet their efficiency and emissions targets from the federal government. These collectively pressure automakers to provide a steady supply of electric vehicles to consumers. The new EPA move would undo the 2024 EPA vehicle-emissions rule and other federal regulations that also limit emissions from vehicles, such as the heavy-duty vehicle emissions rule. The possibility of a regulatory reversal puts automakers into a state of uncertainty. Legal challenges to the EPA's shift are all but guaranteed, and the court process could take years. For companies making decade-long investment decisions, regulatory stability matters more than short-term politics. Disrupting that stability undermines business planning, erodes investor confidence and sends conflicting signals to consumers and suppliers alike. A slower roll The Trump administration has taken other steps to make electric vehicles less attractive to carmakers and consumers. The White House has already suspended key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act that provided tax credits for purchasing EVs and halted a US$5 billion investment in a nationwide network of charging stations. And Congress has retracted the federal waiver that allowed California to set its own, stricter emissions limits. In combination, these policies make it hard to buy and drive electric vehicles: Fewer, or no, financial incentives for consumers make the purchases more expensive, and fewer charging stations make travel planning more challenging. Overturning the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding would remove the legal basis for regulating climate pollution from vehicles altogether. But U.S. consumer interest in electric vehicles has been growing, and automakers have already made massive investments to produce electric vehicles and their associated components in the U.S. – such as Hyundai's EV factory in Georgia and Volkswagen's Battery Engineering Lab in Tennessee. Global markets, especially in Europe and China, are also moving decisively toward electrifying large proportions of the vehicles on the road. This move is helped in no small part due to aggressive regulation by their respective governments. The results speak for themselves: Sales of EVs in both the European Union and China have been growing rapidly. But the pace of change matters. A slower rollout of clean vehicles means more cumulative emissions, more climate damage and more harm to public health. The EPA's proposal seeks to slow the shift to electric vehicles, removing incentives and raising costs – even though the market has shown that cleaner vehicles are viable, the public has shown interest, and the science has never been clearer. But even such a major policy change can't stop the momentum of those trends. Alan Jenn is an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, at the University of California, Davis. The early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is Friday, September 5, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today.
