Airports once symbolized freedom; they are gateways to opportunity, mobility, and the promise of international connection. But in 2026, the face of this symbolism is shifting. In the U.S., entry increasingly feels like scrutiny. In China, it is increasingly becoming an invitation, which is surprisingly aligned with the very ideals this symbolism once embodied in the U.S.
In recent months, the U.S. has doubled down on restrictive immigration enforcement.
Amid a partial government shutdown caused by a funding stalemate affecting the Department of Homeland Security, the Trump administration expanded the deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents at multiple airports nationwide.
At the same time, visa policies have tightened dramatically. According to the U.S. Department of State, visa issuance has been paused or partially restricted for nationals from dozens of countries, building on earlier expansions of the travel ban that now affect more than 70 countries.
These policies are reshaping how the U.S. is perceived globally. Entry into America is no longer framed as access to opportunity but more as a negotiation with suspicion. The airport, once a site of excitement and possibility, increasingly becomes a space of anxiety for both domestic citizens and international travelers.
This series of new immigration and travel policies casts an obvious contrast with China’s post-pandemic strategy.
After years of strict zero-COVID policies that severely limited both domestic and international movement, China has pivoted toward reopening not through reforms to immigration and citizenship laws, but through tourism liberalization and revitalization.
Beginning in 2023, China gradually resumed visa-free travel. By 2024, it expanded unilateral visa-free entry to include countries such as Japan, Croatia, Montenegro, and other countries, allowing stays of up to 30 days. By mid 2025, transit visa policies were extended to allow up to 240 hours (10 days) visa-free entry for travelers from dozens of countries, covering more than 50 nations and multiple ports of entry. As of February 2026, citizens of France, Germany, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and other countries are allowed to visit China without a visa for a short visit of up to 30 days
China has not changed immigration or citizenship pathways. But it has done something strategically significant: it has made itself easier to visit, especially for countries that are traditionally closer to the U.S.
Visa policy can be seen as a form of soft power or as a potential source of soft power growth, with these narratives increasingly unfolding on social media.
With expanded visa-free policies, international creators have entered China to document fashion, street food, and even political topics such as infrastructure, affordability, and urban development. This type of content has reshaped global perceptions of China, especially among younger audiences. Even globally popular influencers with little prior exposure to Chinese influencers, like IShowSpeed, have generated millions of views by showcasing their experiences in China, amplifying curiosity and, in some cases, aspiration.
Meanwhile, global perceptions of the United States are moving in the opposite direction.
According to Ipsos, a global leader in market research and public opinion, a survey across 29 countries found that positive perceptions of U.S. global influence dropped sharply: from 59% in late 2024 to 46% within months. Morning Consult, a high-frequency, scientific polling firm, conducted a global tracking survey in 2025 that further indicated that China’s favorability ratings had, for the first time in years, surpassed those of the United States in several regions.
These shifts in international image cannot be attributed to visa policy alone, but they are not unrelated.
Immigration and tourism policies operate as signals of national identity. When the U.S. tightens its borders under the banner of “America First,” it reframes itself more as exclusionary. When China opens its doors to short-term visitors, it reframes itself as accessible, modern, and confident. This creates an interesting reversal.
For decades, the U.S. cultivated its image as the “land of opportunity,” a place defined by openness and aspiration. Today, increasingly restrictive immigration policies undermine that narrative and weaken the national image. The harder it becomes to enter or move within the U.S., the more its foundational ideology of freedom erodes.
At the same time, China, without fundamentally changing its broader immigration system, is focusing on controlled openness to reshape its global image. The appeal is not necessarily always about ideological endorsement, but rather about a sense of curiosity: efficient infrastructure, vibrant third places, strong urban development, and a perception of forward momentum.
What people express online is not always admiration; it can develop into comparison. And comparison is powerful in geopolitics.
When travelers document seamless high-speed rail in China, they are not just praising China; they are also implicitly (or explicitly) questioning the United States. When influencers highlight affordability and technological convenience abroad, they simultaneously expose domestic shortcomings.
Soft power, in this sense, is not just about showcasing strength; it is about creating contrast.
This is where the U.S. faces challenges. President Trump ran on “no war” and affordability in his 2024 presidential campaign, claiming to prioritize domestic interests. However, this approach has produced unintended global consequences. Restrictive immigration policies, combined with visible domestic tensions, have contributed to a growing perception of instability. Domestic governance and international reputation are not separate but intertwined.
The politics of entry is, ultimately, the politics of public perception. In a globalized, digital world, these messages travel faster than ever. The question is no longer just who controls entry, but who controls the narrative that entry creates.
If American democracy is defined not only by its ideals but by how they are experienced by the people in real life, especially those at the country’s borders, then the U.S. must reconsider what its policies communicate to the public and, more importantly, what it would mean to restore entry as the openness that is central to American democracy.