Only 4.3% of respondents still describe these institutions as trustworthy and dependable. A further 39.1% express just moderate confidence — a qualified trust that, combined with outright distrust, means 96% of respondents now hold some degree of reservation about the institutions built to anchor the post-war order.

International institutions derive their effectiveness from broad public confidence in their impartiality. When that confidence is this thin, it points to a legitimacy challenge rather than a passing mood — and it sets the baseline against which future Pulse surveys will track whether the erosion is cyclical or structural.

Positive, neutral, and unsure responses are essentially tied at 4.3% each — a rare degree of consensus in an otherwise divided survey. Respondents appear to read the "Trump effect" as more than disagreement with one leader: when the world's most influential power openly questions or selectively engages with international institutions, it creates permission for other states to do the same.

Over time, that dynamic risks weakening respect for international law, reducing compliance with multilateral rules, and accelerating the fragmentation of the global governance system this survey documents throughout.

Emerging powers are the next most likely candidate at 29%, while the United States (13%) and regional coalitions (14.5%) trail closely behind — essentially split. Rather than a single successor to the current order, respondents anticipate a diffusion of influence.

The absence of a dominant choice suggests people don't expect a straightforward handover from one hegemon to the next, but a more fluid, contested environment where power is dispersed among multiple actors without a universally accepted leader.

Together, multipolar and coalition-led futures account for close to four-fifths of all responses. Just 17.4% remain unsure, while a return to unipolarity (2.9%) draws only marginal support.

The post–Cold War unipolar moment, in the public's view, is ending — not in favour of a new single power, but of a system with multiple centres of influence and greater reliance on flexible coalitions.

Taken together, the five findings point to one conclusion: the challenge for global governance in the coming years is less about which power replaces the last one, and more about managing a world where power is increasingly diffused across multiple, uncoordinated actors — with public trust in the referee institutions already running low.