Eh. There's definitely a move in English (or at least the United States) in many quarters to move closer to native-language spellings, pronunciations, whatever.

Eh. There's definitely a move in English (or at least the United States) in many quarters to move closer to native-language spellings, pronunciations, whatever. In parallel there's a move of countries to request or demand changes in how they're talked about: (see for example Kyiv, or Turkiye). Obviously the specific politics around the governmental moves get all tied up in these moves, too. I think it's fine, really. It's a bit odd that some countries get basically native names or romanizations thereof and some get borrowings from other languages, or Anglicized variants, so a drift toward more uniform treatment "feels" more logical in a sense. It's not as if "Japan" is any more "English" than "Nihon" would be. In a similar vein, see the question of name ordering for countries whose native ordering differs from the typical Western order. Chinese names are almost always presented in native order in English (e.g., Xi Jinping). Korean names have shifted more recently in that direction (e.g., typical coverage of "Chan-wook Park" in the 2000s vs. "Bong Joon-ho" in the 2010s... or more directly, "Park Chan-wook" now). Japanese names are almost always presented flipped to Western order, though the government has made some noise about pushing for press to use native order. This extends beyond Asia, of course, for example Hungarian names, which are also generally flipped for use in English.