How did Trump's dishonesty impact public trust in government?

1. How the lies moved the needle: experimental evidence and attitudinal shifts

Controlled experimental studies found that exposure to public claims of election fraud reduced belief in electoral integrity and in elections’ ability to make government responsive, with effects concentrated among Trump supporters and others who approved of him, and these effects persisted even when corrective fact-checks were shown ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Institutional delegitimization: media, science, and government as targets

Scholars and policy analysts document that Trump’s repeated branding of the press as “fake news,” public disputes with scientists during COVID-19, and rhetorical attacks on agencies contributed to broader delegitimization of institutions people historically relied on for unbiased information, leaving Americans more vulnerable to confusion and risk during crises ^{[6] [7]}.

3. Normalizing anti-democratic rhetoric and widening acceptable behavior

Academic reviews argue Trump’s rhetoric widened what was considered acceptable presidential behavior—embracing anti-democratic “call-to-action” language and strategic distrust that scholars warn can threaten democratic norms and the legitimacy of government if left unchecked ^{[8] [9]}.

4. The partisan and asymmetric nature of the trust decline

Surveys show trust in government is highly partisan: while overall trust measures hit near-record lows compared with the late 20th century, Republicans’ trust moved up or down with Trump’s status and actions, and exposure to his claims had stronger effects on co-partisans—indicating dishonesty reshaped partisan confidence more than producing a uniform national collapse ^{[3] [5] [10]}.

5. Mechanisms: why lies stick and how they damage civic capacity

Researchers point to mechanisms beyond mere repetition: when political leaders promote distrust, they change information environments, erode shared facts, and reduce people’s belief that government will act in their interests—ultimately undermining the state’s ability to mobilize collective action, collect accurate data, or implement policy effectively ^{[1] [2] [7]}.

6. Countervailing explanations and long-run context

Trust was already declining for decades because of wars, scandals, economic perceptions, and institutional changes, so causal claims must be cautious: time-series work shows many factors drive trust, and some recent polling indicates fluctuations linked to political control and policy effects as well as rhetoric ^{[4] [11] [3]}. Moreover, some Republicans report higher trust in government when a Republican president governs—showing that partisan alignment can offset the corrosive effects of rhetoric for core supporters ^[5].

7. Political consequences and who benefits

Analysts note a strategic incentive: undermining trust in rival institutions benefits politicians who can then reframe losses as illegitimate or justify institutional overhaul—advantageous for actors seeking to consolidate power or promote sweeping administrative changes, and scholars warn this dynamic can entrench polarization and reduce consensus on basic facts ^{[12] [8]}.

8. Limits of available evidence and what remains uncertain

The literature robustly links exposure to Trump-era claims with reduced confidence in elections and institutions, but isolating long-term, nationwide causal magnitudes from other drivers (economy, historical scandals, media fragmentation) is difficult; existing studies combine experimental, survey, and historical analysis but cannot fully attribute every decline to one actor ^{[1] [4]}.