Public confidence in the federal government has slid from its post-World War II peak to near-record lows, fundamentally altering how Americans view their national institutions and leaders. A recent Pew Research Center analysis, “Public Trust in Government: 1958-2025,” tracks this steady erosion across almost seventy years, showing how watershed moments-from Vietnam and Watergate to 9/11, the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic-have weakened the belief that Washington will “do the right thing.” The study maps which groups still place some trust in the federal government, who has largely turned away, and how partisanship, economic insecurity and recurring scandals have pushed the political system into a profound legitimacy crisis.
Polarization, presidents and plunging trust in Washington
What once functioned as a shared civic baseline-broad confidence in the federal government-has fractured into sharply divided partisan camps. Overall trust levels are now among the lowest ever recorded, and they swing dramatically with changes in political power.
Republicans and Democrats increasingly evaluate Washington’s performance through a partisan lens. Trust typically jumps among partisans when their own party controls the White House, only to collapse when the opposing party takes charge. Independents, by contrast, have become consistently wary, often reporting the least confidence in federal leaders and institutions.
These dynamics are reinforced by:
- Highly polarized media environments that deliver distinct partisan narratives.
- Combative campaign tactics that frame politics as existential, not deliberative.
- A zero-sum mindset in which one side’s gains are seen as the other’s losses.
As partisan divides deepen, several core democratic benchmarks are weakening alongside public trust. Across the ideological spectrum, Americans point to many of the same structural problems, even as they disagree about causes and solutions:
- Government responsiveness is widely perceived as skewed toward wealthy donors, corporations, and organized interests rather than ordinary residents.
- Transparency questions center on opaque legislative negotiations and agency rulemaking that appear to unfold out of public view.
- Election legitimacy has become especially contested, with competing stories about fraud, suppression and rule changes shaping how different groups interpret the same outcomes.
- Media coverage is often seen as partisan or sensational, hardening preexisting beliefs about Washington’s failures.
| Group | High Trust in Washington* | Key Driver of Skepticism |
|---|---|---|
| Republicans | Peaks during GOP administrations | Perceived regulatory overreach, rapid cultural change |
| Democrats | Higher under Democratic presidents | Economic inequality, threats to voting rights |
| Independents | Rarely report sustained high trust | Persistent gridlock, partisanship, lobbyist power |
*Patterns based on long-term polling trends, 1958-2025.
Six decades of shocks: wars, recessions and scandals reshape trust
Public trust in the federal government has never moved in a straight line; it has risen and fallen with crises that redefined what Americans expect from Washington. The optimism of the late 1950s and early 1960s-when majorities routinely voiced confidence in the federal government-was followed by a sequence of destabilizing events: the Vietnam War, violent conflicts over civil rights, the energy and inflation crises of the 1970s, and the Watergate scandal.
Each episode left a distinct scar on perceptions of competence, honesty, and fairness. By the early 1990s, a combination of economic recession, partisan brinkmanship, and anxiety about globalization further weakened already fragile trust. More recently, the 2008 financial collapse, the uneven recovery that followed, and the COVID-19 pandemic reinforced the view that Washington often reacts slowly and distributes help inequitably when emergencies hit.
Across generations, several recurring types of events consistently influence how people judge the federal government:
- Wars and foreign interventions that raise difficult questions about sacrifice, long-term strategy, and accountability for mistakes.
- Economic downturns that test whether federal policy is seen as both competent and fair to workers, small businesses and vulnerable households.
- Political scandals that fuel perceptions of corruption, self-dealing and disregard for ethical rules.
- Institutional breakdowns in areas such as public health, infrastructure and national security, where failures are highly visible and personally consequential.
| Period | Defining Shock | Trust Trend |
|---|---|---|
| 1970s | Vietnam & Watergate | Steep, sustained decline |
| Early 1990s | Recession & partisan conflict | Low and unstable |
| 2008-2010 | Global financial crisis | Short-lived bump, followed by renewed drop |
| 2020-2022 | Pandemic & intense polarization | Near historic lows |
According to Pew’s long-term series, only about two in ten Americans in recent years say they trust the federal government to do what is right “just about always” or “most of the time”-a stark contrast to the roughly three-quarters who expressed such trust in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Younger and more diverse Americans press for accountability and performance
Recent survey waves indicate that younger adults-especially those from racially and ethnically diverse communities-are among the strongest critics of federal institutions, setting them apart from the more deferential attitudes that often characterized older generations at similar ages.
Members of Gen Z and younger Millennials are more likely than their elders to describe the federal government as:
- inefficient in delivering services and implementing policy,
- heavily influenced by special interests and large donors, and
- slow to adapt to rapid social, economic and technological shifts.
This generation’s expectations are also more specific and data-driven. Younger Americans tend to insist that the federal government show concrete progress on high-salience issues such as climate change, criminal justice, student debt, housing affordability and voting access. They expect not only policy promises, but measurable outcomes backed by accessible data.
Digital tools have become central to how this cohort engages with public life. Social media platforms, online dashboards and independent data projects allow younger voters to track campaign pledges, follow legislative developments, and flag perceived broken promises in real time.
As their mistrust grows, calls for reform have become more pointed, with particular emphasis on ethics rules, campaign finance and direct collaboration with communities that feel overlooked by traditional politics. Common demands include:
- Stronger oversight of federal spending, contracting and procurement to curb waste and favoritism.
- Ethics and lobbying reforms designed to limit corporate and special-interest sway over policy.
- Expanded access to voting tools, including early voting, secure mail-in options and user-friendly registration.
- Real-time transparency around policy implementation and results, using public dashboards and open datasets.
| Group | Top Expectation | Main Concern |
|---|---|---|
| Gen Z | Rapid, evidence-based policy response | Lack of decisive action on climate and the environment |
| Young Millennials | Greater economic fairness and opportunity | Student debt burdens and high housing costs |
| Diverse young voters | Equal protection and fair treatment under the law | Policing, criminal justice and systemic bias |
Rebuilding trust: transparency, civic education and tangible policy results
Experts interviewed by Pew emphasize that recovering public trust will require sustained action rather than a single legislative “fix.” They point to a package of reforms centered on transparency, civic understanding and concrete policy outcomes that people can see in their daily lives.
1. Radical transparency in processes and spending
Researchers argue that governments at all levels need to clarify how decisions are made and how public money is allocated. Recommended steps include:
- Expanding open-data portals that publish contracts, grants and regulatory actions in accessible, machine-readable formats.
- Requiring timely disclosure of lobbying activities, meetings and conflicts of interest.
- Creating plain-language budget tools that allow residents to follow where tax dollars go, from federal agencies down to local projects.
2. Modern, inclusive civic education
Scholars and practitioners note that transparency alone can backfire if people do not have the background to interpret complex information. They therefore view civic education as a necessary counterpart to openness. This involves:
- Teaching how government works-and how to influence it-through digital content, community media and local forums, not just textbooks.
- Partnering with schools, libraries, colleges and nonprofits to build “democracy skills”, such as evaluating sources, understanding budgets, and tracking legislation.
- Designing programs that specifically reach younger and historically marginalized groups who often feel excluded from traditional civic channels.
As one analyst put it, transparency without context can heighten frustration; civic education serves as a “force multiplier” that helps residents use information to hold institutions accountable rather than simply deepen cynicism.
3. Visible, measurable policy wins
Strategists stress that most Americans are not waiting for sweeping constitutional changes. Instead, they are looking for focused improvements that signal government can solve practical problems. Examples include:
- Faster, simpler access to basic services-such as IDs, benefits and permits-through streamlined digital platforms and reduced paperwork.
- Targeted cost-of-living relief that is clearly explained, time-limited, and easy to claim.
- Local infrastructure upgrades-like repaired roads, safer water systems or upgraded broadband-that residents can observe and verify in their own communities.
- Independent ethics oversight with visible enforcement powers to address conflicts of interest and misconduct.
| Reform Area | Example Action | Expected Signal to Public |
|---|---|---|
| Transparency | Publish detailed, machine-readable contracts and grants online | “There are no hidden deals behind closed doors.” |
| Civic Education | Create nonpartisan local “democracy labs” in schools and communities | “You have the tools to shape public decisions.” |
| Targeted Policies | Set and publicly track timelines and milestones for major projects | “Promises come with deadlines and real follow-through.” |
Key Takeaways
The latest findings underline that distrust in government is not a momentary mood or a purely partisan reflex. It is now a structural feature of American political life, shaping what people believe Washington can realistically accomplish.
With faith in elected officials near historic lows and skepticism cutting across generational and demographic lines, policymakers confront a dual challenge: earning support for specific proposals while also rebuilding a broader sense of shared purpose that underpinned higher trust during earlier decades.
Whether the coming years bring further erosion or gradual recovery will depend on factors that extend well beyond any single election-ranging from institutional transparency and robust civic education to the perceived capacity of government to act effectively in crises. For now, Pew’s long-running data series suggests that the trust gap between the public and its leaders remains one of the most urgent and complex tests facing American democracy in the years ahead.
