Government Capacity

Broken Trust in Government: Signals and Worst Case Scenarios

10.27.25 | 18 min read | Text by Loren DeJonge Schulman

American trust in government institutions is at historic lows. That’s a known known and a long term trend. But while experts are right to worry about the trajectory of such trust in public life, this diagnosis is broad and hard to rectify given the broad spectrum of roles the federal government plays in American life. Trust in government is not generic–the way Americans encounter and engage government systems can vary significantly. At a period where the federal government is undergoing significant changes in how it hires, buys, collects and organizes data, and delivers, deeper exploration of trust in these facets as worthwhile.  

At a recent workshop hosted by the Federation of American Scientists, we explored the nature of trust in specific government functions, the risk and implications of breaking trust in those systems, and how we’d known we were getting close to specific trust breaking points. The scenarios we developed were not only meant as cautionary tales, but to serve as reference foundations to plan against for any future reform efforts, should trust continue to decline generally or specifically. Experts considering reforms and improvements to key government functions may additionally need to take into consideration whether and how stakeholders will re-engage with low-trust systems, or how to grapple with second and third order effects of trust declines like growing non-governmental alternatives. For example, reforms to the federal talent management system could need to adapt to a world where Americans do not trust that civil service is a durable career path, or do not trust that hiring is nonpartisan. 

What do we know about trust in government and why does trust matter

Trust in government has been on a downward trend in not only the United States but many democracies worldwide. Citizens bring good reasons for their decreasing trust–government response to disasters, approaches to transparency and accountability, profound historic inequities, disparate beliefs on the role of government, and much more–and many government leaders take these trends seriously. Scholars have considered the consequences of low trust through many lenses, but the short version is the legitimacy of democracies relies on trust. Lower trust means less engagement with functions that government performs uniquely or drives, whether disaster response, weather warnings, federal benefits, security functions, public health, or independent data collection and analysis–and that lesser engagement means those functions work less well for everyone else. This has a cascading impact as democratic institutions weaken when government cannot, does not, or is not believed to deliver on expectations of its citizens.

Approach and Methods

The “Future of Trust” workshop at the Federation of American Scientists brought together government capacity experts to examine how trust operates within specific government functions, the risks and consequences of its erosion, and what it would take to rebuild. Recognizing that trust in government is not generic, participants explored how Americans’ varied encounters with federal systems (such as hiring and talent management, data collection and reliability, procurement, and customer service) shape their perceptions and engagement. The group considered potential first- and second-order impacts of declining trust, early indicators that key thresholds may be at risk, and strategies for either restoring trust or adapting to a new reality. The discussion was grounded in the context of significant federal changes in management functions and larger trends imparting them.

Despite breakouts into the four different functional areas, there were several common and intersecting attributes of possible broken trust worst case scenarios, including:

Overall, participants anticipated a cycle of declining trust, leading to a hollowing out of government capacity and expertise, which in turn would result in a failure to deliver essential services effectively, further eroding public trust and fostering widespread cynicism and disengagement. Sounds like something we should take a look at!

Workforce

What do we know about trust in the civil service?

The limited research available American’s understanding of and feelings about the federal civil service is complex. In 2024 surveys by the Partnership for Public Service, Americans demonstrate overwhelmingly strong beliefs in the importance of nonpartisan civil service our democracy, and that politicization of the civil service does harm to government effectiveness (even among those who support cuts to the Federal government). But feelings on federal workers themselves are split: just over half of of Americans belief their civil servants are competent and committed to helping “people like me.” In similar 2022 research, other positive qualities have a comparable breakdown (such as “hard-working” or “committed to public service” in research by the Partnership, and “great deal or a fair amount of confidence” in research by Pew). As a rule, however, views on federal workers are more positive than on the federal government itself. As for why federal workers choose to serve, the majority of Americans surveyed believed serving their communities was a key factor (57%)–but far more believed it was job security (77%). 

Based on recent and significant changes to policies around federal hiring and civil service protections, trends around politicization of the federal workforce, and the significant cuts made via reductions in force and other workforce shaping initiatives, we wanted to better understand things like:

Participants considered scenarios where trust in the civil service as an institution and employer improves significantly and where trust breaks down, and outlined specific attributes they would anticipate in both best and worst cases. For the worst case, participants were concerned about cascading effects on recruitment, performance, public perception, and the ability of government to function effectively.

What falling trust in the federal workforce may look like in practice

Trust is obviously a fungible and flexible concept, changing both based on context and individual experience–participants did not imagine a bright line between overarching trust and distrust. With that in mind, we considered key signals that might indicate that breakdowns in trust, or negative consequences from such, are growing more likely. These signals range from shifts in hiring patterns and workforce composition, to declines in service quality, to more visible public and political hostility toward civil servants. Together, they provide early warning signs that the relationship between the public and its professional government workforce is fraying. For example:

Procurement

What do we know about trust in government procurement?

There’s little explicit research on American views on the U.S. government as a trustworthy business partner, or its ability to effectively procure goods or services. One can take signals from things like participation in the federal market (generally competitive but with declines in both prime contractors and small businesses, and greater concentration in vendors) and attempts to shape its policies and procedures (active), but that only addresses specific trust audiences. Similarly, bid protest trends may be an indicator of views on the system; these have declined by 32% in the last decade. With close to three-quarters of a trillion dollars are spent on contracts annually–more than double federal worker compensation–American views on waste may be relevant. Partnership research says 85% of Americans believed the government to be “wasteful” in 2024, up 15 points from 2022, with 74% believing it is corrupt. These signals are concerning but not necessarily a clear critique of federal procurement. While these are weak signals, what is clear is that procurement can be a significant vehicle for trust building: transparency, integrity, fair decision-making, and effective public outcomes from procurements are public mechanisms with the capacity to demonstrate accountability and trustworthiness. 

Procurement processes, outcomes, and participants are always evolving, but recent trends (growth in AI) and events (contract cancellations and overall greater scrutiny early in the Administration, alongside the well-received streamlining Revolutionary FAR overhaul) made us want to better understand the implications of changes to procurement trust landscape. What if, for example, American businesses’ trust in the reliability of government contract agreements shifts? What impacts does that have on the federal government’s ability to buy and outsource?  

Participants considered scenarios where trust in the federal procurement improves significantly and where trust breaks down, and outlined specific attributes they would anticipate in both best and worst cases. In more negative scenarios, participants projected the risk that procurement systems would be hollowed out, captured by private interests, or stripped of the government expertise, fairness, and accountability needed to serve the public interest. Some imagined outcomes:

What falling trust in federal procurement may look like in practice

We also considered key signals that might indicate that breakdowns in trust, or negative consequences from such, are growing more likely. Participants suggested monitoring things like:

Customer Experience (CX)

What do we know about trust in government services?

Successive administrations have sought to increase and rebuild trust in the federal government through improvements in federal services. These efforts have born out: several measures have shown positive public views of federal services (e.g., the Partnership’s research finds around 75% or more are satisfied with individual services), and in 2024, the American Customer Satisfaction Index showed citizen satisfaction with U.S. federal government services reaches the highest level since 2017, with recent growth surpassing private counterparts. One example: the IRS’s Direct File free tax filing service. 

Federal service providers with the greater number of customer interactions are required to collect and monitor post-transaction customer feedback, including views on trust and drivers of trust, and for a period these were shared in a public dashboard. Overall, about half of services reported that a significant majority of customers (75% or more) trusted the relevant agency, with primary drivers of such trust being service effectiveness and ease. Such data is used by agencies to evaluate and improve services, and across services to identify trends, risks and opportunities across common services. The Office of Management and Budget Customer Experience Team makes the strongest case why this work on trust matters in their explainer: 

When individuals feel high levels of trust, they are more likely to seek out information from the government, access services, and use benefits they are eligible for. To support the goal of increasing trust in service providers, and the government overall, HISPs (high impact service providers) are required to collect and report trust data, and use customer feedback to continuously improve services.

The current administration has not pursued the same emphasis on customer service yet, but has recognized it as a critical factor for agencies to prioritize in their reform initiatives and committed to eliminating waste and fraud from such programs. At the same time, they have cut or curtailed initiatives once aimed at improving trust, such as field office and contact center availability at the Social Security Administration, or free and streamlined tax filing services. With the clear link between trust and impact, we wanted to better understand implications of changes in trust to federal services, exploring questions like: what if Americans change their views on whether applications for benefits and services are adjudicated fairly? What if Americans believe that services will be sustainably and reliably available for themselves, but not for their communities?

Participants considered scenarios where trust in the federal services improves significantly and where trust breaks down, and outlined specific attributes they would anticipate in both best and worst cases. In more negative outcomes, participants projected that federal services would become fragmented, inequitable, and alienating—eroding participation, driving people toward alternative providers, and deepening the gap between public expectations and the government’s ability to deliver, with attributes like:

What falling trust in federal service delivery may look like in practice

We also considered key signals that might indicate that breakdowns in trust, or negative consequences from such, are growing more likely. Participants suggested monitoring things like:

These are indicators irrespective of performance, though may be linked to performance

These indicate lower performance 

Data

What do we know about trust in federal data?

One of the hallmarks of the extensive federal data and statistical apparatus is credibility. Government and economic institutions rely on data the federal government collects, analyzes, and publishes for decisionmaking from spanning interest rates to hurricane evacuations; public health institutions provide and rely on insights from the federal government for basic care to pandemic preparedness. The more than 300,000 data sets in the federal data ecosystem generally have few substitutes and underwrite, in some form, every sector in the country. With that mandate–and pressure–major federal statistical program have historically taken pains to both showcase and increase transparency in their methods, though not without criticism. 

Despite its import, trust in federal data systems are hard to measure–many Americans do not access them, or realize their ubiquity and relevance. Still, a recent NORC-Amerispeak survey found that 57% of Americans tend to trust federal statistics, with majorities also believing that policymakers and businesses rely on federal statistics to make decisions, stable with 2024 findings. Despite these results, half also have no view on whether federal statistics are biased. The Partnership’s research shows that in 2024 only 15% of Americans believe the federal government is transparent (a measure that has been on the decline since they began their research in 2022). When asked specifically about agencies known to have major data missions (Census, CDC), majorities have favorable opinions. That said, some studies found significant declines in confidence in public health institutions during the pandemic (though still with small majorities) and partisan splits on the role of science in policymaking. 

The Trump administration clearly recognizes the power and influence of the federal statistical ecosystem, having highlighted the need for high quality data and a strong data infrastructure in the recent AI Action Plan release. But it also applies that understanding to removing or changing datasets that do not align with their perspectives and priorities. These moves have generated significant criticism from data customers and champions, who have banded together to preserve key components outside government. While there is indication that published federal data and statistics are less trustworthy, the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner based on jobs reporting raised significant alarm, as have stated plans to review and make changes to the federal jobs report process. With these major disruptions, we wanted to better understand the potential implications to changes in trust in federal data, and explore questions like:

Participants considered scenarios where trust in the federal data ecosystems improves significantly and where trust breaks down, and outlined specific attributes they would anticipate in both best and worst cases. In the most negative scenarios, participants projected that, the federal data ecosystem would lose its integrity, accessibility, and public purpose, becoming politicized, biased, and unevenly available. Possible outcomes include:

What falling trust in the federal data may look like in practice

We also considered key signals that might indicate that breakdowns in trust, or negative consequences from such, are growing more likely. Participants suggested monitoring things like:

Worried yet?  Take a deep breath–this workshop was meant to help experts like you plan and prepare, not predict the future (ok, maybe worry a little). What should stay with you is that trust is the bedrock of many vital functions in government, and while such trust can weather variability, trust breakdowns have consequences. And, critically there’s no bright line that will suggest when that shift starts or cascades. What we can do is this: As the government capacity community dreams up reforms and improvements to key management and operating systems, they can bake in considerations of trust to their proposals (how? Part two of this series will offer some ideas!). The scenarios and signals are tools for anticipating and navigating the complex realities of governing in an era where trust cannot be taken for granted. They highlight the need for reform strategies that are resilient not only to technical and operational challenges, but also to shifts in public perception, political dynamics, and the broader ecosystem of service and data providers. By grounding reforms in an understanding of how trust is built, eroded, and rebuilt, and by preparing for the downstream consequences of its loss, leaders can design systems that remain effective, legitimate, and connected to the people they serve.

publications
See all publications
Government Capacity
Blog
Broken Trust in Government: Signals and Worst Case Scenarios

At a period where the federal government is undergoing significant changes in how it hires, buys, collects and organizes data, and delivers, deeper exploration of trust in these facets as worthwhile.  

10.27.25 | 18 min read
read more
Government Capacity
Blog
Blue Sky Thinking to Reimagine and Reinvigorate Government Effectiveness

Using visioning, world-building, scenario planning, and other foresight tools, participants set aside today’s constraints to design blue-sky models of a future American government.

10.21.25 | 13 min read
read more
Government Capacity
Blog
Direct File Is the Floor, Not the Ceiling

“The first rule of government transformation is: there are a lot of rules. And there should be-ish. But we don’t need to wait for permission to rewrite them. Let’s go fix and build some things and show how it’s done.”

08.06.25 | 5 min read
read more
Government Capacity
Policy Memo
Bringing Transparency to Federal R&D Infrastructure Costs

Using the NIST as an example, the Radiation Physics Building (still without the funding to complete its renovation) is crucial to national security and the medical community. If it were to go down (or away), every medical device in the United States that uses radiation would be decertified within 6 months, creating a significant single point of failure that cannot be quickly mitigated.

07.25.25 | 8 min read
read more