Broken Trust in Government: Signals and Worst Case Scenarios
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 Federal 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:
- Greater citizen disinterest in engaging government, more “opting out” which lowers quality of public services and goods
- Increased cynicism about government
- Disconnect between commitments or public statements and reality
- Erosion of expertise and capacity in government
- Increase in seeking non-government alternatives that do not serve all
- Failure to deliver intended services
- Increased partisanship
- Increased bias or corruption, or perceptions thereof
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:
- If Americans’ trust in the federal civil service as a promising career path changes, how might that impact the United States ability to recruit the government workforce it needs?
- If Americans trust that federal workers are hired and retained based on merit and performance change, how might that impact American’s engagement with government?
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.
- An American public that does not believe the civil service has an important government function therefore does not want to use, or participate in it
- Lack of interest by outstanding candidates in federal jobs, resulting in no experts available for relevant policy issues.
- At the same time, the “covenant is broken” around stability versus pay, meaning no one wants to work in the government for what it pays if stability dissolves.
- A lower esteem for service careers would mean a large group of Americans held in contempt and poorly treated by communities. The government would become “an employer of last resort”.
- People are convinced that the federal workforce is hyperpartisan. There would be widespread pervasive cynicism about corruption.
- Civil servants themselves would lose grip on whether their work can even be done in a non-partisan way. The federal workforce would be perceived as “full of partisan hacks”.
- Expansion of the political staffing system and a widespread use of “Schedule F” would allow a majority of staff to be hired and fired with each administration. Turnover creates huge, unmeetable burden and perpetual gaps: work simply cannot get done.
- Cycle of increasing distrust would increase because the link between the workforce and results for citizens breaks down. There is widespread decline in effectiveness, leading to a less safe, lower quality of life, and less prosperous nation. Major scandals on accountability, due to people not knowing their jobs and/or a failure to deliver services, builds on the negative stereotypes and stigmas about government work would become true. This leads to mistreatment of current public employees.
- Congress would “never decide to care about the fed workforce,” with negative polarization against reform making it impossible for the civil service to recover.
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:
- Decreased numbers of applications to civil service roles, fewer applicants for mission-critical jobs, and fewer young people accepting and starting federal jobs
- Increasing applications / interest in government support contractor roles
- A shift in the ratio of first-time applicants versus repeat applicants for federal jobs
- Negative results from Federal Employee Viewpoint Surveys (FEVs)
- Unusual staff promotions or inappropriate leadership appointments
- Increased number of Schedule F appointments
- First and major second rounds of firings of Schedule F employees for questionable charges
- Major second rounds of voluntary departures
- Repeated extensions of hiring freezes
- Increased threats against or attacks on public servants
- Increased diversion of money or resources to contractors for previously governmental functions
- Less diversity in the federal workforce
- Noticeable changes in service quality, particularly related to workforce-heavy fields on front lines and measurable decreases in customer trust or service experiences
- Negative profiles of public servants in press or media
- Negative mentions of public servants in congressional record
- Decrease interest in pipeline programs (PMF, Marshall Scholarship)
- Decrease in applications to Master of Public Policy (MPP) and related educational programs
- Decrease in outreach to contact centers (as trust in civil servants to respond appropriately declines)
- Increase in private service providers who concierge government services (as trust in civil servants to deliver declines)
- Corruption scandals and higher incidence of corruption or crime by federal employees;
- Scandals related to accountability of staff due to loss of expertise (e.g., FEMA issues or misuse of funds)
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:
- The market would become so consolidated that only one or two businesses could deliver anything.
- Everything is privatized and contracts are not managed, with nobody in-house to buy or manage complex contracts, and a complete lack of technical expertise within the government (“Who still knows how to build ships?”).
- The business community would define what services are needed, not the government, and these services would not be tied to strategy or mission.
- The government would be completely overshadowed by consultants, lacking the capacity or skill to be a good partner with contractors.
- The contracting process would devolve into a spoils system, becoming more and more unfair, with insidious corruption.
- There would be a major diffusion of accountability or responsibility, leading to no trust in public service provision, and political leadership could allow contractors to take the blame. This would manifest as a “procurement version of nepotism”.
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:
- Changes in the number of bids/proposals received
- The share of awards going to non-incumbents, new entrants, small business enterprises, or disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs), as well as the time it takes to get the first award
- A lack of variety in who is getting subs or supplier contracts
- An increase in contracts for things that are inherently governmental
- Decreasing technical capacity within the government
- Scores on vendor performance evaluations
- More “sign-and-forget” contracting
- An increase in contracts awarded to donors
- A decrease in the degree to which the government acts as the integrator
- Contracts that do not provide what they are supposed to
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:
- Rhetoric and public perception would not match the actual quality of service
- A developing trust divide would emerge among different users of federal programs, with people living in different realities regarding the quality of government CX based on the services they use
- A worsening government CX experience would also drive down other forms of political participation.
- People would withdraw from government participation (e.g., not providing info, lower uptake of services, stop paying taxes).
- People would shift their reliance to nonprofits, community-based organizations (CBOs), and intermediaries, further straining the system. This would undermine support for investment in government services.
- There would be confusing changes to services (e.g., changes to phone service at Social Security).
- Customers would be more prone to fraud or scams from external parties amidst confusing changes.
- There would be uncertainty about the status or future of programs.
- Structural barriers to access and opportunity would remain unaddressed.
- It would become easier for the government to collect unnecessary data, which would violate privacy and undermine trust.
- Trust would be exploited without real power-sharing, leading to “participation fatigue”.
- Digital-first or digital-only transitions would worsen access gaps.
- Speed and efficiency (perhaps through AI) would undermine due process and human review. “Efficiency” would lead to diminished capacity to deliver services.
- Mass departure of civil servants with decreasing faith in their own ability to be effective, crashing many programs
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
- Sharply reduced uptake of government services (e.g., drop-offs in SNAP, Medicaid)
- Walmart quarterly earnings (indicating SNAP use is down)
- Reduced tax compliance
- Increased college drop-out rates (FAFSA utilization)
- Surges in negative media coverage and inaccurate narratives
- Increased traffic in Reddit forums for federal programs/agencies
- Spikes in constituent complaints to Congress regarding government services
- Increases in congressional casework data and application volumes
- A dearth of knowledge regarding the collection, usage, and reporting of data
- Weaponized customer data
- Violence perpetrated against and/or by public servants
- Staff loss at critical service delivery entities
- Reduced employee engagement and an increase in whistleblower complaints
- Increased charitable giving (as people turn to non-governmental support)
- Increased demand for non-government support services
- New private businesses concierging or replacing government services
- Decreased funding for government services (unrelated to delegation to states)
- Increases in shelter censuses
These indicate lower performance
- Long waits, overwhelmed call centers, and longer appeals processes
- Increases in error rate data for programs like SNAP or SBA loans
- Higher denial or error rates based on zip code, geography, race, income, etc.
- Institutional regression, a return to compliance over outcomes (focusing on KPIs only related to speed/volume)
- Increases in Social Security Administration and other backlog measures
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.
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.
“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.”
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.