“The system is rigged.” This is one of the phrases that Donald Trump has repeated most often since the meteoric rise of his political career in 2016. Over the years, his accusations have targeted more and more specific actors: the deep state, liberal elites, judges, journalists, the “radical left”… He creates a narrative of persecution, according to which the United States must be saved from ruin and betrayal, and he and his movement are the only ones who can do it.
This communication strategy is essential to legitimize his leadership. As sociologist Robert Tucker wrote in the 1970s, building “situational charisma” depends on the ability to offer a means of salvation in a time of profound misfortune. That’s why the criticisms and accusations don’t stop, even though many institutions are already under his control. Enemies and bad practices must continue to be identified because they are what justify the need for his leadership.
The president and his administration are therefore dedicated to sowing distrust. This also serves to undermine and target political opponents who pose a threat to their consolidation of power and to cast doubt on news and data unfavorable to them. If all institutions and their leaders are questioned, if there are no truths or facts but only versions and opinions, then every accusation against Trump is weakened.
The decline in trust in institutions is one of the factors typically associated with the erosion of democracy. But this doesn’t seem to be a problem for Trump: in fact, it is fueling him. While the decline in credibility didn’t start with him, it has accelerated in recent years. According to a 2025 Gallup study, on average, only 28% of citizens express trust in nine key institutions, ranging from the presidency to the Supreme Court and the media. In 2022 the percentage fell below 30% for the first time and has not returned to that level since.
The following section examines the various actions taken by the president and his team to increase Americans’ distrust in institutions, the political system, and society at large. It also highlights some of the consequences of these actions.
Use of deepfakes
Since returning to the White House, Trump has posted at least 15 AI-generated videos or images on his Instagram account depicting distorted versions of himself and others, including rivals, in a negative light. On his Truth Social account, he also regularly shares content submitted by supporters, such as video of him flying an F-16 and spraying excrement during the “No Kings” protests in October.
This isn’t just a tactic to get attention on social media; it is also a way to blur the line between truth and lies. Almost no one believes the video showing Democratic leaders in the Senate and Congress wearing mariachi hats while declaring that no one supports their party anymore, but the post serves to fuel and amplify doubt about what is real and what is not.
Praise for anti-vaccine and conspiracy groups
In September, the president shocked the scientific community when he warned that pregnant women should not take acetaminophen or acetaminophen because it could cause autism in their babies. His administration strongly promotes the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) movement, led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy. Using social media content and conspiracy theories, they have strengthened anti-vaccine sentiment and, in states like Florida, succeeded in removing mandates for some shots. With an army of influencers and official reports, they give unscientific advice such as avoiding drugs or hard-to-pronounce foods, further fueling distrust in the healthcare system.
Focus on the experts
Thousands of independent officials who have worked for years for various federal institutions have been targeted by the president, who questions the work they do or the information they collect when it does not fully support him. Various sectors have ended up in the crosshairs, from the scientific and economic sectors to the intelligence services. The same pattern tends to repeat itself: public criticism to pressure resignations or policy changes, layoffs or even threats using mortgage records to force departures. The goal is for the institutions to bend to their will, or at least for their credibility to be seriously undermined.
The data war
The US federal government shutdown was the longest in history. During this period, the collection of crucial data has stopped, including labor market trends, influenza and COVID-19 infections, agricultural import and export data, and other information essential to calculating the size of the economy and inflation.
But beyond this specific situation, for months the Trump administration has been adopting measures that put the collection of official data at risk. First, it stopped publishing information on mental health and violence protection programs, as well as climate and environmental conditions. In August he took it a step further by directly querying data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. After being shot in the head, the president presented several XL-sized charts in an Oval Office statement, supposedly showing that the figures had been underreported to harm him while they had been inflated during Joe Biden’s presidency.
Bringing old cases back into the spotlight
A segment of the U.S. public is prone to conspiracy theories, which focus on the role of institutions in specific historical events, such as the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert Kennedy or civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. Trump has reignited historical debates by declassifying secret files on these cases and others that are less political, such as the death of pilot Amelia Earhart, who disappeared in 1937 while attempting to cross the Atlantic. The documents relating to Earhart have not yet been officially released.
Through these actions, Trump seeks to reinforce an image of transparency among his base in contrast to the supposed opacity of traditional institutions.
Fueling mistrust and polarization
The consequences of Trump’s rhetoric and actions are already visible in opinion studies. During his second presidency, public trust in independent institutions – normally unrelated to political controversy – declined significantly. Furthermore, partisan biases have become more pronounced due to the politicization of some state institutions for specific political goals or those that face strong reactions, such as law enforcement and defense agencies.
Read more:
Books:
Elements:
Video:
Studies:
Sign up to our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition
