From Discontent to Disruption: Institutional Trust, the Failed-Remedies Pathway, and Democratic Resilience in the United States (2000–2026)

Executive Summary and Main Conclusions

Between 2000 and 2026, the United States experienced a profound and historically significant erosion of public confidence across nearly all civic, political, and cultural institutions1. This persistent decline has prompted extensive debate among political scientists regarding the stability of the American constitutional order. The overarching question animating this report is: under what conditions does dissatisfaction with individual policies or leaders calcify into a broader belief that normal political institutions are fundamentally incapable of solving important problems?

The most important output of this analysis is identifying the critical theoretical and empirical distinction between the belief that "the government is performing badly" and the conviction that "this system has no legitimate corrective mechanism." The former is a routine feature of democratic accountability; the latter is the psychological prerequisite for revolutionary preference.

The core hypothesis tested herein—the "failed-remedies pathway"—posits a linear progression: persistent grievance yields attempts at normal reform, which meet perceived institutional nonresponse, leading to declining external efficacy, and culminating in an openness to extra-institutional or revolutionary change.

Based on an exhaustive review of longitudinal panel data, election studies, comparative historical cases, and peer-reviewed political science, the main conclusions of this report are:

1. The Pathway is Conditional, Not Inevitable: The failed-remedies pathway accurately describes the radicalization process for specific, highly mobilized subsets of the population. However, for the mass public, panel data reveals a powerful selection effect: pre-existing affective polarization and conspiratorial beliefs often cause citizens to interpret institutions as unresponsive regardless of their actual objective outputs4.
2. Measurement Illusions Overstate the Threat: Widespread institutional distrust has not translated into mass revolutionary sentiment or broad support for political violence. Recent high-profile studies claiming that large swaths of the American public support partisan violence are heavily distorted by measurement error, ambiguous survey wording, and respondent "satisficing"7.
3. Diffuse Support Acts as a Buffer: The American constitutional order continues to benefit from a latent "reservoir of goodwill." While specific support for day-to-day government performance has collapsed, diffuse support for the underlying systemic architecture prevents mass defection to extra-legal alternatives9.
4. Selective Responsiveness Drives Alienation: Where the failed-remedies pathway does occur organically, it is strongly driven by the empirical reality of an "unequal democracy," wherein legislative and policy outcomes are systematically biased toward affluent demographics, rendering the grievances of working- and middle-class citizens structurally unresolvable through normal electoral mechanisms11.

While the United States is not on the precipice of an inevitable violent revolution, it is suffering from an acute crisis of external political efficacy exacerbated by epistemic fragmentation. Understanding the nuances of this crisis requires disaggregating the distinct outcomes of political discontent and analyzing the specific mechanisms of institutional failure and recovery.

Disentangling Discontent: Measurement Distinctions

To determine empirically whether and when institutional distrust becomes revolutionary sentiment, research must strictly separate distinct psychological and behavioral outcomes. Conflating these variables routinely leads to alarmist and analytically flawed conclusions. The literature distinguishes four primary outcomes of citizen discontent9.

 

Defining Revolutionary Preference

For the purposes of this analysis, revolutionary preference is defined as support for fundamentally replacing or restructuring political and economic institutions. It is analytically vital to distinguish between two variants of this preference. The first is nonviolent constitutional or system transformation—such as advocating for a new constitutional convention, the peaceful secession of a state, or the legal, albeit radical, restructuring of the economy (e.g., transitioning to democratic socialism through electoral supermajorities). The second is support for political violence—the endorsement of extra-legal force, insurrection, or terrorism to achieve systemic overthrow17.

The former operates at the extreme edge of constitutional boundaries but relies on mass mobilization and legal mechanisms. The latter represents a total departure from the democratic social contract. Distrust in institutions frequently fosters a desire for the former; it rarely, on a mass scale, triggers the latter.

Theoretical Foundations: Easton’s Reservoir of Goodwill

The most robust theoretical framework for understanding why plummeting institutional trust has not produced a revolution relies on David Easton's foundational distinction between "specific support" and "diffuse support"9.

Specific support is transactional and performance-based. It reflects citizens' evaluations of the day-to-day outputs of political actors, incumbents, and specific institutions. When citizens suffer through economic recessions, witness government corruption, or oppose a highly controversial Supreme Court ruling, their specific support declines9.

Diffuse support, conversely, represents a deep-seated, generalized attachment to the regime itself and the foundational aspects of the political system. It is directed toward the constitutional order and the rule of law, independent of the current incumbents9. Easton famously described diffuse support as a "reservoir of goodwill"9. This reservoir buffers the system against short-term shortfalls in specific support. Citizens may harbor intense anger toward the outputs of specific political leaders, but so long as they maintain a reservoir of diffuse support, they will continue to comply with laws, pay taxes, and restrict their political opposition to conventional, constitutionally sanctioned remedies9.

The defining debate in modern political science—originating in the seminal exchange between Arthur Miller and Jack Citrin in 1974 and continuing through the present day—is whether the precipitous drop in trust metrics (like the American National Election Studies trust index) represents a true erosion of diffuse support (Miller's view) or merely intense dissatisfaction with incumbents and specific policies (Citrin's view)10. The empirical consensus suggests that while specific support in the U.S. has reached historic lows, diffuse support—while damaged—remains high enough to prevent mass revolutionary defection10. The critical danger to the state occurs only when a prolonged, systemic failure to deliver specific remedies permanently depletes the reservoir of goodwill20.

Testing the Failed-Remedies Pathway: The Role of Political Efficacy

The core hypothesis under investigation is the "failed-remedies pathway," which models the depletion of this reservoir. The sequence posits that persistent grievance leads to attempts at normal reform. When these attempts are met with perceived institutional nonresponse, individuals experience declining efficacy, leading to the belief that ordinary remedies cannot work, and finally an openness to extra-institutional or revolutionary change.

The engine driving this pathway is political efficacy, a construct divided into two distinct psychological dimensions: internal efficacy and external efficacy23.

• Internal Efficacy is a citizen's belief in their own personal competence to understand politics and participate effectively24.
• External Efficacy is the belief that government authorities and institutions are responsive to citizen demands and that the system possesses a legitimate corrective mechanism24.

The failed-remedies pathway is uniquely activated by a specific asymmetric combination: high internal efficacy coupled with rapidly declining external efficacy. If an individual possesses low internal efficacy and low external efficacy, the behavioral outcome is typically apathy, withdrawal, and non-voting24. They do not understand the system and do not believe it cares. However, when citizens feel highly competent, politically educated, and capable of organizing (high internal efficacy) but repeatedly encounter an institutional architecture that refuses to process their demands (low external efficacy), the resulting friction generates explosive political frustration27.

This highly mobilized but structurally blocked cohort is the most likely to traverse the failed-remedies pathway. Panel data from Steven Finkel's longitudinal studies on political participation demonstrates this divergence. While conventional participation (like voting and campaign activity) generally increases a citizen's sense of external efficacy by validating their integration into the system, individuals who engage in peaceful protest but see no resulting policy change experience a stagnation or collapse of external efficacy28. Over time, this leads them to view systemic reform as impossible, shifting their participatory preferences from conventional avenues toward aggressive, extra-institutional behavior that undermines diffuse regime support28.

Emerging Dimensions: Racial and Collective Efficacy

Recent scholarship has expanded this framework to include "racial efficacy"—the perception that the political system works for a specific racial or ethnic in-group23. For marginalized populations, particularly Black and Latina/o Americans, racial efficacy often serves as a more robust predictor of political behavior than traditional external efficacy23. If a community possesses high internal efficacy but low racial efficacy due to systemic historical disenfranchisement, the belief that "ordinary remedies cannot work" is not a sudden radicalization but a rational, intergenerational assessment of institutional bias23.

Causality versus Selection: Panel Evidence on Polarized Trust

While the failed-remedies pathway operates as a coherent cognitive model, establishing empirical causality across the mass public is highly complex. Longitudinal and panel research designs are required to distinguish cause from selection. Does the objective failure of institutions to provide remedies cause radicalization, or do individuals who already hold radical, polarized attitudes subsequently interpret any institutional action as a failure?

Panel data strongly supports the presence of massive selection and motivated reasoning effects, largely driven by affective polarization. Research by Hetherington and Rudolph on "polarized trust" demonstrates that political trust is no longer a generalized orientation rooted in broad assessments of government performance4. Instead, it is intensely conditioned by partisanship. Partisans place greater weight on evaluative criteria that favor their preferred political tribe and dismiss the successes of the opposing party.

Consequently, the "perceived institutional nonresponse" step in the failed-remedies pathway is frequently a subjective, partisan construct rather than an objective institutional failure4. If an executive agency or a court delivers a legitimate remedy under a Democratic administration, highly polarized Republican voters will interpret that remedy not as a systemic success, but as a corrupt, illegitimate weaponization of the state4. The reverse holds true for Democrats evaluating Republican administrations.

Therefore, for vast swaths of the electorate, the belief that ordinary remedies cannot work is an endogenous product of pre-existing ideological hostility, not a linear reaction to objective institutional incapacity4. Radicals do not necessarily become radical because the system failed them; rather, because they are radicalized by elite rhetoric or media ecosystems, they interpret every systemic action as a failure.

Structural Drivers of Alienation: Selective Responsiveness

Despite the confounding effects of affective polarization, there is profound empirical evidence that the objective reality of American institutions provides a fertile environment for the failed-remedies pathway. The most potent structural explanation for the collapse of external efficacy is the phenomenon of "selective responsiveness" or "unequal democracy," pioneered by scholars such as Martin Gilens and Larry Bartels11.

Extensive quantitative analyses of federal policy outcomes from the late 20th century through the present reveal that the preferences of the average citizen exert near-zero independent influence on public policy11. When the policy preferences of the top 10 percent of the income distribution diverge from those of the 50th percentile (the median voter), government action almost exclusively aligns with the preferences of the affluent12.

This dynamic provides a highly rational basis for the collapse of external efficacy among working- and middle-class citizens. When these citizens organize, vote, and attempt normal reform (e.g., advocating for redistributive tax policies, healthcare expansion, or labor protections), their efforts are routinely blocked by a campaign finance and lobbying architecture that structurally privileges corporate and elite interests32. The resulting belief that "this system has no legitimate corrective mechanism" is not necessarily a paranoid or conspiratorial delusion; it is an accurate assessment of an unequal political economy. In this context, institutional distrust is a rational adaptation to systemic exclusion11.

Trajectories of Institutional Confidence in the U.S. (2000–2026)

To understand the breadth of the current crisis, it is necessary to audit the state of confidence across specific American institutions. Between 2000 and 2026, average confidence in core U.S. institutions plummeted from the mid-40s to a record low of roughly 27 percent3. However, the nature of this distrust varies significantly by institutional function.

Elections and Political Parties

Confidence in the mechanics of elections has suffered devastating blows, culminating in the aftermath of the 2020 and 2024 presidential cycles. Data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) indicates a virtually monotonic decline in the belief that elections are fair and that political parties prioritize the national interest over partisan gain34. The refusal by significant factions of political elites to concede electoral defeats has transformed elections from a mechanism of peaceful dispute resolution into a catalyst for systemic illegitimacy. When the electoral mechanism itself is viewed as rigged, the foundational "remedy" of democratic accountability is neutralized36.

Legislatures

Congress consistently ranks at the absolute bottom of public trust, with "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence hovering at an abysmal 9 percent in 20261. The legislature is widely perceived as paralyzed by polarization, captive to special interests, and fundamentally incapable of addressing majoritarian concerns. This legislative sclerosis forces policy-making into the executive and judicial branches, further straining their legitimacy by forcing them to resolve highly partisan disputes37.

The Courts

Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court enjoyed a massive reservoir of diffuse support. Citizens routinely disagreed with specific rulings (specific support) while maintaining profound respect for the institution's impartial jurisprudential authority21. However, from 2000 (following Bush v. Gore) through 2026, the Court's perceived politicization has caused a paradigm shift. "Positivity theory" posits that exposure to the Court's legitimizing symbols usually bolsters support, but recent panel data indicates that specific support is now bleeding heavily into diffuse support10. As the confirmation process has become nakedly partisan and the Court issues sweeping rulings on highly contested social issues, voters increasingly view the Court as a purely political, rather than legal, actor, stripping away its institutional mystique38.

Executive Agencies and Expert Institutions

The COVID-19 pandemic served as a crucible for expert institutions and executive agencies (e.g., the CDC, the FDA). Prior to the 2020s, scientific and medical expertise enjoyed robust bipartisan trust. However, the pandemic response blurred the lines between science and politics40. The necessity of translating uncertain, evolving scientific data into coercive public policy mandates exposed expert consensus to severe partisan skepticism40. Empirical studies demonstrate that mistrust in public health institutions became a stronger predictor of non-compliance (such as vaccine hesitancy) than general political affiliation43. The populist mandate to "do your own research" became a profound expression of anti-expert identity, correlating strongly with a decrease in institutional trust and an increase in susceptibility to misinformation44.

News Institutions and Epistemic Fragmentation

The collapse of trust in the media—television news and newspapers—is arguably the most dangerous accelerant of the failed-remedies pathway1. When the media loses its gatekeeping authority and its status as a shared arbiter of reality, society experiences "epistemic fragmentation"45.

The modern digital media environment operates on "selective permeability," where citizens inhabit entirely different, algorithmically curated information ecosystems that moderate normative standards for sharing information and reward outrage48. This fragmentation creates the risk of a "trust cascade failure"—a self-reinforcing collapse where no trusted entity remains to validate the others50. In a functioning republic, courts validate elections, science validates policy, and the media validates institutional truth. When all these nodes suffer simultaneous credibility deficits, the network of mutual validation disintegrates50.

Law Enforcement

Confidence in the police and the criminal justice system has declined, but the decline is characterized by extreme polarization1. Following the protests of the 2020s, Democrats and racial minorities expressed profound, historic distrust in law enforcement, viewing the institution as systematically biased and structurally immune to accountability2. Conversely, Republicans maintained relatively high levels of trust, viewing law enforcement as a necessary bulwark against social disorder. This bifurcation prevents the formation of a unified consensus on how to reform the institution, trapping it in a cycle of partisan contestation2.

The Measurement Illusion: Reevaluating Support for Political Violence

Given the stark reality of plummeting institutional trust, collapsing external efficacy, and epistemic fragmentation, it is highly intuitive to conclude that the United States is ripe for widespread political violence and revolutionary upheaval. Between 2020 and 2024, numerous high-profile surveys reported that anywhere from 15 to 40 percent of Americans believed political violence was justified8.

However, rigorous empirical scrutiny reveals that the presumed link between institutional distrust and genuine revolutionary sentiment is largely a measurement illusion. The most critical intervention in this literature was provided by Westwood, Grimmer, Tyler, and Nall (2022) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences7. Their experimental research demonstrated that prior estimates vastly overstated American support for political violence due to severe survey design flaws.

First, standard surveys utilized ambiguous questions, asking about support for "violence" in the abstract, without defining the severity or context of the act7. When researchers followed up to ask what respondents actually meant by "violence," answers ranged from verbal altercations and property damage to wholly non-violent protests; very few respondents actually meant lethal violence or armed insurrection52.

Second, prior surveys suffered from "satisficing" by disengaged respondents. In surveys lacking a neutral midpoint or a "don't know" option, disengaged respondents randomly select answers. Because standard violence scales are constructed so that four out of five options indicate some level of acceptance of violence, random responding artificially inflates the pro-violence estimates7.

When Westwood et al. implemented rigorous attention checks and asked highly specific questions about severe acts of violence (e.g., assault or murder of political opponents), support for partisan violence plummeted. The median estimate of true support for political violence is approximately 2.9 percent, not the 18.5 to 40 percent previously claimed7.

This methodological revelation is paramount. Millions of Americans are deeply cynical about the government, dissatisfied with democratic outputs, and willing to express partisan animosity on surveys as a form of "expressive cheerleading." However, when faced with the actual prospect of dismantling the constitutional order or engaging in extra-institutional violence, the vast majority explicitly reject it7. The reservoir of diffuse support, while depleted, still acts as a formidable barrier preventing low specific support from triggering mass revolutionary mobilization.

Confounding Variables: Ideology, Conspiracy, and Social Identity

While the failed-remedies pathway focuses on institutional mechanics, radicalization is heavily confounded by ideology, conspiratorial belief systems, and social identity.

Conspiratorial beliefs act as a direct shortcut to systemic rejection, bypassing the failed-remedies pathway entirely. Individuals who adopt conspiratorial frameworks (such as QAnon or "Great Replacement" theories) view normal political institutions not just as inefficient, but as actively malicious, illegitimate, or controlled by nefarious shadow actors51. For these cohorts, there is no attempt at normal reform because they believe the system is fundamentally evil from the outset. Panel data confirms that conspiratorial beliefs negatively affect conventional modes of political participation by drastically reducing external efficacy55.

Furthermore, demographic transitions and economic distress act as macro-level confounders. As inequality rises, both young cohorts (facing stagnant wages and housing crises) and elderly cohorts (fearing the insolvency of welfare states) experience existential insecurity56. This economic distress generates demands for rapid, radical economic leveling, which dampens support for liberal democratic processes perceived as too slow or overly protective of elite capital56.

Comparative Historical Analysis: When Low Trust Bypasses Revolution

To determine empirically when institutional distrust becomes a revolutionary threat, we must examine comparative historical cases. Comparing instances where low trust resulted in democratic breakdown versus instances where institutions survived provides vital parameters for evaluating the contemporary United States.

Systemic Collapse: Weimar Germany and Post-Soviet Russia

The collapse of the Weimar Republic in Germany (1933) and the democratic backsliding of Post-Soviet Russia in the early 2000s provide archetypal examples of systemic failure. In both cases, extreme socioeconomic crises were coupled with a "post-imperial syndrome"—a nationalist irredentism and an ambition to return to a prior status of great power58.

Crucially, in these instances, the democratic regimes possessed absolutely no reservoir of diffuse support. They were nascent democracies born out of national humiliation, military defeat, or imperial collapse58. When the governments failed to deliver specific support (economic stability, basic security), citizens had no latent loyalty to the democratic constitutional order to fall back upon. Consequently, the failed-remedies pathway operated unimpeded: economic grievance led directly to the embrace of revolutionary, anti-systemic forces (the NSDAP in Germany, and the centralization of autocratic power in Russia) because the democratic institutions themselves were viewed as foreign, illegitimate impositions58.

Institutional Resilience: Italy’s "Years of Lead"

Conversely, the Italian Republic during the "Years of Lead" (Anni di Piombo, roughly 1968–1982) provides a powerful counter-example of a state surviving despite staggering levels of political violence, domestic terrorism (from both the extreme left and right), economic stagnation, and profound public distrust59.

During this period, Italy faced bombings, assassinations (including the kidnapping and murder of former Prime Minister Aldo Moro), and rampant state corruption59. Trust in the specific performance of the Italian government was virtually nonexistent. Why did this not produce a revolution?

First, the core political elites maintained a commitment to the constitutional order. The "Historic Compromise" (Compromesso Storico) between the Christian Democrats and the Italian Communist Party, while highly controversial, isolated the violent extremists by demonstrating that the major mass parties would defend the democratic architecture rather than exploit the chaos to destroy the republic59.

Second, despite the violence, the Italian state retained sufficient diffuse support built during the post-WWII reconstruction. The institutional resilience demonstrated that even when external efficacy is severely compromised, if mainstream political elites refuse to validate anti-systemic violence and instead absorb grievances into the parliamentary arena, the state can survive the crisis63.

Applying this to the United States (2000–2026), the Italian case suggests that profound distrust does not inevitably equal revolution. As long as mainstream partisan elites ultimately reject extra-constitutional maneuvers, the system can endure long periods of high-stress malfunction without succumbing to revolutionary transformation.

Mechanisms of Institutional Recovery and Accountability

If the United States is currently mired in a crisis of external efficacy and specific support, under what conditions does institutional trust recover? Historical and empirical evidence points to two primary mechanisms: the vigorous application of accountability mechanisms and the delivery of responsive public policy.

Internal and External Accountability Mechanisms

When public trust is breached by corruption, scandal, or abuses of power, accountability mechanisms serve as the critical circuit breakers that restore legitimacy. The post-Watergate era saw the establishment of numerous mechanisms designed to investigate the executive branch, including the Independent Counsel statute, which later evolved into the Department of Justice Special Counsel regulations, and the proliferation of statutory Inspectors General (IGs)65.

These mechanisms are designed to decouple the investigation of high-level wrongdoing from everyday partisan politics, signaling to the public that the rule of law supersedes executive power68. However, their efficacy in restoring trust is highly dependent on their perceived independence. In recent years, the hyper-partisan environment has degraded the restorative power of these mechanisms. When Special Counsels, Inspectors General, or congressional oversight committees are reflexively dismissed by the targeted party as "witch hunts" or partisan weaponization, the accountability mechanism fails to bridge the epistemic divide45.

To restore trust, oversight must be perceived as institutionally rigorous rather than electorally motivated. Recommendations from transparency advocates highlight the need to empower Inspectors General, protect national security whistleblowers with independent adjudicators, and utilize bipartisan commissions of inquiry—modeled on the Church Committee—to transparently investigate institutional failures without the immediate taint of electoral point-scoring70. When accountability mechanisms result in visible consequences (resignations, prosecutions, or sweeping reform legislation), they validate external efficacy, proving to the public that the system possesses a legitimate corrective mechanism68.

Responsive Public Policy and Output Delivery

Ultimately, the most reliable mechanism for restoring political trust is the sustained delivery of public goods and responsive policy. Easton's reservoir of goodwill is not infinite; it must be periodically replenished by specific support9.

Empirical research on the COVID-19 pandemic response demonstrated that citizens evaluate governments based on both health and economic outcomes, and dissatisfaction with these outputs directly suppresses satisfaction with the democratic system14. Conversely, when governments implement policies that directly address citizen grievances—such as effective economic stimulus, job creation, or competent disaster response—satisfaction with democracy rebounds14.

Furthermore, restoring trust requires addressing the root causes of selective responsiveness. Reforming campaign finance structures, eliminating dark money, and ensuring that legislative outputs more closely map onto median voter preferences rather than solely elite preferences are necessary steps to rebuild external efficacy among the broader electorate12.

Research Gaps and Confidence by Finding

The conclusions drawn in this report are constrained by the limitations of current political science research. Confidence levels for the key findings are as follows:

• High Confidence: The distinction between dissatisfaction with incumbents and rejection of the constitutional order is conceptually robust and empirically supported9. There is also high confidence that standard survey methodologies have drastically overstated the American public's genuine support for political violence due to measurement error and respondent satisficing7.
• Moderate Confidence: The exact causal direction of the failed-remedies pathway remains difficult to isolate at the mass level. While theoretical models propose a linear sequence from institutional nonresponse to radicalization, longitudinal panel data suggests a highly endogenous relationship where pre-existing affective polarization and epistemic fragmentation condition how institutional responses are perceived in the first place4.
• Research Gaps: Significant gaps remain in understanding the exact tipping points—the precise quantitative threshold at which the erosion of specific support permanently depletes diffuse support. Additionally, more research is required into how algorithmic media environments (epistemic fragmentation) permanently alter the baseline requirements for institutional trust48, and whether traditional accountability mechanisms (like Special Counsels) can ever function effectively to restore trust in a post-consensus media landscape.

Works cited

1. What the 1920s Teach Us About Today's Markets, https://www.kopernikglobal.com/hindsight-is-1920-sep-2025/
2. (PDF) Fifty Years of Declining Confidence & Increasing Polarization, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365459987_Fifty_Years_of_Declining_Confidence_Increasing_Polarization_in_Trust_in_American_Institutions
3. Confidence in U.S. Institutions Remains Near All-Time Low, https://news.gallup.com/poll/712436/confidence-institutions-remains-near-time-low.aspx
4. Political trust and polarization - ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330887032_Political_trust_and_polarization
5. Polarized trust and democratic decline. Rethinking resilience in the, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403940650_Polarized_trust_and_democratic_decline_Rethinking_resilience_in_the_V4_countries
6. Dimensions of Elite Partisan Polarization: Disentangling the Effects, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/dimensions-of-elite-partisan-polarization-disentangling-the-effects-of-incivility-and-issue-polarization/88590285AC1F2E1BD8EA5BE86E62944A
7. Current research overstates American support for political violence, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116870119
8. Current research overstates American support for political violence, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359332265_Current_research_overstates_American_support_for_political_violence
9. Political trust - UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository), https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/212891413/Chapter_5.pdf
10. In Government We Trust: Implicit Political Trust and Regime Support, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/in-government-we-trust-implicit-political-trust-and-regime-support-in-china/90470D4F4D068ABD217618092CCBC2F7
11. Feeling Left Behind by Political Decisionmakers: Anti-Establishment, https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/download/3949/2265
12. Representation and Responsiveness in Unequal Societies (Part II), https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/contested-representation/representation-and-responsiveness-in-unequal-societies/2A20E2BD2301A7A1FAD7AA55DEF6DB54
13. ON THE MEASUREMENT OF DIFFUSE SUPPORT, https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/mexico/1978-diffusesupport.pdf
14. Survey Experimental Evidence from 12 Countries during COVID-19, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/729962
15. (PDF) What Satisfaction with Democracy? A Global Analysis of, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351822405_What_Satisfaction_with_Democracy_A_Global_Analysis_of_Satisfaction_with_Democracy_Measures
16. nber working paper series, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29514/w29514.pdf
17. Social Change and Protests July 07, 2023 - Apollo Academic Surveys, https://www.apollosurveys.org/social-change-and-protests/
18. Conceptualizing and Measuring Support for Collective Violence - PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12925330/
19. How Strong Policy Attitudes Activate Support for Aggressive Political, https://scottaclifford.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/CliffordLothamer_Violence.pdf
20. A tough trade-off? The asymmetrical impact of populist radical right, https://artefacts-discovery.researcher.life/full_text/DA-2/81/81c71cec49bc38ef989d0e5df88f808d/full_text/263204ccb1a4c90dfa158296c99461a8.pdf
21. change in institutional support for the us supreme court: is the court's, https://mjnelson.org/papers/GN_POQ.pdf
22. Does political trust matter? An empirical investigation into the, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-political-research/article/abs/does-political-trust-matter-an-empirical-investigation-into-the-relation-between-political-trust-and-support-for-law-compliance/8298C00E7C3D4AA4FDA0FF11B3870B71
23. Clarifying the “People Like Me”: Racial Efficacy and Political Behavior, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/clarifying-the-people-like-me-racial-efficacy-and-political-behavior/D0990EF4494DB4EEB8A758EC08152AD1
24. Making a Difference: Political Efficacy and Policy Preference, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/making-a-difference-political-efficacy-and-policy-preference-construction/16AAA3529D8B451CD4C1C313217C59FC
25. Effects on News Use, Discussion, and Political Participation, http://homerogdz.com/documents/Gil%20de%20Z%C3%BA%C3%B1iga,%20Diehl%20&%20Ard%C3%A9vol-Abreu%20(2017)%20Journal%20of%20Broadcasting%20&%20Electronic%20Media.pdf
26. Full article: How Political Efficacy Relates to Online and Offline, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10584609.2022.2086329
27. How Internal Political Efficacy Translates Political Knowledge Into, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4894288/
28. Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Political Efficacy, https://sites.pitt.edu/~finkel/download/Reciprocal%20Effects%20of%20Participation%20and%20Political%20Efficacy%20A%20Panel%20Analysis,.pdf
29. The Effects of Participation on Political Efficacy and Political Support, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.2307/2131308
30. Polarization, Political Trust, and the Governing Crisis. Chicago, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4888585/
31. Public Discourse in Online Environments - OPUS, https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-hsog/files/5066/Dissertation_Oswald.pdf
32. The role of preference formation and perception in unequal, https://www.uni-due.de/imperia/md/content/soziooekonomie/ifsowp26_fastenrathmarx2023.pdf
33. Combined evidence from elite interviews and focus gro - EconStor, https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/274547/1/185641275X.pdf
34. The Decline in Diffuse Support for National Politics - PMC - NIH, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5927329/
35. Public opinion trends in American society: Lessons from social, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12930373/
36. Confidence in Institutions Before, During, and After “Indecision 2000”, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229518842_Confidence_in_Institutions_Before_During_and_After_Indecision_2000
37. Congress and the Public | Gallup Historical Trends, https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
38. Source Cues and Public Support for the Supreme Court, https://jkastellec.scholar.princeton.edu/document/30
39. The Impact of Judicial Storytelling on the Supreme Courtâ, https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4341&context=law-review
40. The Discontents of Truth & Trust in 21st Century America | Daedalus, https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/151/4/25/113704/The-Discontents-of-Truth-amp-Trust-in-21st-Century
41. Trust, media, and science in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/186756322/15-23-PB.pdf
42. Institutions, Experts & the Loss of Trust, https://www.amacad.org/sites/default/files/daedalus/downloads/Fa22_Daedalus_Institutions-Experts-Loss-of-Trust-Aug_6_24.pdf
43. Mistrust in public health institutions is a stronger predictor of vaccine, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364570900_Mistrust_in_public_health_institutions_is_a_stronger_predictor_of_vaccine_hesitancy_and_uptake_than_Trust_in_Trump
44. Support for “doing your own research” is associated with COVID-19, https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/chinn_dyor_covid_science_20230612.pdf
45. “It's All a Witch Hunt”: Watergate and the Collapse of Shared Reality, https://brewminate.com/its-all-a-witch-hunt-watergate-and-the-collapse-of-shared-reality/
46. Democratic Equality in the Misinformation Age - DASH (Harvard), https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstreams/15a84449-d6dd-4a7e-8ce3-efcb479619e1/download
47. Climate Change Disinformation on Social Media: A Meta-Synthesis, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/14/5/304
48. Selective Permeability, Social Media and Epistemic Fragmentation, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383666253_Selective_Permeability_Social_Media_and_Epistemic_Fragmentation
49. GETTING MISINFORMATION WRONG - UDSpace, https://udspace.udel.edu/bitstreams/3cac95b7-d97c-4929-8ec9-e88cbc76470a/download
50. AI Trust Cascade Failure - Longterm Wiki, https://www.longtermwiki.com/wiki/E360
51. Views of American Democracy and Society and Support for Political, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.15.22277693.full
52. Reply to Kalmoe and Mason: The pitfalls of using surveys to ... - PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9371739/
53. (PDF) The Effects of Partisan Elites' Violent Rhetoric on Support for, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390844921_The_Effects_of_Partisan_Elites'_Violent_Rhetoric_on_Support_for_Political_Violence
54. Democracy and belief in conspiracy theories in New Zealand, https://opal.latrobe.edu.au/ndownloader/files/38016015
55. (PDF) The influence of conspiracy beliefs on conventional and, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339407842_The_influence_of_conspiracy_beliefs_on_conventional_and_unconventional_forms_of_political_participation_The_mediating_role_of_political_efficacy
56. Support for Democracy in the Age of Rising Inequality and ... - PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9840542/
57. Full article: The comparative political economy of inequality, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402382.2026.2662882
58. (PDF) How post-imperial democracies die: A comparison of Weimar, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333608692_How_post-imperial_democracies_die_A_comparison_of_Weimar_Germany_and_post-Soviet_Russia
59. History of the Italian Republic - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Italian_Republic
60. The Paradox of Détente in Italy: United States Perspectives between, https://tesi.luiss.it/31501/1/641382_FURLANI_FABRIZIO%20MARIA.pdf
61. Italian Neofascism - dokumen.pub, https://dokumen.pub/download/italian-neofascism-the-strategy-of-tension-and-the-politics-of-nonreconciliation-9780857450425.html
62. Table of contents, https://thesis.unipd.it/retrieve/773c5ee7-94ab-4e97-8f46-ca8f078b254a/Francesca_Russo_2020.pdf
63. Reducing Pernicious Polarization - Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, https://www.fes.de/hambacher-demokratie-dialog/hambach-democracy-paper-zunahme-der-polarisierung-in-europa-und-die-rolle-der-politischen-parteien
64. State of distrust: interpreting 1970s Italy through the seriality of news, https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/32815/1/OLESEN%2C%20Giulio%20Balslev_Ph.D._2019.pdf
65. Special Counsels, Independent Counsels, and Special Prosecutors, https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20170601_R44857_ebabc22ec6d2219a5a6d9fc25397cc2db922adbb.html
66. The Special Counsel Regulations, Separation of Powers and A Call for, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2024/07/Hillman-Print-Final.pdf
67. Who Should Police Politicization of the DOJ? Bruce A. Green, https://law.nd.edu/assets/418753/politicizing_doj_green_and_roiphie.pdf
68. Impeachment, Immunity and Juristocracy (Part VII: What Should Be, https://www.pointoforder.com/2025/05/15/impeachment-immunity-and-juristocracy-part-vii-what-should-be-done/
69. Reforming the Independent Counsel Statute, https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1901&context=faculty_scholarship
70. TIME: The U.S. Needs a Commission of Inquiry into State Capture, https://ig.ny.gov/news/time-us-needs-commission-inquiry-state-capture
71. Lessons From Watergate - Center for American Progress, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/lessons-from-watergate/
72. POGO to Congress: Whistleblowers Protect National Security, https://www.pogo.org/testimonies/pogo-to-congress-whistleblowers-protect-national-security
73. Polarization, Performance, Responsiveness, and Trust in Malawian, https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=20172&context=dissertations
74. Delivering for Democracy: Why Results Matter, https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/delivering-for-democracy-why-results-matter/
75. Written Testimony of Rudy A. Mehrbani, Spitzer Fellow and Senior, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20190206/108837/HHRG-116-GO00-Wstate-MehrbaniR-20190206.pdf