US government trust declined from 73% (1958) to 17% (2025), with AI deepfakes projected to reach 8M by 2025 accelerating erosion through the 'liar's dividend' effect—where synthetic content possibility undermines all evidence. Media literacy interventions show d=0.60 effect size, while C2PA content authentication provides medium-high promise for verification, though adoption rates remain uncertain (10-60% by 2027).
AI-Driven Trust Decline
AI-Driven Trust Decline
US government trust declined from 73% (1958) to 17% (2025), with AI deepfakes projected to reach 8M by 2025 accelerating erosion through the 'liar's dividend' effect—where synthetic content possibility undermines all evidence. Media literacy interventions show d=0.60 effect size, while C2PA content authentication provides medium-high promise for verification, though adoption rates remain uncertain (10-60% by 2027).
AI-Driven Trust Decline
US government trust declined from 73% (1958) to 17% (2025), with AI deepfakes projected to reach 8M by 2025 accelerating erosion through the 'liar's dividend' effect—where synthetic content possibility undermines all evidence. Media literacy interventions show d=0.60 effect size, while C2PA content authentication provides medium-high promise for verification, though adoption rates remain uncertain (10-60% by 2027).
Quick Assessment
| Dimension | Assessment | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Current Trust Level | Critical (17-22% federal government trust) | Pew Research Center 2025: down from 73% in 1958 |
| Decline Rate | Accelerating | 55-point drop since 1958; 5-point decline 2024→2025 alone |
| AI Acceleration | High | 500K deepfake videos shared on social media in 2023, projected 8M by 2025 |
| Coordination Impact | Severe | Only 34% trust government to use AI responsibly (Edelman 2025) |
| Reversibility | Low (decades) | Trust rebuilding requires sustained institutional reform over 10-20+ years |
| Intervention Readiness | Medium | C2PA standard gaining traction; media literacy shows d=0.60 effect size |
| Cross-Domain Risk | High | Trust collapse undermines pandemic response, climate action, AI governanceParameterAI GovernanceThis page contains only component imports with no actual content - it displays dynamically loaded data from an external source that cannot be evaluated. |
Overview
Trust erosion describes the active process of declining public confidence in institutions, experts, media, and verification systems. While the current state of societal trust is analyzed in the Societal TrustAi Transition Model ParameterSocietal TrustThis page contains only a React component placeholder with no actual content rendered. No information about societal trust as a factor in AI transition is present. parameter page, this page focuses on trust erosion as a risk—examining the threat model, acceleration mechanisms, and responses.
For comprehensive data and analysis, see Societal TrustAi Transition Model ParameterSocietal TrustThis page contains only a React component placeholder with no actual content rendered. No information about societal trust as a factor in AI transition is present., which covers:
- Current trust levels (US government trust: 77% in 1964 → 22% in 2024)
- International comparisons and benchmarks
- AI-driven acceleration mechanisms (liar's dividend, deepfakes, scale asymmetry)
- Factors that increase trust (interventions, C2PA standards, media literacy)
- Trajectory scenarios through 2030
Risk Assessment
| Dimension | Assessment | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Severity | High | Undermines democratic governance, collective action on existential risks |
| Likelihood | Very High | Already occurring; AI accelerating pre-existing trends |
| Timeline | Ongoing | Effects visible now, intensifying over 2-5 years |
| Trend | Accelerating | AI content generation scaling faster than verification capacity |
| Reversibility | Difficult | Rebuilding trust requires sustained effort over decades |
Why Trust Erosion Is a Risk
Trust erosion threatens AI safety and existential risk response through several mechanisms:
| Domain | Impact | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| AI Governance | Regulatory resistance, lab-government distrust | Only ≈40% trust government to regulate AI appropriately (OECD 2024) |
| Elections | Contested results, violence | 4 in 10 with high grievance approve hostile activism (Edelman 2025↗🔗 web★★★☆☆Edelman2024 Edelman Trust BarometerinstitutionsmediademocracySource ↗) |
| Public Health | Pandemic response failure | Healthcare trust dropped 30.4 pts during COVID-19 |
| Climate Action | Policy paralysis | Only ≈40% believe government will reduce emissions effectively |
| International Cooperation | Treaty verification failures | Liar's dividend undermines evidence-based agreements |
The core dynamic: low trust prevents the coordination needed to address catastrophic risks, while AI capabilities make trust harder to maintain.
Causal Mechanisms
The diagram illustrates how AI-driven content generation combines with existing polarization and institutional failures to create compounding trust erosion through the liar's dividend (where synthetic media possibility undermines all evidence) and scale asymmetry (where misinformation production vastly outpaces verification capacity).
Historical Trust Trajectory
Trust erosion is not new, but AI capabilities threaten to accelerate existing trends dramatically:
| Period | US Government Trust | Key Driver | AI Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1958-1964 | 73-77% | Post-WWII institutional confidence | None |
| 1965-1980 | 77% → 26% | Vietnam War, Watergate | None |
| 1980-2000 | 26-44% | Economic growth, Cold War end | None |
| 2001-2008 | 25-49% | 9/11 rally, Iraq War decline | Early internet |
| 2009-2020 | 17-24% | Financial crisis, polarization | Social media amplification |
| 2021-2025 | 17-22% | Pandemic, election disputes, AI content | Deepfakes, LLM misinformation |
Sources: Pew Research Center, Gallup
The AI Acceleration Factor
AI capabilities are fundamentally changing the trust erosion dynamic through several mechanisms:
Scale Asymmetry
The volume of synthetic content is growing exponentially:
- 2023: 500,000+ deepfake videos shared on social media
- 2025 projection: 8 million deepfake videos
- Daily AI image generation: 34 million images/day via tools like DALL-E, Midjourney
- Total since 2022: Over 15 billion AI-generated images created
This creates a fundamental asymmetry: misinformation can be produced faster than it can be verified, and the mere possibility of synthetic content undermines trust in authentic content (Atlantic Council Digital Forensics Lab).
Mass-Class Digital Divide
The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer reveals a significant trust gap:
- 71% of UK bottom income quartile feel they will be "left behind" by AI
- 65% of US bottom income quartile share this concern
- Only 1 in 4 non-managers regularly use AI vs. 2 in 3 managers
This creates a two-tier information environment where those with AI literacy can navigate synthetic content while others cannot, exacerbating existing inequality and trust divides.
Responses That Address This Risk
| Response | Mechanism | Effectiveness | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Content AuthenticationApproachAI Content AuthenticationContent authentication via C2PA and watermarking (10B+ images) offers superior robustness to failing detection methods (55% accuracy), with EU AI Act mandates by August 2026 driving adoption among ...Quality: 58/100 | Cryptographic verification via C2PA standard | Medium-High | Fast-tracked to ISO 22144; adopted by Adobe, Microsoft, BBC |
| Epistemic InfrastructureApproachAI-Era Epistemic InfrastructureComprehensive analysis of epistemic infrastructure showing AI fact-checking achieves 85-87% accuracy at $0.10-$1.00 per claim versus $50-200 for human verification, while Community Notes reduces mi...Quality: 59/100 | Fact-checking networks, verification tools (Vera.ai, WeVerify) | Medium | Fact-checks reduce belief by 0.27 d (meta-analysis) |
| Epistemic SecurityApproachAI-Era Epistemic SecurityComprehensive analysis of epistemic security finds human deepfake detection at near-chance levels (55.5%), AI detection dropping 45-50% on novel content, but content authentication (C2PA) market gr...Quality: 63/100 | Platform policies, algorithmic demotion of misinformation | Medium | Variable by platform; X Community Notes shows promise |
| Deepfake DetectionApproachDeepfake DetectionComprehensive analysis of deepfake detection showing best commercial detectors achieve 78-87% in-the-wild accuracy vs 96%+ in controlled settings, with Deepfake-Eval-2024 benchmark revealing 45-50%...Quality: 91/100 | AI-based detection tools, watermarking | Medium | Cat-and-mouse dynamic; detection lags generation by 6-18 months |
| Media Literacy Programs | Critical evaluation training, prebunking | High | d=0.60 overall; d=1.04 for sharing reduction (Huang et al. 2024) |
See Societal TrustAi Transition Model ParameterSocietal TrustThis page contains only a React component placeholder with no actual content rendered. No information about societal trust as a factor in AI transition is present. for detailed intervention analysis.
Key Acceleration Mechanism: The Liar's Dividend
The most concerning AI-driven dynamic is the liar's dividend (Chesney & Citron↗🔗 webChesney & Citron (2019)deepfakesdigital-evidenceauthenticationSource ↗): the mere possibility of fabricated evidence undermines trust in all evidence.
Research Findings
A landmark study published in the American Political Science Review (February 2025) by Schiff, Schiff, and Bueno administered five survey experiments to over 15,000 American adults:
| Finding | Effect | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Politicians claiming "fake news" | Higher support than apologizing | Incentivizes denialism |
| Effect crosses party lines | Both parties' supporters susceptible | Not limited to polarized base |
| Text vs. video evidence | Liar's dividend works for text, not video | Video still retains credibility |
| Mechanism | Informational uncertainty + oppositional rallying | Two distinct pathways |
Key insight: The effect operates through two channels—creating informational uncertainty ("maybe it really is fake") and rallying supporters against perceived media attacks. Both strategies work independently.
Real-World Examples
| Case | Year | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Slovakia election deepfake | 2023 | Fake audio of opposition leader discussing election rigging went viral days before election |
| Gabon coup attempt | 2019 | Claims that president's video was deepfake helped spur military coup attempt |
| Turkey election withdrawal | 2023 | Presidential candidate withdrew after explicit AI-generated videos spread |
| UK Keir Starmer audio | 2024 | Deepfake audio spread rapidly before being exposed as fabrication |
This creates a double bind where neither belief nor disbelief in evidence can be rationally justified—and the effect will intensify as deepfake capabilities improve. According to a YouGov survey, 85% of Americans are "very" or "somewhat" concerned about misleading deepfakes.
Key Uncertainties
| Uncertainty | Range | Implications |
|---|---|---|
| Content authentication adoption rate | 10-60% of major platforms by 2027 | High adoption could restore verification; low adoption means continued erosion |
| AI detection keeping pace | 40-80% detection accuracy | Determines whether technical defenses remain viable |
| Trust recovery timeline | 10-30+ years | Shapes whether coordination for long-term risks is achievable |
| Generational divergence | 18-34: 59% AI trust vs. 55+: 18% (UK) | May resolve naturally or create permanent trust gap |
| Institutional reform success | Unknown | Trust rebuilding requires demonstrable competence over sustained period |
Crux Questions
-
Can content authentication scale? The C2PA standard provides a technical solution, but adoption requires coordination across platforms, media organizations, and hardware manufacturers. If adoption reaches critical mass (estimated 40-60% of content), the liar's dividend may shrink.
-
Will AI detection capabilities keep pace with generation? Currently, detection lags generation by 6-18 months. If this gap widens, technical verification becomes impossible; if it narrows, authentication systems become viable.
-
Does media literacy scale? Individual interventions show d=0.60 effect size, but effects decay over time (PNAS study). Requires recurring reinforcement rather than one-time training.
Sources
Trust Data
- Pew Research Center: Public Trust in Government↗🔗 web★★★★☆Pew Research CenterPew: 16% trust federal gov'tepistemiccascadetrustinstitutional-trust+1Source ↗
- Pew Research Center: Public Trust 1958-2025
- Edelman Trust Barometer↗🔗 web★★★☆☆Edelman2024 Edelman Trust BarometerinstitutionsmediademocracySource ↗
- 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer: AI Flash Poll
- Gallup: Trust in Government Depends on Party Control
Liar's Dividend Research
- Chesney & Citron: Deep Fakes—A Looming Challenge↗🔗 webChesney & Citron (2019)deepfakesdigital-evidenceauthenticationSource ↗
- Schiff, Schiff & Bueno: The Liar's Dividend (APSR 2025)
- Brennan Center: Deepfakes, Elections, and Shrinking the Liar's Dividend
AI Misinformation
- Reuters Institute: AI and Misinformation Trust Conference 2024
- Carnegie Endowment: Can Democracy Survive AI?
- Generative AI and Misinformation: Scoping Review (AI & Society 2025)