Elite Talk on Trump's Prosecution Fails to Move GOP and Independent Voters

Understanding the Impact of Elite Messaging on Public Opinion

A recent study published in PNAS Nexus sheds light on how public opinion regarding Donald Trump’s criminal prosecution was influenced by messaging from both Trump and his federal prosecutor. The research involved a survey experiment with Republicans and independents, revealing that the effects of such messaging were more limited than previously assumed.

Criminal prosecutions of political leaders have become increasingly common across democratic countries. Since 2000, over 75 former heads of government have faced legal charges after leaving office. In the United States, Trump’s multiple indictments and eventual conviction became central issues in the 2024 election. This raised pressing questions about how different narratives around these prosecutions shape public opinion and whether attacking the prosecution could mobilize partisan support or undermine democratic norms.

While media reports have speculated on these effects, few studies have directly tested them. The new study aimed to fill this gap by measuring how voters respond to elite messaging about legal accountability.

Andrew O’Donohue, the Carl J. Friedrich Fellow in Harvard University’s Department of Government and a non-resident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, led the research. He emphasized that while political leaders face criminal prosecution globally, there is limited understanding of how these cases affect public opinion.

Methodology and Findings

To investigate these questions, researchers conducted a preregistered survey experiment involving nearly 3,000 U.S. adults who identified as Republican or independent. The study was conducted online between October and December 2023, before the 2024 Republican primaries. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a video of Trump denouncing his prosecution, a video of special counsel Jack Smith defending the prosecution, or a placebo video about artificial intelligence.

Trump’s rhetoric in the video portrayed the charges as “election interference” and an attack on democracy itself. In contrast, the Smith video emphasized the impartiality of the rule of law, stating that legal standards apply to everyone equally. All videos were sourced from CNBC to avoid strong partisan cues.

The study focused on Trump’s federal prosecution for alleged mishandling of classified documents, which legal experts considered one of the strongest cases against him. The federal prosecutor, Jack Smith, was seen as a more neutral figure compared to elected Democratic officials.

Researchers measured four key outcomes: support for Trump, support for the prosecution and the prosecutor, support for democratic norms, and affective polarization.

Results and Implications

The results challenged several assumptions about the power of elite messaging. Trump’s rhetoric had no significant effect on any of the four outcomes. Among Republicans and independents, watching Trump’s speech did not increase support for him, decrease support for the prosecution, or heighten hostility toward the opposing party. It also did not make respondents more likely to endorse retaliatory actions.

One possible explanation is that Trump’s message was already well-known. By the time of the survey, most respondents had been repeatedly exposed to his views. Researchers suggested that participants had internalized his rhetoric, making additional messaging ineffective.

In contrast, the legal messaging from Jack Smith had more nuanced effects. Among those who did not already support Trump, watching the prosecutor’s video reduced their stated likelihood of voting for him in the Republican primary. The same group also became more likely to view the prosecution as politically neutral and consistent with democratic norms.

However, these shifts came with trade-offs. Among Trump supporters, exposure to Smith’s message led to a sharp drop in favorability toward the prosecutor himself. This suggests a backlash effect: even if the message persuades some voters about the legitimacy of the prosecution, it can also trigger hostility toward the messenger, especially among loyal supporters.

Additional Insights

Other subtleties emerged from the findings. Trump’s rhetoric, while ineffective overall, slightly increased perceptions that the factual claims in the prosecution were true—but only among his own supporters. This may reflect a rhetorical strategy where Trump concedes certain facts while questioning the motives behind the prosecution.

Legal messaging also had modest effects on support for democratic norms. Among respondents who leaned Republican but were not strong partisans, the prosecutor’s message slightly increased opposition to retaliatory acts. However, these effects were not observed among strong Republicans or Trump loyalists.

Overall, both types of messaging had no measurable effect on affective polarization. That is, they did not make respondents more or less likely to dislike members of the opposing party.

Limitations and Future Research

While the study was well-designed and used a realistic format, its findings may not apply to all contexts. The sample included only Republicans and independents, leaving open the question of how Democrats might respond to similar messages.

The research also focused on a particularly well-known figure: Donald Trump. Given the entrenched attitudes many people hold about him, it is possible that rhetoric might have stronger effects when directed at lesser-known political figures, such as state attorneys general or mayors facing legal trouble.

The researchers noted that their treatments were brief. A one-minute video may not be enough to shift deeply held beliefs. Yet this brevity mirrors how many people consume political information in real life, especially on social media.

Future studies could explore whether more sustained exposure to legal messaging, or message framing from different sources, might be more persuasive. The authors also encourage further research on other politicians and in other countries, noting that prosecutions of leaders are increasingly common worldwide but remain understudied in terms of public opinion.