This study is based on an opinion poll with a nationally representative sample. The data has been weighted to take into account key demographic variables. An analysis by subgroups is presented, comparing groups according to their political alignment with the Republican and Democratic parties. Although this alignment is a significant confounding factor, other factors have not been adjusted for in the analysis, such as previous levels of trust, educational level, gender, age, whether or not respondents have children, quality of health insurance, or media exposure.

The study shows that trust in health institutions at three levels of government is largely related to political affiliation. This can lead to some health alerts being modulated by the effect of the political party issuing them, giving rise to major population health risks. This politicization of public health in the US is in line with other research.

One noteworthy finding is that there are health issues that enjoy broad bipartisan support, such as chronic disease prevention, water safety, and reducing maternal and infant mortality. These should therefore be used as a basis for restoring public trust. On the other hand, some of the issues that those who believe that the new government will improve their trust in health institutions think will work best are related to resource efficiency and reducing political and corporate influence.

This work highlights the strong politicization of trust in public health institutions in the US. It provides other countries with some clues as to how to emphasize communication related to public health, promoting transparency in important decision-making.

The relationship between science and policy is a close one. It has two sides, science policy, which regulates the framework within which science is funded and produced, and science for policy (science advice), which provides scientific knowledge to support political decision-making. For a long time, the two facets of the relationship have worked in parallel and have functioned relatively outside of political confrontation.

Social media and the new way of doing politics, however, have radically changed this situation, although the origins of political interference in science go back further. Because it is more difficult to discern between true and false content on the internet, it is now easier than ever to spread politically motivated fake news. In the United States, social media has greatly accelerated a long-standing political rift in scientific trust. Since Ronald Reagan, Republican leaders have turned science into a partisan arena. The ideology of deregulation and limited government action is one of the main reasons for this attitude. Republican lawmakers often ignore environmental issues despite the scientific consensus on their causes and effects.

President Trump has taken suspicion of science to another level by treating it as just another political opinion. In his view, scientists and institutions that contradict his views are motivated by their political agendas and this has led him to claim that the science they offer is false. The fact that the acceptance or rejection of science is increasingly determined by political affiliations threatens the autonomy of scientists. Once a theory is labelled ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’, it becomes difficult for scientists to question it. Thus, some scientists are less likely to question hypotheses for fear of political and social pressures.

In any case, a Gallup poll conducted in 2021 showed a small decline in the percentage of US adults who said they had a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in science compared to a 1975 study. The percentage dropped from 70% to 64%. However, that small change masks much larger changes, reflecting a complete divide in support for science between Democrats and Republicans.

On the other hand, people are increasingly viewing scientific issues through a political lens. In the past, that politicised conversation focused mostly on climate change, energy and other environmental issues. But since the pandemic, and as a result of this new way of doing politics, we are seeing it move into other areas. The problem is that in a society as polarised as America's, it's not just about trust in science, it's also about people's perception of how much they trust science versus how much the other side trusts science. The more hostility one feels towards the other side, the less willing one is to accept it.

A paper just published in Nature shows that political polarisation also influences the use of science in policy-making. An analysis of hundreds of thousands of policy documents reveals striking differences in the use of scientific literature by policymakers from each party: Democratic-led congressional committees and left-wing think tanks are more likely to cite research articles than their right-wing counterparts.

Most seriously, when science is ideologised in this way, the discussion shifts from facts to ideology. This is what this article reflects, and this is what is particularly worrying. In particular, it indicates that Republicans are very willing to follow health recommendations now that they have their own people in government. And we already know what profile the person in charge of health policy in the US has at the moment.