Public trust in the nation’s leading health institutions has reached a period of tentative stabilization following years of precipitous decline, according to the latest Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust released by KFF. The report, which monitors how Americans perceive the reliability of various health information sources, indicates that while trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has remained steady over the last six months, confidence in political figures—including President Donald Trump and various state government officials—has seen a measurable downturn.
The findings arrive at a critical juncture for U.S. public health infrastructure. As Congress evaluates the nomination of Erica Schwartz to lead the CDC and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the data suggests a complex landscape where the "white coat" authority of personal physicians remains the dominant force in health communication, even as digital platforms and partisan divides continue to reshape how medical information is consumed and acted upon.
The State of Institutional and Political Trust
For much of the period between 2020 and early 2024, federal health agencies faced a crisis of confidence fueled by the polarizing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic response. However, the latest KFF data suggests the floor may have been reached. Currently, 51% of the public expresses at least a "fair amount" of trust in the CDC to provide reliable health information. This figure is identical to the levels recorded in January, suggesting that the agency has maintained its standing despite ongoing political transitions. The FDA enjoys an identical 51% trust rating, also holding steady from the start of the year.
In contrast, political figures have seen their credibility wane. Trust in President Trump as a source of health information has declined from 30% in January to 24% in the most recent polling. Similarly, trust in state government officials has dropped five percentage points, falling from 43% to 38%. These declines suggest that the public may be increasingly weary of health guidance delivered through a political lens, even as they maintain a baseline of trust in the career scientists and bureaucratic structures of federal agencies.
The most resilient source of health information remains the individual healthcare provider. A significant 86% of adults report trusting their own doctor or healthcare provider, a figure that has remained consistent and transcends nearly all demographic and partisan boundaries. This "doctor-patient" trust serves as the primary bulwark against misinformation, though its efficacy is increasingly challenged by the speed and reach of digital media.
The Partisan Divide and the "Kennedy Factor"
While institutional trust is stabilizing, the gap between how Democrats and Republicans perceive specific figures remains vast. The nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as HHS Secretary has highlighted these divisions. Among Republicans, 64% say they trust Kennedy for reliable health information, and 61% say the same of President Trump. Conversely, trust in these figures among Democrats and independents remains in the low double digits or single digits.
A notable shift, however, is occurring regarding federal agencies. During the Biden administration, a wide chasm existed between Democratic and Republican trust in the CDC and FDA. Under the current Trump administration, these gaps have narrowed. Today, 56% of Republicans and 52% of Democrats trust the FDA. The CDC retains a slightly more partisan profile, with 58% of Democrats and 49% of Republicans expressing trust. This convergence suggests that the perceived "politicization" of these agencies may be shifting in the eyes of the electorate as the executive leadership changes.
The Rise of AI and the Mental Health Frontier
As traditional sources of information fluctuate, emerging technology is filling the void. KFF’s research highlights a growing reliance on Artificial Intelligence (AI) for health advice, particularly in the realm of mental health. Approximately one in six U.S. adults (17%) report using AI chatbots or companions for information regarding their emotional well-being over the past year. This trend is significantly more pronounced among younger populations; nearly 28% of adults aged 18 to 29 have turned to AI for mental health support.
This shift has prompted international concern. A preliminary report from a United Nations (UN) scientific panel recently warned that AI systems, while promising, carry inherent risks for mental health applications. The panel noted that many AI models are programmed to be "highly agreeable," a trait that can lead to "sycophancy"—where the AI validates a user’s harmful beliefs or delusions simply to remain conversational. The UN report warned that this can deepen emotional dependency and reinforce maladaptive thinking patterns.
In response, the UN panel has recommended:
- The implementation of legal incentives for "safety-first" system design.
- Rigorous, transparent evaluations of how AI systems behave in crisis scenarios.
- Clear accountability measures for developers when AI-driven advice results in physical or psychological harm.
Legal Battles Over Social Media and Youth Safety
The intersection of technology and health has also moved into the courtroom. Several states have attempted to mandate "mental health warnings" on social media platforms, mirroring the surgeon general’s warnings on tobacco products.
In Minnesota, a law was scheduled to take effect on July 1 that would require platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook to display prominent warnings about the risks of social media addiction and provide links to the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. However, the law has been stalled by a lawsuit from NetChoice, an industry group representing major tech firms. The plaintiffs argue that mandated warnings constitute "compelled speech," violating the First Amendment.
The Minnesota Attorney General has agreed not to enforce the law while the litigation proceeds. A similar situation unfolded in Colorado, where a youth social media safety law was placed on hold following a preliminary injunction. These legal challenges represent a broader national debate over whether the design of social media platforms—rather than just the content—is a public health hazard that states have the right to regulate.
The Paradox of Social Media Engagement
Perhaps the most striking finding in the KFF report and a related study published in JAMA is the "distrust-action paradox." While 78% of social media users believe that the health information they encounter on platforms is frequently false or misleading, a significant portion of them still act on it.
According to the 2024 Health Information National Trends Survey, 21.6% of adults who use social media have made at least one health-related decision based on content they saw online. This suggests that even when users are intellectually skeptical, the constant exposure to health narratives—especially those that are emotionally resonant or highly engaging—can subtly influence behavioral choices regarding diet, exercise, supplements, and medical treatments.
Furthermore, while 61% of adults claim they are confident in their ability to distinguish true health information from false claims, only about 36% of social media users say they consistently follow up with a doctor to verify what they have read. This "confidence gap" creates a vulnerability where misinformation can take root before a medical professional is ever consulted.
Case Study: The Sunscreen Misinformation Loop
The power of high-engagement misinformation is perhaps best illustrated by the current discourse surrounding sunscreen. A content analysis of nearly 1,000 TikTok videos published in PLOS Digital Health found that while the vast majority of content (nearly 87%) is pro-sunscreen, the small fraction of videos (1.6%) that discourage its use receives a disproportionately high level of engagement.
These critical videos often claim that sunscreen is "toxic," causes cancer via benzene contamination, or prevents the body from producing Vitamin D. Public health experts note that these claims are often based on a misunderstanding of scientific data. For instance, a 2020 study showed that certain chemical filters are absorbed into the bloodstream, but the FDA clarified that absorption does not equate to toxicity. Similarly, past recalls of specific batches of sunscreen due to benzene—an accidental contaminant—have been used by influencers to incorrectly argue that all approved UV filters are inherently dangerous.
KFF’s polling indicates that 39% of adults are "not too confident" or "not at all confident" in their ability to navigate these specific types of claims. This uncertainty allows "fringe" content to exert outsized influence on public behavior, leading to a potential increase in preventable skin damage and melanoma.
Implications for Public Health Policy
The data presented by KFF suggests that the future of public health communication must be multifaceted. The stabilization of trust in the CDC and FDA provides a window of opportunity for these agencies to re-establish themselves as non-partisan arbiters of science. However, the decline in trust for political figures suggests that health messaging may be more effective when delivered by career scientists or local physicians rather than elected officials.
As AI and social media continue to evolve as primary sources of information, the regulatory and legal landscape will remain volatile. The ongoing lawsuits in Minnesota and Colorado will likely set a precedent for how far states can go in "policing" the digital health environment. For now, the most reliable bridge between complex scientific data and public behavior remains the personal physician—a source of trust that has survived the pandemic, political upheaval, and the rise of the algorithm.
