Americans still seem to trust their own doctors even as confidence in federal health agencies continues to decline, new poll results show.
In August, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center polled nearly 2,000 Americans and found that 87% of respondents were confident that their doctor, nurse or other primary healthcare provider gave them trustworthy information about public health.
Download the Straight Arrow app today to get the stories that matter free from manipulation, bias or agenda.™
Point phone camera here
According to other Annenberg polls, that figure has barely changed in recent years. In September 2024, 88% trusted their healthcare provider, while 2023 surveys put confidence levels between 87% and 90%.
Other research suggested that trust in healthcare providers took a hit early in the pandemic. One survey of more than 443,000 U.S. adults found that the share of respondents reporting “a lot” of trust in physicians and hospitals fell from 71.5% in April 2020 to 40.1% in January 2024. But another study found signs that trust rebounded between 2022 and 2024.
While trust in providers has remained steady, confidence in federal health agencies has followed a markedly different trajectory.
In August, 61% of Americans said they were confident that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides trustworthy public health information, down from 72% in September 2024. Confidence in the Food and Drug Administration fell from 73% to 59% over the same period, while confidence in the National Institutes of Health declined from 74% to 61%.
The proportion of Americans who said they were “very confident” in each agency fell even more sharply. Just 13% now say they are very confident in the CDC, compared with 29% in 2024.
The new survey results paint a picture of a widening divide between how Americans view the healthcare professionals they interact with personally and the federal institutions responsible for issuing health guidance and regulating medicines, vaccines and other products.
“It is concerning to see the gap between confidence in the federal public health agencies and confidence in healthcare providers double over the course of 2025 and not recover since,” said Patrick E. Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute.
“We don’t see evidence in our data that the Trump administration is restoring trust in the federal health agencies,” added Laura Gibson, a research analyst at Annenberg Public Policy Center.
A tumultuous public health era
The erosion of trust in public health did not begin with the current Trump administration. During the COVID-19 pandemic, shifting guidance on masking, vaccines and other measures, alongside the growing politicization of the pandemic response, contributed to a broader debate over the credibility of public health institutions. Surveys conducted during and after the pandemic documented declines in confidence in the CDC and other health authorities.
READ MORE: How the search for vaccine safety led parents away from the experts
Straight Arrow previously interviewed parents across the country about shifting views on vaccines, and many pointed to the pandemic as an eye-opening experience. Some described becoming more skeptical of government health recommendations and questioning advice they previously would have accepted, including recommendations about routine childhood vaccines.
Since President Donald Trump returned to office, he and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have pursued a major overhaul of federal health policy while arguing that the changes are necessary to restore lost trust.
Last year, Kennedy removed all 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee and appointed new members, saying a clean sweep was necessary to rebuild confidence in vaccine recommendations. Longstanding federal recommendations around childhood vaccines have changed, with the administration placing greater emphasis on individual decision-making and parental choice.
READ MORE: Federal vaccine guidance is changing. Here’s what that means for Americans.
In recent weeks, Kennedy and Pennsylvania public health officials have clashed over two deaths the state reported as “measles-associated.”
At least one of the deaths involved a newborn who had measles but died from a ruptured spleen. The Lancaster County coroner said he did not believe measles contributed to the death, although measles was listed as a contributing condition on the infant’s death certificate. Pennsylvania health officials have stood by their classification, explaining that they use “measles-associated” when laboratory or epidemiological evidence shows a person had measles at the time of death, even when the disease is not determined to be the immediate cause.
Kennedy initially questioned whether the deaths had occurred as described and later suggested they might have been fabricated. The CDC, which initially offered condolences to the families, said it would not include the deaths in its national measles death count while it reviewed additional information. As of Aug. 30, the agency said the available information did not establish whether measles caused or contributed to the deaths or whether the individuals died from other causes while infected.
READ MORE: Pediatricians split from CDC in childhood vaccine recommendations
The disagreement echoes disputes that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic over the distinction between dying “with” an infectious disease and dying “from” it. Public health experts note that death certificates can include an immediate cause, an underlying cause and other contributing conditions, complicating the relationship between an infection and a death.
Kennedy has repeatedly said his changes at federal health agencies are intended to rebuild Americans’ confidence in government health recommendations.
“We are actually restoring faith in the public health agencies so people will take our advice, and our advice is that people should get the measles vaccination,” he said during a visit last week to an elementary school in Tampa, Florida.
But the latest polling data suggests that the Trump administration may have only restored trust among Republican voters and not across the entire political spectrum.
An increasingly partisan issue
The new Annenberg findings are consistent with other recent polling.
READ MORE: When should children get each vaccine dose? And who gets to decide?
Earlier this year, researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health polled over 2,000 people and found that 50% of respondents trusted health recommendations from the CDC, down from 77% in spring 2025. Trust in state health departments also fell from 80% to 66% in one year, while trust in local health departments dropped from 82% to 70%.
In June, the nonpartisan health policy research and polling organization KFF found a similar divide. About 34% of respondents said they trusted their own doctor or healthcare provider “a great deal,” compared with 11% who said the same of the CDC and 8% of the FDA. Even fewer expressed that level of trust in state government health officials (6%), Kennedy (8%) or Trump (7%).
The poll also found partisan differences. For instance, 90% of Republicans, 80% of Independent voters and 92% of Democrats trusted their own doctor while 49% of Republicans, 50% of Independents and 58% of Democrats trusted the CDC.
A much larger partisan divide emerged around individual political figures. More than 60% of Republicans said they trusted Kennedy and Trump for reliable health information, compared with 15% or fewer of Democratic survey respondents.
Americans are turning to AI
Doctors and public health agencies are also increasingly competing with a new source of medical information: artificial intelligence.
The Pew Research Center reported last month that 34% of a poll’s 3,488 respondents said they used AI chatbots for at least one health or medical purpose, citing quick access and low cost. About a quarter used the tools to diagnose symptoms, learn about treatments or to receive health information at little to no cost.
READ MORE: Move fast and heal things? AI tests regulation and medicine’s cautious culture
Doctors and researchers have repeatedly warned that AI chatbots can provide inaccurate or potentially harmful medical advice, particularly when people turn to them for mental health support. A 2025 Stanford study found that some therapy chatbots displayed stigma toward certain mental health conditions and responded inappropriately to prompts involving suicidal thoughts or delusions. More recent research has documented similar concerns, although AI systems continue to evolve and some have improved their responses to mental health crises.
But even as more people turn to AI with health questions, not everyone trusts the information they receive. In a recent Straight Arrow audience poll, 215 readers were asked whom they would trust if their doctor and an AI tool disagreed about a medical diagnosis. About 40% chose their doctor, 37% said they would seek a second opinion and 21% said their decision would depend on the evidence. Only about 1% of respondents said they would trust the AI.
The Straight Arrow poll was an audience survey and not designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Still, its results echo a distinction emerging in national polling: Americans may increasingly use AI to seek out and understand medical information without necessarily viewing it as a replacement for the healthcare professionals they trust.
Round out your reading
- All your questions about napping, answered.
- Trump’s $5,000 promise echoes past payouts that never materialized.
- Inside the effort to make data centers pay their share of electricity costs.
- Why did the Feds seize the ’largest Martian meteorite on Earth’?
- Photos and video show exactly where and when Trump visited Ground Zero after 9/11.
