The past few years have been rocked by the Covid-19 pandemic, inflation, and debates over race relations, education and border security. But none of those are the biggest problem facing the nation, according to Americans. Rather, the government itself is the most important problem – and not for the first time.
In fact, this is the seventh time in the past 10 years that government has been the No. 1 problem in Gallup’s annual assessment, but the numbers have been trending down.
The highest rate of dissatisfaction occurred in 2019, at 27 percent, but has been declining and hit 19 percent this year.
Gallup notes in its summary that “government” is a catchall term that includes multiple response options that include the president, Congress, partisanship and gridlock.
As with most issues, there is a partisan divide on responses, with government ranking as a bigger problem among Republicans (25 percent) than Democrats (18 percent) and independents (16 percent).
The poll of 1,020 adults was conducted Nov. 9-Dec. 2. It has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.
The Fulcrum asked a number of experts on improving government their thoughts on how to restore trust in government.
Julia Roig, founder and chief network weaver, The Horizons Project:
In a democracy, what many have forgotten is that government is the responsibility of all of us, accountable to all of us, and the way in which we care for each other as citizens. If there is dissatisfaction, the answer is to get involved, be a part of the solution, participate actively and organize within your community while respecting the many different opinions and perspectives we have in such a diverse country. Americans have such ingenuity, but we are stuck in a story that government is the problem as opposed to an opportunity for innovation and positive change. It’s time to flip the script and imagine what’s possible, and then work for it together.”
Peter Levine, associate dean, Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University:
I suspect that the people who name ‘government’ as the biggest problem hold a wide range of opinions about why it’s problematic. They may include people from all the way across the political spectrum. This ideological diversity makes it hard to develop a response that would really improve public opinion across the board.
In my opinion, a priority is to spend the very large amounts of money authorized by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act in ways that are – and that appear – fair and that engage a lot of Americans. People should feel they can influence the spending and that they can be part of the actual work: for instance, helping to build infrastructure or reduce carbon emissions. In turn, spending the federal money well will require adequate investments in processes and training.
Norman Ornstein, emeritus scholar, American Enterprise Institute
The results didn’t surprise me. Let’s face it – if you go on a multi-decade assault against the government it’s going to have an impact. The thing I find unsettling about this is there isn’t much of a response to the direct threat to our democracy. … It’s a testament to the failure of our journalists in not sounding the appropriate alarms.
Thirty percent of Americans elect 70 percent of the U.S. senators. That is not representative of the country and its diversity. [Ornstein said he doubts whether even a tragedy like 9/11 could pull the country together today.
Prabha Sankaranarayan, president and CEO, Mediators Beyond Borders
This is quite frankly a time of national emergency and what I know is that we can come together with a resolve. Not a single person can afford to be uninvolved. People are working hard at every level and the country is abuzz with what is possible. We are in the middle of re-imagining our democracy, in lots of ways. We are engaged in creating shared narratives of who we want to be as a nation; we are focused on reforming our electoral system, we are addressing our history of harm and resilience ... and so much more.
So instead of taking this Gallup poll in isolation, I keep in mind all these activities (that don't get reported enough) as well as other things like More in Common's research on the “perception gap” in our views of each other and know that we have work to do.
We have to move beyond binaries – that is our job as peacebuilders – to introduce nuance and layers into every attempt to reduce things to simplistic dichotomies. We are capable of better than that. We are capable of creating this next iteration of our democratic republic.
What we can all do is encourage and support all forms of civic engagement – from parents in communities who want to ensure the best education for their children by reshaping their local school board meetings to be constructive spaces, to those involved in updating our electoral system, our healthcare, our safety and security systems.
Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.