Abstract Criminal prosecutions of political leaders have become salient election issues in the United States and globally, yet few studies have examined how such prosecutions affect public opinion. Donald Trump's criminal prosecution and ultimate victory in the 2024 US presidential election offer a valuable case to evaluate these effects. How does elite rhetoric about the accused leader's prosecution—from Donald Trump himself and from his federal prosecutor—shape public opinion? Using a preregistered survey experiment with 3,000 self-identified Republicans and independents, we test how alternative framings of Donald Trump's federal criminal prosecution affect public support for the accused leader, his prosecution and prosecutor, and democratic norms. Against theoretical expectations, we find that Trump's rhetoric attacking his prosecution does not increase support for him or for retaliatory violations of democratic norms. By contrast, legal rhetoric from Trump's federal prosecutor reduces intention of voting for the prosecuted leader, but only among respondents who do not view the leader favorably pretreatment. Legal rhetoric also increases normative evaluations of the prosecution overall but causes sharp backlash against the prosecutor among the leader's supporters. Finally, legal rhetoric increases support for democratic norms among some subgroups. Overall, elite rhetoric about Donald Trump's prosecution has strikingly limited effects on public opinion, as pretreatment favorability toward the prosecuted leader shapes whether or not citizens are receptive to rhetoric about legal accountability.
Markovits et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: