Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Criminal prosecutions of political leaders have become salient election issues in the United States and globally, yet few studies examine how such prosecutions affect public opinion. In the United States, multiple criminal prosecutions did not prevent Donald Trump from winning the 2024 presidential election. How did elite rhetoric about Trump’s prosecution—from Trump himself and from his federal prosecutor—shape public opinion? Using a pre-registered survey experiment with 3,000 self-identified Republicans and independents, we test how alternative framings of Trump’s federal criminal prosecution affect public support for Trump, his prosecution and prosecutor, and democratic norms. Against theoretical expectations, we find Trump’s rhetoric attacking his prosecution does not increase support for Trump or for retaliatory violations of democratic norms. By contrast, legal rhetoric from Trump’s prosecutor reduces intention of voting for Trump, but only among respondents who do not view Trump favorably. Legal rhetoric also increases normative evaluations of the prosecution but sharply reduces approval of the prosecutor among Trump supporters. Finally, legal rhetoric increases support for democratic norms among Republicans. Overall, elite rhetoric about Trump’s prosecution has strikingly limited effects on public opinion, as pretreatment favorability toward Trump powerfully shapes whether or not citizens are receptive to rhetoric about legal accountability.
Markovits et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: