IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v107y2026i2ne70131.html

Partisanship, Trump Favorability, and Americans’ Evaluations of the FBI

Author

Listed:
  • Carly Watts
  • James C. Garand

Abstract

Background While Republicans have traditionally been seen as supportive of US law enforcement, after 2016, many Republicans came to view the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as politically biased due to its investigation of possible collusion with the Russian government by the Trump campaign. Aims We explore how partisanship and evaluations of Donald Trump affect evaluations of the FBI. We hypothesize that the relationship between partisanship and FBI evaluations is conditioned on individuals’ support for Donald Trump. Materials and Methods We use data from the 2020 and 2016 American National Election Survey (ANES) to analyze evaluations of the FBI. For the sake of comparison, we analyze evaluations of the police as a placebo case. Results We find: (1) there is a direct negative effect of Trump support on FBI evaluations, and (2) as support for Trump increases, the relationship between Republican partisanship and FBI evaluations is significantly diminished. We contrast FBI evaluations in 2020 to evaluations of the police in 2016 and 2020, finding that both Trump support and Republican partisan identification have direct positive effects on Americans’ support for the police.

Suggested Citation

  • Carly Watts & James C. Garand, 2026. "Partisanship, Trump Favorability, and Americans’ Evaluations of the FBI," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 107(2), March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:107:y:2026:i:2:n:e70131
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.70131
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.70131
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.70131?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:107:y:2026:i:2:n:e70131. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.