public trust in high-profile figures is shifting
A new BonusFinder.com poll of more than 3,000 U.S. adults asked a simple but pointed question: which public figures do people trust least? The survey—fielded during a time of intense headlines, including a grand jury indictment bringing 37 federal counts against a former president—captures both attitudes and actions. Respondents named the personalities they distrusted and reported whether they had unfollowed any of them on social platforms.
Who answered, and what was measured
The sample consists of U.S. adults who rated well-known politicians, entertainers and business leaders for trustworthiness and said whether they’d taken platform-level steps like unfollowing. The poll’s timing is tied to contemporary news events, though exact field dates weren’t provided. The result is a snapshot of public sentiment in a highly charged moment.
Why this matters now
Trust in public figures affects what people watch, who they buy from, and how they engage civically. For companies and creators, it also translates into tangible risk: partners, sponsors and investors care about reputational exposure. In other words, reputation management is no longer just PR—it’s a material business issue with implications for ESG, investor confidence and revenue.
Key takeaways
– Low trust scores don’t always produce immediate follower losses. Some widely distrusted names still keep large audiences. – Conversely, specific events or viral stories can trigger quick, visible unfollowing even if broader trust measures haven’t shifted. – Brands should treat reputation like any other asset: monitor early signals, prepare rapid responses, and use independent verification to rebuild credibility when needed.
who topped the list of least trusted public figures
The poll ranked distrust across drivers from politics to entertainment. Rather than simply cataloguing names, the broader pattern is revealing: distrust is broad and cross-cutting, but the public’s behavioral responses vary.
Two dynamics drive the disconnect:
– Long-term perceptions — years of commentary or controversy that shape baseline trust scores. – Short-term shocks — legal developments, scandals or viral stories that provoke immediate action online.
From an ESG standpoint, that difference matters. A sustained trust deficit can erode stakeholder confidence and commercial partnerships even when follower counts look stable. At the same time, a sudden wave of unfollows can quickly reduce attention and monetization before trust metrics fully reflect the damage.
Practical implications for organizations
– Track both sentiment (surveys, polls) and behavior (follower trends, engagement metrics). – Put a rapid-response protocol in place that ties communications, legal and compliance teams together. Keep messages short, verifiable and action-focused. – Use third‑party audits and transparent disclosures to restore or strengthen credibility; standards like SASB and GRI provide useful frameworks. – Be proactive: sustained community engagement and consistent values-based messaging limit the chance a single controversy becomes catastrophic.
who ranked where
When asked to name the figure they trusted least, respondents placed the twice‑impeached former president at the top—nearly a third of participants cited him. The poll notes this result came after the grand jury charged him with 37 federal counts, a development likely to influence sentiment.
Other high-visibility names also appeared: Kanye West (27.4%), President Joe Biden (26.6%), and Elon Musk (23.6%) were among the most cited. Media personalities such as Tucker Carlson (18.9%) and Alex Jones (17.6%) rounded out the list. The mix—musicians, politicians, tech founders, and media figures—shows distrust spread across politics, culture and business.
breakdown of the top names
The pattern is clear: distrust spans sectors. Musicians with recent controversies sat alongside politicians from both parties and technology CEOs whose power stokes scrutiny. That matters for brands and creators trying to build lasting engagement. A credibility deficit can depress monetization, invite regulatory attention, and weaken partnerships. Conversely, credibility can be monetized: consistent values, transparent governance, and accountable behavior create measurable value.
For creators: disclose clearly, welcome independent verification, and act consistently across platforms.
For brands: tighten governance, make content-moderation practices transparent, and report to stakeholders regularly.
Some companies are already linking executive incentives to reputation metrics or publishing independent audits of platform practices—early examples of converting trust into formal, measurable outcomes.
who lost the most followers—and what that shows
The survey also asked about unfollowing behavior. The person who prompted the most unfollows was YouTuber and makeup artist Jeffree Star—15% of respondents said they had unfollowed him. The former president was second, with 14.8% reporting they had unfollowed his account. Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones each were cited by 14.6% as accounts they had unfollowed.
Those numbers reinforce that loss of trust and follower attrition aren’t always perfectly aligned. A widely disliked figure can still retain a large audience; a different personality may see rapid audience erosion after a high-profile controversy or platform policy change.
What organizations should do
– Combine sentiment tracking with behavioral metrics (unfollow spikes, engagement drops) and qualitative signals. – Set early-warning thresholds for sudden follower loss and run fast root-cause analyses when those alarms trigger. – Align response protocols with investor-facing reporting so reputational damage can be converted into operational targets and disclosures.
media figures, platforms and follower dynamics
Platform mechanics matter. Algorithm changes, moderation policy shifts, and ownership decisions can amplify or dampen controversy. That in turn affects who gains attention and who loses followers—sometimes regardless of the underlying facts.
Platforms can help by improving transparency: clearer provenance tags, more explicit removal rationales and better moderation explanations reduce reflexive disengagement while protecting users from real harm. As analytics evolve, expect more granular tools that link specific events to user behavior, helping brands and creators understand when action is needed.
context and implications
Who’s affected? Public figures, their audiences, and the platforms that host them. What happened? Concentrated follower loss around high-profile names, driven by controversy, platform policy shifts and shifting public opinion. Why it matters? Because follower churn maps directly to advertising, sponsorship value and investor perceptions.
From an ESG angle, reputation is an operational risk. Organizations should treat audience sentiment and follower dynamics as governance issues—reporting them where relevant, embedding them in risk registers, and using structured frameworks like SASB and GRI to disclose mitigation efforts.
what the poll tells us about trust and visibility
This survey offers a useful barometer of how trust and social media behavior overlap. It measures perceptions, not objective truth: people distrust figures for many reasons, from content concerns to perceived inconsistency. Those motives vary by demographic and political leanings.
Visibility carries trade-offs. Public attention brings influence—and exposure. That exposure makes reputations fragile, but also gives organizations levers to reinforce credibility through steady, transparent engagement.
implications for communicators and platforms
For communicators: watch both sentiment and hard engagement data, run scenario tests before major statements, and tie crisis playbooks to rapid measurement. Use clear, verifiable claims and minimize noise.
For platform managers: sharpen moderation transparency, improve provenance and rationale tools, and invest in analytics that map narrative events to audience action. It evolves with events, coverage and platform dynamics. Organizations that monitor early signals, respond quickly and invest in transparent governance are best positioned to protect—and sometimes even profit from—hard-earned credibility.