The most recent polling data from February 2025 puts the approval rating of the United States Congress at 29 percent, reflecting a significant increase from January. The approval rating remained low throughout the 118th Congress cycle, which began in January 2025. Congressional approval Congressional approval, particularly over the past few years, has not been high. Americans tend to see Congress as a group of ineffectual politicians who are out of touch with their constituents. The 118th Congress began in 2023 with a rocky start. The Democratic Party maintains control of the Senate, but Republicans took back control of the House of Representatives after the 2022 midterm elections. The House caught media attention from its first days with a contentious fight for the position of Speaker of the House. Representative Kevin McCarthy was eventually sworn in as Speaker after a historic fifteen rounds of voting. Despite the current Congress having a historic share of women and being the most diverse Congress in American history, very little has been done to improve the opinion of Americans regarding its central lawmaking body. Ye of little faith However, Americans tend not to have much confidence in many of the institutions in the United States. Additionally, public confidence in the ability of the Republican and Democratic parties to work together has decreased drastically between 2008 and 2022, with nearly 60 percent of Americans having no confidence the parties can govern in a bipartisan way.

Objectives: We evaluate whether citizens’ trust in Congress is influenced by perceptions of ideological distance between themselves and their representatives. We argue that citizens view members as the “face” of Congress, and thus trust the institution more when the face of that institution is more ideologically proximity to themselves. Methods: We test our hypotheses using responses to survey questions regarding both trust in Congress and perceptions of ideological distance between respondents and members of Congress on the 2008 and 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. We then pair this observational survey data with a survey experiment administered by Qualtrics in 2016. Results: Ordinal logistic regressions from our survey data evince strong empirical support for our arguments, showing that as perceived ideological distance between a respondent and her member of Congress increases, trust in Congress as a whole declines. These observational analyses are corroborated by our survey experiment, which again shows that as perceptions of ideological distance increase trust in legislatures declines. Conclusions: Our results suggest that a lack of faith in legislative institutions is often the result of a failure of representation. One way to restore Americans’ trust in Congress is for members to demonstrate more fidelity to the ideological leanings of their constituents.

During a survey conducted in the United States in 2024, 57 percent of respondents said they had very little confidence in Congress. This is compared to the small businesses, where 36 percent of respondents reported having a great deal of confidence, making it the most trusted institution in the United States.

According to a survey in July 2020, ** percent of respondents said that they trusted the United States House of Representatives more than the Senate to do what is best for the country.

In a survey held in 2020, ** percent of Generation Z respondents in the United States said that they trust the military, making it the second-most trusted institution. This number rose to ** percent when the survey was held again in 2022. In that year, the institution that Gen Z was least likely to trust was the U.S. Congress, with only ** percent saying they had at least some trust in Congress.

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Alternative Congress Trust Inc.

Abstract

Starting in 1973, the Gallup Confidence in Institutions Survey measures the confidence level in several U.S. institutions like the Congress, Presidency, Supreme Court, Police, etc. The dataset includes responses from 1973-2024. The survey is conducted once per year.

Methodology

The Confidence in Institutions survey leverages the same methodology as the Gallup Poll Social Series (GPSS).

Gallup interviews a minimum of 1,000 U.S. adults aged 18 and older living in all 50 states and the District of Columbia using a dual-frame design, which includes both landline and cellphone numbers. Gallup samples landline and cellphone numbers using random-digit-dial methods. Gallup purchases samples for this study from Survey Sampling International (SSI). Gallup chooses landline respondents at random within each household based on which member had the next birthday. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 70% cellphone respondents and 30% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Gallup conducts interviews in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking.

Gallup weights samples to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cellphone users in the two sampling frames. Gallup also weights its final samples to match the U.S. population according to gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only, landline only, both, and cellphone mostly).

Demographic weighting targets are based on the most recent Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the most recent National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the most recent U.S. Census.

Usage

For more information about included variables and terms of use, please see Supporting Files.

Bulk Data Access

Data access is required to view this section.

Scholars often assert that public support for judicial authority induces Congress to grant resources and discretion to the Supreme Court. However, the theory of competing public agency embraced by the Constitution suggests that public support for courts cannot, by itself, explain congressional support for judicial authority. Instead, the logic of the separation of powers system indicates that legislative support for the institutional capacity of courts will be a function of public confidence in the legislature as well as evaluations of the judiciary. We test this theory, finding that public confidence in both Congress and the Court significantly affect congressional support for the Supreme Court, controlling for the ideological distance between the Court and Congress as well as the Court's workload. The results offer a more refined and complex view of the role of public sentiment in balancing institutional power in American politics.

Abstract (en): This special topic poll, fielded September 11-13, 1998, sought respondents' views on Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's ongoing investigation of President Bill Clinton and the resulting "Starr Report," submitted to the United States Congress on September 10, 1998. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of Clinton and his handling of the presidency and the economy, as well as their views on the United States Congress, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Starr, and the direction of the country. Those queried were asked whom they trusted to handle the problems of the nation and for whom they would be voting in the upcoming November 1998 congressional elections. A series of questions addressed the investigation into Clinton's relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Topics covered whether respondents believed that Clinton had explained enough, whether Clinton had apologized enough, and whether Clinton had done anything illegal. Respondents were asked if they believed, based on the Starr Report, that Clinton should resign, be impeached, or be censured. Additional questions covered the evidence contained in the Starr Report, the amount of detail regarding Clinton's sexual relationship with Lewinsky included in the report, and whether this scandal would impact Clinton's ability to serve effectively as president. Background information on respondents includes age, sex, race, education, political party affliation, and voter registration and participation history. The data contain a weight variable (WGT) that should be used for analysis. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Created variable labels and/or value labels.; Created online analysis version with question text.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Persons aged 18 and over living in households with telephones in the contiguous 48 United States. Stratified random-digit dialing. Within households, respondents were selected using a method developed by Leslie Kish and modified by Charles Backstrom and Gerald Hursh (see Backstrom and Hursh, SURVEY RESEARCH, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1963). 2008-09-22 The weight variable was corrected and SAS, SPSS, and Stata setup files and SAS and Stata supplemental files have been added to this data collection. The CASEID variable was created for use with online analysis. Question text has been added to the codebook and the data collection instrument has been taken out of the codebook and made into its own file. telephone interviewThe data available for download are not weighted and users will need to weight the data prior to analysis.The CASEID variable was created for use with online analysis.This data collection was produced by Chilton Research Services, Radnor, PA.

In Oklahoma, historic depictions of the land areas representations, as described in 1867-1870, were developed and called Tribal Statistical Areas (TSA) in the AIAN-LAR. These areas are similar to the Bureau of Census Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas (OTSA) which are areas used for the collection, tabulation and presentation of decennial census data for the 36 Federally- recognized American Indian tribes located in the state. No legal inference can or should be made from the TSA information in the GIS dataset. Reservation boundary data is limited in authority to those areas where there has been settled Congressional definition or final judicial interpretation of the boundary. Absent settled Congressional definition or final judicial interpretation of a reservation boundary, the BIA recommends consultation with the appropriate tribe and then the BIA to obtain interpretations of the reservation boundary. This GIS Dataset is prepared strictly for illustrative and reference purposes only and should not be used, and is not intended for legal, survey, engineering or navigation purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the use of the data for purposes not intended by the BIA. This GIS Dataset may contain errors. There is no impact on the legal status of the land areas depicted herein and no impact on land ownership. No legal inference can or should be made from the information in this GIS Dataset. The GIS Dataset is to be used solely for illustrative, reference and statistical purposes and may be used for government to government Tribal consultation. Reservation boundary data is limited in authority to those areas where there has been settled Congressional definition or final judicial interpretation of the boundary. Absent settled Congressional definition or final judicial interpretation of a reservation boundary, the BIA recommends consultation with the appropriate Tribe and then the BIA to obtain interpretations of the reservation boundary. The land areas and their representations are compilations defined by the official land title records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) which include treaties, statutes, Acts of Congress, agreements, executive orders, proclamations, deeds and other land title documents. The trust, restricted, and mixed ownership land area shown here, are suitable only for general spatial reference and do not represent the federal government’s position on the jurisdictional status of Indian country. Ownership and jurisdictional status is subject to change and must be verified with plat books, patents, and deeds in the appropriate federal and state offices. Included in this dataset are the exterior extent of off reservation trust, restricted fee tracts and mixed tracts of land including Public Domain allotments, Dependent Indian Communities, Homesteads and government administered lands and those set aside for schools and dormitories. There are also land areas where there is more than one tribe having an interest in or authority over a tract of land but this information is not specified in the AIAN-LAR dataset. The dataset includes both surface and subsurface tracts of land (tribal and individually held) “off reservation” tracts and not simply off reservation “allotments” as land has in many cases been subsequently acquired in trust. These data are public information and may be used by various organizations, agencies, units of government (i.e., Federal, state, county, and city), and other entities according to the restrictions on appropriate use. It is strongly recommended that these data be acquired directly from the BIA and not indirectly through some other source, which may have altered or integrated the data for another purpose for which they may not have been intended. Integrating land areas into another dataset and attempting to resolve boundary differences between other entities may produce inaccurate results. It is also strongly recommended that careful attention be paid to the content of the metadata file associated with these data. Users are cautioned that digital enlargement of these data to scales greater than those at which they were originally mapped can cause misinterpretation. The BIA AIAN-LAR dataset’s spatial accuracy and attribute information are continuously being updated, improved and is used as the single authoritative land area boundary data for the BIA mission. These data are available through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Trust Services, Division of Land Titles and Records, Branch of Geospatial Support.

Abstract (en): This collection, A Longitudinal Study of Public Response, was conducted to understand the trajectory of risk perception amidst an ongoing economic crisis. A nation-wide panel responded to eight surveys beginning in late September 2008 at the peak of the crisis and concluded in August 2011. At least 600 respondents participated in each survey, with 325 completing all eight surveys. The online survey focused on perceptions of risk (savings, investments, retirement, job), negative emotions toward the financial crisis (sadness, anxiety, fear, anger, worry, stress), confidence in national leaders to manage the crisis (President Obama, Congress, Treasury Secretary, business leaders), and belief in one's ability to realize personal objectives despite the crisis. Latent growth curve modeling was conducted to analyze change in risk perception throughout the crisis. Demographic information includes ethnic origin, sex, age, marital status, income, political affiliation and education. This longitudinal panel study was launched on September 29, 2008, the day the Dow experienced its largest one-day point drop. The first of seven waves of data collection was dedicated almost exclusively to public response to the financial crisis. Further data collection followed on October 8, 2008, November 5, 2008, December 6, 2008, March 21, 2009, June 30, 2009, October 6, 2009, and August 9, 2011. The surveys were spaced closer together in the beginning of the study believing that the most change would occur early in the crisis and, of course, not knowing how long the crisis would last. Collecting the first seven waves of data over a year's period allowed time for the public to respond to different phases of the crisis. A panel of over 800 individuals participated in the study. This ongoing Internet panel was developed by Decision Research through word-of-mouth and Internet recruiting (e.g., paying for Google search words). Nonrespondents (panelists invited to participate but who chose not to) did not differ significantly from respondents in terms of age, gender, or education. Surveys were left open for completion for four to six days, although most panelists responded in the first 24 hours. These online panelists were paid at the rate of $15 per hour with a typical payment of $6 and an incentive if they completed all surveys. Any panelist who appeared to rush through the survey was eliminated and not invited to participate again. N/A ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Created variable labels and/or value labels.; Created online analysis version with question text.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Presence of Common Scales: Lipkus Numeracy Score, Hierarchy-Egalitarianism Scale, Individualism-Communitarianism Response Rates: Wave 1: 81 percent; Wave 2: 89 percent; Wave 2a:80 percent; Wave 3: 87 percent; Wave 4: 85 percent; Wave 5: 91 percent; Wave 6: 76 percent; Wave 7: 74 percent; Wave 8: 79 percent Smallest Geographic Unit: None Convenience sample of Decision Research web-panel participation located throughout the United States. Funding insitution(s): National Science Foundation (SES-0901036). web-based survey

The purpose of the American Indian and Alaska Native Land Area Representation (AIAN-LAR) Geographic Information System (GIS) dataset is to depict the external extent of federal Indian reservations and the external extent of associated land held in “trust” by the United States, “restricted fee” or “mixed ownership” status for federally recognized tribes and individual Indians. This dataset includes other land area types such as Public Domain Allotments, Dependent Indian Communities and Homesteads. This GIS Dataset is prepared strictly for illustrative and reference purposes only and should not be used, and is not intended for legal, survey, engineering or navigation purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the use of the data for purposes not intended by the BIA. This GIS Dataset may contain errors. There is no impact on the legal status of the land areas depicted herein and no impact on land ownership. No legal inference can or should be made from the information in this GIS Dataset. The GIS Dataset is to be used solely for illustrative, reference and statistical purposes and may be used for government to government Tribal consultation. Reservation boundary data is limited in authority to those areas where there has been settled Congressional definition or final judicial interpretation of the boundary. Absent settled Congressional definition or final judicial interpretation of a reservation boundary, the BIA recommends consultation with the appropriate Tribe and then the BIA to obtain interpretations of the reservation boundary. The land areas and their representations are compilations defined by the official land title records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) which include treaties, statutes, Acts of Congress, agreements, executive orders, proclamations, deeds and other land title documents. The trust, restricted, and mixed ownership land area shown here, are suitable only for general spatial reference and do not represent the federal government’s position on the jurisdictional status of Indian country. Ownership and jurisdictional status is subject to change and must be verified with plat books, patents, and deeds in the appropriate federal and state offices. Included in this dataset are the exterior extent of off reservation trust, restricted fee tracts and mixed tracts of land including Public Domain allotments, Dependent Indian Communities, Homesteads and government administered lands and those set aside for schools and dormitories. There are also land areas where there is more than one tribe having an interest in or authority over a tract of land but this information is not specified in the AIAN-LAR dataset. The dataset includes both surface and subsurface tracts of land (tribal and individually held) “off reservation” tracts and not simply off reservation “allotments” as land has in many cases been subsequently acquired in trust. These data are public information and may be used by various organizations, agencies, units of government (i.e., Federal, state, county, and city), and other entities according to the restrictions on appropriate use. It is strongly recommended that these data be acquired directly from the BIA and not indirectly through some other source, which may have altered or integrated the data for another purpose for which they may not have been intended. Integrating land areas into another dataset and attempting to resolve boundary differences between other entities may produce inaccurate results. It is also strongly recommended that careful attention be paid to the content of the metadata file associated with these data. Users are cautioned that digital enlargement of these data to scales greater than those at which they were originally mapped can cause misinterpretation. The BIA AIAN-LAR dataset’s spatial accuracy and attribute information are continuously being updated, improved and is used as the single authoritative land area boundary data for the BIA mission. These data are available through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Trust Services, Division of Land Titles and Records, Branch of Geospatial Support.

This special topic poll, fielded January 16-19, 2007, is a part of continuing series of monthly polls that solicit public opinion on various political and social issues. This poll was conducted prior to President Bush's State of the Union speech on January 23, and focuses on his proposals about the war with Iraq, including sending additional United States military forces to Iraq, President Bush's and Congress' handling of the war with Iraq, and whether the United States did the right thing in going to war with Iraq. Respondents were also asked whether they approved of George W. Bush and the way he was handling the presidency and other issues such as the economy, whether they approved of the way Congress was handling its job, and whether things in the country are on the right track. Opinions were solicited on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the 2008 presidential candidates, whom respondents would vote for if the 2008 Democratic and Republican primaries and the presidential election were held that day, and whether an independent commission should be established to investigate and enforce ethics rules for members of Congress. Respondents were asked what was the most important problem they would like to see Bush and Congress deal with, whether they trust Bush or Congress to do a better job handling issues such as the federal budget, and whether Bush or Congress was taking a stronger leadership role in the government. Additional questions addressed global warming, Medicare, the national minimum wage, embryonic stem cell research, and Iran. Demographic information includes sex, age, race, education level, employment status, household income, religious preference, marital status, whether anyone in the household was a military veteran, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), voter registration status, political party affiliation, political philosophy, and the presence of children under 18 in the household.

The confidence of Americans in the ability of Democrats and Republicans to work together in Congress has taken a hit between 2008 and 2022. A survey conducted in 2022 found that only **** percent of respondents had a lot of confidence the two parties could work together in a bipartisan way. This is down from ** percent of respondents to a survey in 2008.

A growing body of empirical research shows an association between public support for the U.S. Supreme Court and both judicial independence and congressional court curbing activity. At the same time, studies of jurisdiction stripping show Congress' efforts to limit federal courts’ jurisdiction are principally related to courts' workloads rather than ideological differences between courts and Congress. Here, we connect these streams of inquiry by testing the hypothesis of a negative relationship between public support for the Supreme Court and jurisdiction stripping legislation. Contrary to prior studies, we find a positive relationship between Americans' confidence in the Supreme Court and jurisdiction stripping. This result indicates the need for additional research on the interactions among public opinion, federal courts, and Congress.

According to a survey conducted in Chile in October 2022, political parties and the National Congress were the country's institutions that gather the lowest level of trust among citizens. **** and **** percent of respondents, respectively, claimed to have little or no trust in these institutions. By contrast, nearly ** percent of Chileans considered firefighters to be trustworthy.

This GIS Dataset is prepared strictly for illustrative and reference purposes only and should not be used, and is not intended for legal, survey, engineering or navigation purposes.No warranty is made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the use of the data for purposes not intended by the BIA. This GIS Dataset may contain errors. There is no impact on the legal status of the land areas depicted herein and no impact on land ownership. No legal inference can or should be made from the information in this GIS Dataset. The GIS Dataset is to be used solely for illustrative, reference and statistical purposes and may be used for government to government Tribal consultation. Reservation boundary data is limited in authority to those areas where there has been settled Congressional definition or final judicial interpretation of the boundary. Absent settled Congressional definition or final judicial interpretation of a reservation boundary, the BIA recommends consultation with the appropriate Tribe and then the BIA to obtain interpretations of the reservation boundary.The land areas and their representations are compilations defined by the official land title records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) which include treaties, statutes, Acts of Congress, agreements, executive orders, proclamations, deeds and other land title documents. The trust, restricted, and mixed ownership land area shown here, are suitable only for general spatial reference and do not represent the federal government’s position on the jurisdictional status of Indian country. Ownership and jurisdictional status is subject to change and must be verified with plat books, patents, and deeds in the appropriate federal and state offices.Included in this dataset are the exterior extent of off reservation trust, restricted fee tracts and mixed tracts of land including Public Domain allotments, Dependent Indian Communities, Homesteads and government administered lands and those set aside for schools and dormitories. There are also land areas where there is more than one tribe having an interest in or authority over a tract of land but this information is not specified in the AIAN-LAR dataset. The dataset includes both surface and subsurface tracts of land (tribal and individually held) “off reservation” tracts and not simply off reservation “allotments” as land has in many cases been subsequently acquired in trust.These data are public information and may be used by various organizations, agencies, units of government (i.e., Federal, state, county, and city), and other entities according to the restrictions on appropriate use. It is strongly recommended that these data be acquired directly from the BIA and not indirectly through some other source, which may have altered or integrated the data for another purpose for which they may not have been intended. Integrating land areas into another dataset and attempting to resolve boundary differences between other entities may produce inaccurate results. It is also strongly recommended that careful attention be paid to the content of the metadata file associated with these data. Users are cautioned that digital enlargement of these data to scales greater than those at which they were originally mapped can cause misinterpretation.The BIA AIAN-LAR dataset’s spatial accuracy and attribute information are continuously being updated, improved and is used as the single authoritative land area boundary data for the BIA mission. These data are available through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Trust Services, Division of Land Titles and Records, Branch of Geospatial Support.These data have been made publicly available from an authoritative source other than this Atlas and data should be obtained directly from that source for any re-use. See the original metadata from the authoritative source for more information about these data and use limitations. The authoritative source of these data can be found at the following location: https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/tiger-line-file.2021.html#list-tab-790442341The BIA Indian Lands dataset’s spatial accuracy and attribute information are continuously being updated, improved and is used as the single authoritative land area boundary data for the BIA mission. This data are available through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Trust Services, Division of Land Titles and Records, Branch of Geospatial Support. Please feel free to contact us at 1-877-293-9494 geospatial@bia.gov

Bolded multivariate results are statistically significant.

The questions contained in the core modules of the two SASAS questionnaires for 2006 (demographics and core thematic issues) were asked of 7000 respondents, while the remaining rotating modules were asked of a half sample of approximately 3500 respondents each. The data set contains 2939 records and 388 variables. Topics included in the questionnaires are: democracy, identity, public services, moral issues, crime, voting, demographics and other classificatory variables. Rotating modules are: communication, International Social Surveys Programme (ISSP) module, national identity, social exclusion, poverty, tourism and leisure, media and communication, work and welfare.

The harmonised core module data are available in the combined dataset. The questions contained in the core modules of the two SASAS questionnaires for 2006 (demographics and core thematic issues) were asked of 7000 respondents, while the remaining rotating modules were asked of a half sample of approximately 3500 respondents each. The combined data set contains 5843 records and 157 variables. Topics included in the questionnaires are: democracy, identity, public services, moral issues, crime, voting, demographics and other classificatory variables. This version of the combined dataset should be used where analysis is to be performed at household level.