Building on scholarship about public opinion and democratic governance, this study uses a unique survey to test whether factual information about President Trump’s 2019–2020 impeachment influenced public attitudes.

📊 How the survey tested whether facts change minds

A sample was split into two groups. One half answered three factual questions about Trump’s first impeachment trial. The other half received the same three facts as an informational treatment in a quasi-experiment designed to try to shift their views of the trial.

📈 What the experiment found

• Support for acquittal was largely static despite exposure to factual information.
• Partisanship strongly shaped whether respondents accepted the veracity and importance of the presented political information.
• Civic knowledge—measured via the factual questions—appears to have a limited, and perhaps even nonexistent, effect on public attitudes about American politics.

🧾 Key design details

• Focus: President Trump’s first impeachment (2019–2020 hearings and trial).
• Method: A unique split-sample survey with a quasi-experimental informational treatment using three factual items.

🧐 Why it matters

These results suggest that simply providing factual information may not alter partisan-aligned judgments about high-profile political events. The findings have implications for theories of democratic responsiveness and for efforts to use civic knowledge to improve public deliberation and accountability.