David Bersoff, Head of Research at the Edelman Trust Institute, has spent decades measuring trust across the globe. His most striking finding right now isn't that trust is collapsing, it's that our trust circles are shrinking. We've reached a point where people who think differently, vote differently, or read different sources can barely get into each other's trust circles. When those circles stop overlapping, the bridges between us disappear, and democracy starts to strain.

In this conversation, David unpacks what he calls insularity: the homogenization of trust to the point where 7 in 10 people hesitate to trust someone who is simply different from them. He also explains why trust isn't disappearing overall but becoming dangerously uneven, with the gap between those who feel institutions work for them and those who feel the system is stacked against them widening every year.

We dig into why employers have become the unlikely safe harbour of trust, what "certainty bubbles" can teach businesses navigating uncertainty, and why trust brokering, helping groups understand each other rather than trying to change each other, may be the most realistic path forward in today's climate.

David also shares three things most people fundamentally misunderstand about trust: that just because you experience trust every day doesn't mean you understand how it works; that there are different kinds of trust, in ability, in motivation, in integrity, each granting a different licence to the people or institutions that earn them; and that trust is something you have to actively strategise around and build on purpose. It doesn't simply come from being a good company or doing your job well.

When we disagree with someone, it's tempting to assume the problem is simple: they're irrational, biased, or misinformed. But what if human reasoning doesn't work the way we think it does? What if reasoning isn't primarily about finding the truth on our own, but about exchanging arguments with others?

In this episode of TrustTalk, we speak with cognitive scientist Hugo Mercier of the CNRS in Paris and co-author of The Enigma of Reason. He explains why humans may be better at reasoning than we assume, why disagreement often turns on trust rather than logic, and what this means for science communication, polarization, and our ability to reason together.

Hugo Mercier also reflects on how confirmation bias can serve a useful function in group deliberation, why personal and local relationships often succeed where institutional messaging fails, and why, despite everything, he remains cautiously optimistic about our collective capacity to reason well.

When the United States openly pressured Denmark over Greenland, the immediate dispute faded fast. The damage to trust did not.

This episode looks beyond Greenland to a bigger question: what happens when the world’s most powerful country starts behaving like an unreliable partner? International law, trade agreements, and security alliances only work if states believe others will still play by the rules when it no longer suits them. That belief is now under strain.

With Gregory Shaffer, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of International Law at Georgetown, we talk about power, coercion, and the quiet erosion of trust in international treaties. Is the U.S. still seen as a credible partner? Are rules giving way to pressure politics? And are we already sliding into a global order where raw power matters more than promises? This is not just a diplomatic story. It may be a systemic risk.