Alienated, Not Apathetic: Gen Z, Political Power and Democracy

Younger Americans are disillusioned with American democratic institutions. Study after study has demonstrated that members of Gen Z feel disengaged from the political process despite holding modestly positive attitudes about democratic norms and practices. In a collaborative effort between the Rutgers Democracy Lab and Public Agenda, we explore the origins of these attitudes: Do younger Americans see  political change as possible only if institutions are fundamentally transformed? Or do they believe we can enact meaningful change through institutions as they currently function? 

In late summer 2026, we held three focus groups to listen to Americans aged 18-29 talk about American political institutions and democratic norms. These focus groups, with eight participants each, were diverse across age, gender, party, racial, and geographic lines. Topics included whether US democracy functions as intended, whether politicians are accountable to all Americans, whether older Americans can adequately represent the views of younger Americans, and whether government is reacting to the increased power of artificial intelligence. 

1. Gen Z adults lack efficacy but participate anyway. They talk like nihilists but act like citizens. 
2. Participants believe powerful elites have too much control, but they identify key recent moments that suggest the tide may be turning. For Democrats, the election of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani is one such moment. 
3. Gen Z adults hold complicated attitudes about the rise of artificial intelligence, which they  see as worryingly powerful but also beyond their power to fix, due to widespread and rapid adoption and the power of technology companies over politicians. 

“Democracy isn’t working, but that won’t stop me from participating in it”

Focus group participants reinforce a consistent finding that young adults’ attitudes about government today are negative but that many participate anyway. For instance, when asked whether government is functioning as intended, several participants immediately responded “no,” while others took time to explore how government is intended to function before providing mixed responses. Generally, young Americans still believe they should participate in politics—particularly at the local level—through activities such as voting, protesting, or door-knocking. Participants placed less value on voting  in federal elections since they doubted it would deliver real change. The young adults in our focus groups included within political participation a wide range of activities, including many that are frequently understood as service, such as helping immigrants. Some participants engage with politics because it connects them to their neighbors and communities while others engage with politics because certain issues, like specific tax policies, affect their livelihoods. 

I like doing political outreach in my city.  I feel like it's like a direct way for me to interact with my community in this way. I actually am able to talk to people about politics and policy. Just like everyday people.

Male, Independent, 23 years old 

I would say I have to look at a little bit of everything when it comes to politics. I have to stay up with policy changes regarding housing because of my job, particularly local policy changes. During COVID, they had the essential housing programs going around and I had to be aware of all of that. So a little bit of everything for me, at least anything that has to do with property law.

Female, Independent, 28 years old

Participants typically described themselves as moderately engaged and informed, with good media habits such as consulting diverse sources and fact-checking political information. However, they had little confidence their contemporaries were doing the same. In particular, participants expressed concern about the influence of social media, especially TikTok and Youtube, on the political knowledge and attitudes of their peers – and, especially, those younger than themselves. Many worried that younger generations are not building necessary skills for informed media consumption, making them more susceptible to the influence of misinformation and disinformation. 

Participants expressed skepticism about the practical value of voting, with many motivated by a sense of civic responsibility or an undefined sense of long-term good rather than the prospect of real, tangible change in their communities. They generally accepted that their votes wouldn’t be the “deciding” vote in an election; instead, they viewed voting as a civic duty that contributes to change on a longer time horizon. Several participants noted that, despite believing votes in local elections could make the most difference, they tended not to vote in them.

I'm from a very red state and I am a Democrat. It's hard. I vote because it matters. And eventually I have to believe that if more and more people feel that it matters and they're doing it, that eventually it'll lead to something good.

– Female, Democrat, 28 years old

Our focus groups revealed a tension in Gen Z adults: while they are deeply disillusioned with American democracy and doubt their participation will create systemic change, they ultimately participate anyway. One participant identified Gen Z pessimism as the explanation for this behavior. 

I think that our generation can get pretty negative and see just the negative things that are going on. And it's easy, right? It's so easy to see the bad. And I'm not saying that there's more good than bad. There's actually probably more bad than good. But I don't want to overlook what the government has in place for us and has succeeded on our behalf in the past.

– Female, Republican, 29 years old

Other participants explained this apparent paradox as a form of “harm reduction.” They didn’t expect to see meaningful change because of their vote, but they saw their vote as keeping people they judged to be far worse out of office. Conceiving of their vote as a preventive measure enabled participants to make sense of engaging while maintaining their cynicism. 

There's one candidate that is super far to one direction and then a moderate candidate, and then I end up voting for the moderate candidate because that feels like my best option. Do I agree with every single thing they stand for? No. It's in those moments where I start to feel a little discouraged. Yes, my vote mattered because I kept what I deeply disagreed with out of office.

– Female, Independent, 22 years old

I feel like a lot of the times in recent elections I'm voting more towards harm reduction than the ends that I'd like to see.

– Male, Independent, 25 years old

“Politicians only look out for themselves”

Participants, regardless of party identification, place much of the blame for the perceived decay of civic society in America on politicians and special interests. Some were able to point to specific moments where they observed politicians acting for their own benefit instead of the common good. 

Even on data centers locally, I'll see the local town council where they're like, “we're not gonna listen to you guys.” You know, the check's already cleared, so, oh well. So, I think that for me, I'm more pessimistic and say that I don't think politicians care what we think.

– Male, Independent, 29 years old

Do you see the way politicians move when they're in office? It's very selfish. You see what politicians invest in. Some people really push it, like Mitch McConnell's taking a paycheck and he's probably dead. You never know who's doing what, but it seems very selfish. And they're just working for the 1% and themselves

– Female, Democrat, 28 years old

When asked directly whom politicians represent, participants identified special interests (naming data centers and AI companies specifically in most cases), wealthy donors, and “themselves” as the actors whom politicians serve. Nonetheless, the judgment that these politicians are only in it for themselves is not enough to deter participants from continuing to engage with politics. 

The willingness to participate despite deep cynicism might be explained in part by the social media presence of figures who are taken—at least by co-partisans—to represent a hopeful alternative. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani was cited by several participants as an exception to the rule, a politician who cares about ordinary people, speaks directly to them, and is committed to responding to residents’ wishes. Some red state Democrats specifically identified Mamdani as a source of belief that someone similar could emerge in their community.

[Mayor Zohran Mamdani] in New York is just doing all of the things and he's given me some hope. If he can do it, maybe everybody else can. I'm trying to like, hold onto the hope that we have examples of grassroots community building.

– Female, Democrat, 28 years old

“It’s not fair that the people making the decisions for the next generations won’t have to live with those decisions.”

Elected officials are generally seen as out of touch. And while we might expect Gen Z adults to feel aggrieved because politicians don’t share their perspective, the complaint we heard even more frequently is that older politicians will not share their fate. This was stated bluntly by one participant: 

A lot of the policies are being put in place by people who have one foot in the grave. There's other people that have the rest of their lives ahead of them that will have to live with the consequences of the policies that are being enacted now.

– Female, Independent, 28 years old

This was not the only objection to being represented by people decades older, as most participants generally agree with concerns that the increasing age of elected officials removes them from the day-to-day problems with which Gen Z is grappling  Neither of these views was universal, as indicated by a Republican participant who said:

I would rather trust an older person than a person my age because a lot of people my age are the same in terms of ideology.

– Male, Republican, 24 years old

This participant suggested older representatives would be better suited to speak on his behalf because they were more likely to share his political opinions. This perspective suggests some young people prioritize ideological alignment over resonance with Gen Z identity. Other participants viewed gerontocracy as inevitable because running campaigns is time consuming and expensive, and younger people lack both time and money. 

You can either have the money to run or you have the influence where you have some authority and credibility and people listen to what you say. That's why I spend more of my personal time actually trying to get either money or influence because I do want to  make changes, but right now I understand that I will have way less of an impact versus if I had a hundred million dollars or if I had a hundred million people that listened to me.

Male, Independent, 22 years old

“AI is here to stay, it’s dangerous and bad for the environment, and it needs to be regulated”

Gen Z adults recognize that everything about their lives will be affected by AI, and they are keenly aware that AI has been shaped nearly entirely by members of older generations. Having had no say in the creation of AI, focus group participants perceived themselves as having little power to control it. Most participants describe themselves as frequent users of AI tools, such as grammar checkers or Chat GPT, but they are also skeptical of information provided through these tools. They also expressed concern about the environmental impact of AI and the risk that data centers would harm their own communities. 

The views of focus group participants mirror widespread concerns among Americans about unaccountable technology companies, unregulated corporate control, and unrepresentative decision processes. As in the case of political and civic engagement, Gen Z adults find themselves actively participating in a system they do not trust and which they believe they will be unlikely to influence. 

AI is not a tool that is not worth using, but I just find it very frightening how much it is ingrained in our lives and how now technology companies are prioritizing making it more human. I find that scary.  I'm very apprehensive about it. I know a lot of people use it literally every single second of every single day and love it, which is frightening.

– Female, Democrat, 28 years old

You're either on the tidal wave and you're going to learn how to use AI now or you're gonna be swept away by it. I don't want AI to take my job, but if I don't learn it and implement it, it probably will.

– Male, Independent, 22 years old

The environmental and community impact of data centers were highlighted several times by participants, particularly among Democrats. In some cases, participants appeared not to have heard about these impacts and admitted the need to do more research – although, again, the prevailing attitude among all participants was that it may be futile to fight data centers and AI in any case. 

I would be for AI if it just didn't take so much water. I hear what everybody else is saying in regards to automating tasks and AI being a tool, but if the tool is going to cause people to die, to be run out of their homes because they can no longer have clean drinking water, I just can’t. I don't agree with the idea that you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet because in this instance a lot of those eggs are people of color or poor people.

– Female, Independent, 28 years old

This page will be updated with results from pre- and post-2026 midterm election surveys. To stay up-to-date on findings, join RDL’s newsletter here and Public Agenda’s newsletter here.

Sarah Bryner, Andrew Seligsohn and Rebecca Silliman contributed from Public Agenda. 

Eyal Hanfling, Atl Castro Asmussen and Nicholas Longo contributed from Rutgers Democracy Lab.

Rutgers Democracy Lab mobilizes the power of Rutgers to strengthen democracy. Through skills-building, practical experiences, and engaged research we equip students to address real-world challenges and turn ideas into civic action.

Public Agenda is a national research-to-action organization that digs deep into the key challenges facing our democracy to uncover insights and solutions. Founded in 1975 by the social scientist and public opinion research pioneer Dan Yankelovich and former secretary of state Cyrus Vance, we engage with advocates, journalists, policymakers, and the philanthropic community to ensure public voice is heard in conversations that shape our shared future.