The Dunning-Kruger Effect is a cognitive bias where individuals with limited knowledge or competence in an area overestimate their understanding or abilities. It arises when their lack of expertise impairs their ability to recognize their deficiencies, leading to inflated self-assessments.

Recently, during a hearing before a U.S. Senate committee, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem gave an incorrect definition of “habeas corpus,” repeatedly asserting it was a presidential power to deport people, rather than a fundamental constitutional right protecting individuals from unlawful detention (see Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution).

Noem’s confident but incorrect assertions about habeas corpus exemplify this effect in that she not only misunderstood the concept but also insisted on her interpretation, conflating presidential authority with constitutional rights and incorrectly referencing historical examples.

Social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger first identified the Dunning-Kruger effect in a 1999 study at Cornell University. In follow-up studies and research, they observed that people who are unskilled or uninformed in a domain tend to lack self-awareness, fail to recognize their lack of skill and cannot accurately assess their performance or knowledge. The competence of such individuals is vastly exceeded by their confidence and their self-assessment is significantly higher than is warranted by their actual performance.

Evidence in survey research suggests that the Dunning-Kruger effect does indeed apply to certain politics and the politicians who pursue them. While this effect is a psychological concept rather than a diagnostic tool, it seems apparent that some of the more notable appointments by President Donald Trump seem to underscore and demonstrate the effect. Noem is not the only appointment that evokes an awareness of the effect. We also have Elon Musk at DOGE, Pete Hegseth at Defense, Linda McMahon at Education, Kash Patel at the FBI, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. at Health and Human Services, Lee Zeldin at the EPA, Sean Duffy at Transportation, Tulsi Gabbard at National Intelligence and John Phelan at Navy. These appointments reflect a broader trend in the administration of selecting individuals with strong media presence or personal loyalty to the president, sometimes at the expense of traditional qualifications.

The Dunning-Kruger effect can be observed across the Trump administration and its policy decisions and governance actions, to wit:

Overconfidence in executive authority: Trump’s assertion of expansive executive powers, including dismissing inspectors general without adhering to legal protocols, reflects a potential overestimation of presidential authority and a disregard for established legal frameworks and checks and balances.

Implementation of the Department of Government Efficiency: The establishment of DOGE, aimed at streamlining government operations, has led to significant agency layoffs and restructuring, followed in many cases by bureaucratic backpedaling and measured restoration. The projected savings were overestimated, with cost reductions falling short of targets. This discrepancy points to an overconfidence in the ability of DOGE’s leadership and program to achieve its objectives efficiently.

Economic policy decisions: The administration implemented aggressive tariffs to bolster domestic industries. However, these measures have undercut our economy, disrupted manufacturing and supply chains, negatively impacted consumers and businesses, and shaken investors. When expert analyses attributed economic downturns to these policies, the administration continued to assert their effectiveness, indicating a possible overestimation of the economic strategy’s success.

Dismissal of scientific and expert advice: The administration’s removal of online resources related to public health, environmental policy, and social programs demonstrates a tendency to undervalue expert knowledge. By eliminating access to critical data and research, the administration might be overestimating its understanding of complex issues without the input of experts. Sidelining or removing scientific and expert input reflects confidence in decision-making that insufficient expertise might not support.

Aggressive immigration policies and legal interpretations: Invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants without due process, including actions that defy court orders, reveals a potential overestimation of legal authority and an overconfidence in legal interpretations and enforcement capabilities. Such views and actions raise concerns about the administration’s understanding of constitutional rights and legal boundaries.

Targeting of political opponents and civil society: The administration’s actions against political adversaries, including using the Department of Justice to investigate critics and dismissing oversight officials, suggest a belief in the infallibility of its decisions. This approach suggests overestimating the administration’s ability to govern without dissent or accountability.

Assault on the institution of higher education: The administration has implemented actions affecting higher education institutions. These measures encompass immigration policy, federal funding for research, student aid, diversity initiatives, and institutional oversight. Undertaken by policymakers with limited understanding of higher education, these policies demonstrate a remarkable overestimation of policymakers’ expertise in higher education and an unwarranted confidence in the desired effectiveness of these policies.

Altogether, these policies and actions illustrate how overconfidence in ability, a lack of requisite knowledge and expertise, an exaggerated sense of competence, and disregard for expert advice can lead to decisions that undermine legal norms and institutional integrity with significant and often negative consequences.

Douglas R. Sharp, Ph.D. is a retired professor of theology, religion and society.