Do vaccine mandates actually increase vaccination rates?
Yes, the strongest evidence here shows that vaccine mandates can rapidly and substantially increase vaccine uptake. A 2022 study using a difference-in-differences approach across Canadian provinces found that the announcement of a proof-of-vaccination mandate was associated with a more than 60% increase in weekly first doses [1]. That same study estimated cumulative gains in vaccination rates among eligible populations of up to 5 percentage points in Canada (adding roughly 979,000 first doses), 8 points in France, 12 points in Italy, and 4.7 points in Germany [1]. These are large, real-world effects that show mandates can be effective at getting more people vaccinated.
However, this does not automatically mean mandates build trust. The same paper notes that the surge in vaccinations was rapid but does not measure whether it came from people who were persuaded or simply forced by the policy [1]. Other research suggests that mandates may push some people to get vaccinated out of necessity rather than conviction, which could have different long-term trust implications [2].
How do mandates affect public trust in government and science?
The evidence consistently shows that vaccine mandates can damage public trust, especially when they are perceived as excessive, inconsistent, or not evidence-based. A 2022 review in BMJ Global Health argued that mandates may cause 'detrimental long-term impacts on trust in government and scientific institutions' and reduce uptake of future public health measures [2]. A 2025 qualitative study of 60 interviews in France, Italy, and Hungary found that trust in governments was eroded where implementation was seen as 'irrational or excessive,' and that inconsistent health information amplified uncertainty and suspicions [5].
On the other hand, trust can also be a prerequisite for support of mandates. A 2025 panel data analysis from the U.S. found that higher trust in the President and state governor correlated with greater support for vaccine mandates [3]. This suggests a two-way relationship: trust helps mandates gain acceptance, but poorly designed mandates can destroy that same trust. The key is that mandates are more likely to maintain or build trust when they are transparent, proportional, and based on clear evidence [6].
What are the unintended consequences of mandates on trust?
Several studies highlight that mandates can backfire by polarizing society and reducing trust in public health institutions. The BMJ Global Health review outlines how restricting access to work, education, and public transport based on vaccination status can promote stigma and social polarization, which in turn erodes trust [2]. A 2023 analysis of Twitter narratives found that negative sentiment about HPV vaccines increased during legislative efforts to mandate them, suggesting that mandates can trigger backlash in online discourse [4].
Additionally, a 2023 study on vaccine nationalism found that while the public actually trusted leaders who redistributed vaccines more than those who hoarded them, professional civil servants incorrectly predicted the opposite [7]. This shows that policymakers' intuitions about what builds trust can be wrong. The Australian public consultation on the 'No Jab No Pay' mandate revealed that 95% of public submissions opposed the legislation, and the government's report was criticized for privileging expert opinion over public concerns, which could further damage trust [8].
About These Sources
This answer is built on 8 peer-reviewed studies — published from 2022 to 2026, 4 from 2024 or later, 5 in Q1 journals, collectively cited 454 times — selected as the most relevant from 10 studies that passed quality screening, drawn from 53 papers retrieved from a database of over 500 million.
Sources used in this answer
COVID-19 vaccination mandates and vaccine uptake
Using a difference-in-differences approach across Canadian provinces, this study found that vaccine mandate announcements led to a more than 60% increase in weekly first doses, with cumulative vaccination rate gains of up to 5 percentage points in Canada, 8 in France, 12 in Italy, and 4.7 in Germany [1].
The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good
This review argues that COVID-19 vaccine mandates may cause more harm than good, including detrimental long-term impacts on trust in government and scientific institutions, and reduced uptake of future public health measures [2].
A panel data analysis of the impact of government trust on support for universal and air travel vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic
Using U.S. panel data from 2020-2023, this study found that higher trust in the President and state governor correlates with greater support for vaccine mandates, with the effect of trust in the President varying by health threat severity and political ideology [3].
HPV vaccine narratives on Twitter during the COVID-19 pandemic: a social network, thematic, and sentiment analysis
A social network and sentiment analysis of 596,987 tweets found that negative sentiment about HPV vaccines increased during legislative efforts to mandate HPV vaccination in New York in 2019, suggesting mandates can trigger online backlash [4].
“Uncertainty, stress, unpredictability, and worry”: A qualitative study exploring public trust, emotions and willingness to comply with government-led COVID-19 mitigation measures during the pandemic in France, Italy and Hungary
Qualitative interviews in France, Italy, and Hungary found that trust in governments was eroded where COVID-19 measures were seen as irrational or excessive, and inconsistent health information amplified uncertainty and suspicions [5].
Beyond the North-South Divide: Vaccine Ethics, Structural Inequities, And the Quest for Global Health Justice
This ethical review argues that vaccine mandates may be justified in some cases (e.g., for the immunocompromised) but require transparency, proportionality, and public trust that they are evidence-based [6].
Vaccine Nationalism Counterintuitively Erodes Public Trust in Leaders
Across seven experiments with 4,215 adults in Australia, Canada, UK, and US, the public trusted redistributive leaders more than nationalistic ones, but professional civil servants incorrectly predicted higher trust in nationalistic leaders [7].
A critical analysis of the Australian public consultation on childhood vaccine mandate introduction.
Analysis of Australia's 'No Jab No Pay' public consultation found that 95% of public submissions opposed the mandate, and the government's report was criticized for privileging expert opinion over public concerns, potentially damaging trust [10].