With increasing interest in applications and insights from decision sciences, it has become important to define ethical grounds governing ways to interact with those receiving behavioral interventions. Here, I seek to evaluate two interventions, libertarian paternalistic default nudges and educational decision aids, on their impact on trust (a core element of American Psychological Association’s Integrity principle) when making decisions regarding recycled water. In 3 studies, I show that while both educational interventions and default nudges could be used to influence individuals’ decision to use recycled water, education managed to maintain trust while some default nudges decreased it. Specifically, calculating difference scores for domain specific trust (pre and post experimental conditions) revealed that the education condition did not significantly impact participants’ trust (M=.02, p=.82; M=-.05, p=.58, M=.06, p=.49). The default-in condition, on the other hand, led to either a significant or near significant reductions in trust (M=-.28, p<.001; M=-.22, p<.001, M=-.11, p=.08). These results can have some potential practical implications, as they can provide water reuse professionals and policymakers with recommendations as to which intervention is more likely to maintain public trust. They can also have important ethical implications. By demonstrating that default nudges can decrease individuals’ trust, these results provide some of the first evidence that the implementation of default nudges might contradict what is recommended in the APA’s code of conduct (professionals have an obligation to maintain trust). This research is an important steppingstone toward the goal of being able to empirically quantify and evaluate ethical costs associated with different kinds of behavioral interventions.