Norms can only be upheld if there is a perception that a norm violating actor will face condemnation. In this paper, we argue that when individuals learn about the endorsement for a norm-breaking actor, they tend to relativize the applicability of the norm. Moreover, if they learn that their own social group endorses the norm-violator, they do not punish the norm-violator. Yet, if political support for the norm-violator comes from an out-group, individuals distance themselves from the norm-violator and the out-group. We employ a vignette experiment using the case of Frontex, the EU border agency accused of illegal pushbacks in the Mediterranean, yet is supported both by the majority of left-leaning and right-leaning individuals in Germany. People on the left and right react differently to the endorsement by their respective in- and out-group. Left-leaning respondents, when learning that the left endorses Frontex despite the accusations, do not alter their group identification nor their support for Frontex. But if the right is endorsing Frontex, left-leaning respondents distance themselves from the right. Conversely, right-leaning respondents amplify their support for Frontex in reaction to an in-group endorsement, but not in reaction to an out-group endorsement. We conclude that disclosing widespread support for norm-violating actors within specific groups legitimizes these actors and reshapes intergroup dynamics. The findings underscore the societal consequences of not holding actors accountable for challenging the core values of liberal democratic systems.
