Recent studies have demonstrated the potency of government branding to enhance citizens’ trust in government organizations and policies. In addition, studies have pointed to the detrimental implications of this emotive effect, mainly its ability to compensate for organizations’ poor functioning, and accordingly to elicit undue trust. In light of these concerns, this study explores the boundaries of governments’ persuasion of citizens through branding and symbolic communications. Building on social psychology and marketing research, I hypothesize that citizens are less susceptible to persuasion by branding the more they perceive the policy issue as personally relevant. I test this expectation through a survey experiment, focused on air pollution policy in Israel, exploiting the natural variation in the perceived personal relevance between citizens residing in a polluted area in the country and others. The results indicate that even high levels of perceived personal relevance do not attenuate the effect of symbolic brand elements. This means that the boundaries of persuasion and manipulation through branding are wider than expected.