Confronting, or calling out people for prejudiced remarks, reduces subsequent expressions of prejudice. However, people who confront others incur social costs: Confronters are disliked, derogated, and avoided relative to others who have not confronted. These social costs hurt the confronter and reduce the likelihood of future confrontation. The present studies (N = 1,019) integrate the close relationships and prejudice reduction literatures to examine whether people who are confronted assign fewer social costs when they trust the confronter. Study 1 provided correlational evidence that people who were confronted for making a sexist remark experienced less irritation and annoyance (i.e., negative other-directed affect) if they trusted the confronter, which, in turn, reduced social costs. Manipulation of trust in Study 2 with non-Black participants provided causal evidence that trust buffers against social costs. Being confronted predictably led to more negative other-directed affect and social costs, relative to not-confronted participants; however, these effects were mitigated among participants who underwent a trust-building exercise with the confronter. Study 3 used an ecologically valid context in which non-Black participants who made a stereotypic remark were confronted by an actual friend or stranger. They assigned fewer social costs when confronted by their friend (vs. stranger), and this effect was serially mediated by trust and negative other-directed affect. Importantly, confrontation reduced subsequent stereotyping in all studies. Practically, these studies reveal that when confronters establish trust, they experience fewer social costs. Theoretically, these studies provide a new direction for confrontation research that accounts for interpersonal dynamics. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).