Abstract: On-screen text can describe what a video shows, or it can frame what the video is supposed to mean. Current benchmarks treat both alike, testing whether a model can read the text rather than whether it should trust it. We study claim deference, multimodal large language models' tendency to let an on-screen claim override conflicting visual evidence. We introduce VisualTrust, a counterfactual benchmark with 5,063 cases across 14 claim-fact classes. Each case pairs a question with three versions of the same video: one with no claim, one with an accurate claim, and one with a misleading claim that alters a single grounded fact. The option the misleading claim supports is the trap answer. Across seven open-weight and four proprietary models, mean accuracy falls from 90.1% without a claim to 51.9% with a misleading claim. Among initially correct responses, 42.8% flip to the trap answer and only 0.6% become other errors. Strong no-claim accuracy does not ensure resistance. We also introduce DEAR (Decoupled Evidence Arbitration and Reading), a training-free agent for video question answering that separates evidence arbitration from reading. An independent check reports conflicting evidence, a selector weighs it without a fixed modality priority and blinds what it withholds, and the reader answers from the resulting video in a fresh context. On 500 videos across three proprietary models, DEAR raises accuracy under misleading claims from 47.2--64.0% to 81.8--85.2% and reduces trap-answer selection from 34.4--50.8% to 11.6--15.0%, while preserving no-claim accuracy.