First of all, what do you understand by anti government and anti bank? From my understanding, anti means to oppose but is bitcoin opposing government and banks? Obviously No. Bitcoin is nothing but a form of digital currency that is decentralized without being control by the government or bank institutions. Government is the one seeing bitcoin as an opposition simply because its way of operation doesn't align with theirs. On the banking aspect, they are business institutions for savings and payments facilitators that exploit their customers with heavy charges while Bitcoin offers the same services for a lesser fee with faster speed. In reality, these two institutions are the one fighting bitcoin in order to continue their exploitation.

Trusting holders depends on the individual holder. There are bitcoin holders that use it responsibly based on its ethics just like our normal traditional fiats. On the contrary, people use bitcoin for illegal activities as it also exist in our local currency in the form laundering and other illegal activities. It's about the individual not the entire holders.

You do not have to trust Bitcoin holders if your factors like anti-government and banks are to be put into consideration but only trust in the Bitcoin itself. If you buy Bitcoin today and plan to hold it for the time being, then you are already a holder. Now, do you trust yourself? Can people trust you on this holding? That's the situation. Do not totally trust anyone but your Bitcoin and your plans about it. Nevertheless, the holders have been so important in the sustainability of Bitcoin over the years, this is not the time they will suddenly abandon the coin, they will continue to add their quota even as they hold it more.

However, there are categories of holders, some are for the short term, many are for the medium term, and others are for the long term. In between, there are permanent holders as well, so naturally if some holders liquidated their asset due to one reason or the other especially when the time planned for the liquidation has lapsed regardless of the date such a plan has been set as no one is holding you from selling your coin at the time you want to sell it. For these, I believe that the holders should be trusted to a high degree as many had witnessed the thick and thin with Bitcoin and have not panickly liquidated their assets.

But I do not know if this will continue to be true if the government starts clamping down on Bitcoin, only fearless holders may stay in this situation.

Bitcoin is not anti government and anti banks directly. Bitcoin is pro-freedom. Governments are anti-freedom because their purpose is to kyc anything that moves or breathes. So when bitcoin offers freedom, it automatically becomes anti-government. That’s the choice people have to make. Freedom and governance cannot coexist. You either have one, or the other.

Bitcoin offers freedom and in the free world, there are many criminal people because they can abuse that freedom to accomplish their own goals. Hackers, thieves, terrorists, drug sellers… These people do exist and they make big money everyday because there is huge demand for the services and products they offer.

In this context, do I trust Bitcoin holders? It depends on the holder we are talking about. We can’t say every btc holder is good or bad.

 Indirectly you assume bitcoin is an anti-government against the CEX but I'd say the foundation of bitcoin is on the perspective to provide a hedge to intercept global financial frustration such as the government regulations and economy conditions.
However, I'm a bitcoin holder and I don't hold it to stand opposite with the fiats such as some others could wrongly be insighted that bitcoin may take over the fiats in the future. That's not true.
The justification of bitcoin is literally on individuals perspectives to how they're being influenced with the technology potentials so, I believe I'm utilizing my bitcoin holding unexemptionally from what it's created for and not about the misusage of those associated with it on criminal intensions.

Thanks for this clarification, I believe that most investors that are holding Bitcoin, are just for business purposes, a store of value where they can put their money and believe that on the long run, it'll acrue many times over in ROI. Bitcoin holders can not be anti banks, because they use them to make fiat transactions everyday, most people that hodl Bitcoin will not even like to use it to make payments for purchases, they'll rather use fiat and hodl their Bitcoin. Also Bitcoin, holders in countries where it's not banned can't be anti government, why should they? The only thing that the governments can do is collect tax when they want to convert to fiat through CEX, but then they collect tax on almost every money related transactions.

Sure, I will trust a holder; what is the reason not to trust a Bitcoin holder? Everything has a system by which it operates. Starting from the government, arms of government, and every other system under the government, including banks, have their own individual ways of operation. That is how Bitcoin was designed for the specific system it should operate on. It is never a crime to have Bitcoin; as a matter of fact, Bitcoin was designed not to be controlled or handled by the government or banks, and therefore there is no need to trust a Bitcoin holder unless you are aware that the person is using it for illegal clearing. 

Bitcoin promotes, above all, freedom of choice. Show us in which part of the white paper, Bitcoin is against the government. You, OP, have a rather erroneous opinion, which leads to the idea that the information you have is incorrect. If we talk about the fact that many people associate the use of Bitcoin with scammers and criminals, then the statistics fail here too. If we talk about trust in Bitcoin holders, then some are truly trustworthy, and you can and should listen to their opinions. What can you say about Andreas Antonopoulos? Is there any danger in him as a person promoting Bitcoin?

Bitcoin is simply an alternative and perfects everything that fiat, banks, and weaknesses in government regulation do not have with its currency. And Bitcoin is not against or anti banks or governments, because they also can't stop it unless they stop the internet. But they can make the rules if they want.
Bitcoin holders only treat Bitcoin as a store of value or investment and they have freedom because the holder has full control without any third party, and besides that because Bitcoin is very profitable for those who hold it.

Both of the main ideas behind your post are wrong, bitcoin is not against governments and banks, it is just that if they both did their job as they should when it comes to fiat currencies, the need for bitcoin will not exist, however through history they both have systematically failed on this task given by their citizens and clients, so bitcoin is a natural reaction to this, and about trusting bitcoin holders, I do not see the relationship with the previous question or why it even matters at all.