You may want to look into the etymology of "trust." That's one of several indicators that you're actually relying on the concept of truth in your comments here -- there's really no getting around that if you're going to make assertions about how things are. Even if they border on addled word salad.
Want to argue that assertions of truth can be tied up with power? OK. I get that and have argued it myself. Want to argue that grasping the truth is complicated and can be very difficult? Sure. Want to argue for an epistemology where "truth" is nothing more than an imaginary construct? So are 0 and i and yet at the same time they're clearly reflections of graspable aspects of reality.
Want to argue that truth is nothing more than a power grab? This can itself be a move related to power, and probably is. Furthermore, it's just not sustainable. To make an assertion is to make a statement of truth.
An accurate understanding of reality is certainly not the only factor in achieving fitness & status, and I'd even believe at a certain point increased resolution when it comes to understanding reality has diminishing returns (and am aware of some research that supports this).
But absent understanding of reality, there is no effective sustainable fitness or status (or effective allocation resources).
I don't know what you'd call that understanding but truth works for me.