Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How did stock market performance and household income change under Trump compared to Biden?
Executive summary
Stock markets rose strongly under both presidencies, but indices gained more during Trump’s first term (2017–2021) than during Biden’s 2021–2025 term: multiple outlets report S&P/Dow/Nasdaq returns were higher in Trump’s first term versus Biden’s term (e.g., S&P roughly ~68% under Trump’s first term vs. ~57.8% under Biden, and Nasdaq gains cited as 137.5% vs. 47.1%) [1] [2] [3]. Household income trends were positive under Biden overall—official summaries say household income rose during his term—while long‑term comparisons and different measures (median vs. mean, nominal vs. real) produce varying claims in the reporting [4] [5].
1. Stock market: “Both presidents saw big gains, timing and drivers differed”
Reporting converges on the fact that major U.S. indexes climbed under both Trump and Biden, but the scale and context differed: Trump’s first term included a long bull market after 2016 gains and tax cuts, producing very large cumulative returns (news summaries put the S&P’s gain in Trump’s first term near ~68% and the Nasdaq’s rise over 100% by some tallies), while Biden’s term began amid a post‑COVID recovery and later faced high inflation and Fed rate hikes that compressed returns compared with Trump’s cycle [6] [3] [1] [2]. Analysts emphasize that presidents don’t control markets alone—monetary policy, pandemic stimulus, sector rotations (tech, energy, AI), and one‑time events shaped outcomes [6] [7] [3].
2. Numbers cited in the press: headline comparisons and their limits
Several outlets give headline figures: U.S. Bank reported the S&P 500 rose about 57.85% during Biden’s four years and nearly 68% in Trump’s first term [1]; Axios highlighted Nasdaq gains of 137.5% under Trump versus 47.1% under Biden [2]. But these summaries depend on chosen start/end dates, whether dividends are included, and which index is used—differences that reporters warn can materially change the story [3] [8]. Morningstar and Investopedia pieces reiterate that macro forces (Fed moves, pandemic shocks, AI-driven rallies) were central to returns [7] [3].
3. Volatility and sectors: who benefitted when
Coverage shows Trump’s early years favored cyclical sectors (financials, industrials) and later a technology boom, while Biden’s term saw volatility tied to inflation and higher rates and a surprising resurgence of traditional energy even as the administration pushed green initiatives [6] [7]. Media analyses note that sector leadership—e.g., mega‑cap tech and later AI beneficiaries—drove much of the headline index performance, underscoring that market gains were not evenly spread across the economy [7] [3].
4. Household income: reporting says incomes rose under Biden, but methodology matters
FactCheck.org summarizes that household income “rose again last year and was up overall under Biden,” a straightforward reporting of official aggregates [4]. Other outlets and aggregators cite varying figures—some claim Trump’s first term saw larger real family‑income gains in certain measures, or cite short‑term rises during Biden’s pandemic recovery [5]. The divergence reflects different statistics (median household income, real family income, short‑term vs. full‑term comparisons) and timing (pandemic stimulus effects boosted incomes early in Biden’s term) [5] [4].
5. Public perception vs. data: polls show growing household strain under Trump in 2025
Recent polling coverage reports many voters rating their finances negatively under Trump in late 2025—Fox polling finds 76% view the economy negatively and lower‑income households especially pessimistic [9]. Analysts contrast that sentiment with the market’s behavior: markets can rally while many households still feel financial stress because of inflation, housing costs, and distributional effects of gains [9] [10].
6. What the numbers don’t tell you: causation, distribution and timing
Every source emphasizes caveats: presidents influence policy but not the Fed, global shocks, or technological breakthroughs that often dominate returns [3] [6]. Market gains concentrated in a few large firms can lift indexes while broad household gains lag; similarly, temporary pandemic stimulus raised incomes in ways that complicate straight comparisons across full terms [4] [11].
7. Bottom line for readers: apples, oranges—and sectoral winners
Available reporting shows markets produced bigger headline gains during Trump’s first term than during Biden’s term by many measures, while household income rose under Biden on aggregate official tallies—yet both conclusions rest on specific metrics, time windows, and distributional issues [1] [2] [4]. For a fuller picture, compare identical time windows, choose consistent measures (median real household income vs. mean), and examine sectoral and demographic breakdowns rather than headline index numbers alone [8] [5].
Limitations: this summary uses only the provided articles; it does not calculate independent returns or adjust underlying series beyond what those sources report—available sources do not mention detailed, consistent spreadsheeted comparisons of identical windows and dividend adjustments across all citations.