How has the U.S. economy performed during Trump's second term by key indicators?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Through the first year of President Trump’s second term, headline macro indicators show mixed performance: GDP growth was revised up to 3.8% in Q2 2025 (White House figures) while unemployment “remains relatively low” and private-sector job creation continued (CEPR) [1] [2]. But public sentiment and affordability metrics have soured—Trump’s economic approval fell to 31% in an AP‑NORC poll, and large shares of voters say prices and cost-of-living pressures persist (Axios; AP‑NORC; Fortune) [3] [4] [5].
1. Growth headline: a revised Q2 GDP boost, but disputed interpretation
The administration highlights a revised Q2 real GDP growth rate of 3.8% as evidence of an “economic resurgence” tied to tax cuts, deregulation and tariffs (White House) [1]. Independent analysts and think tanks cited in our set of sources take a different view: some foresee slowing activity and warn that Trump-era policies—especially trade shocks and tariff uncertainty—could weigh on longer‑run growth (CEPR; Investopedia; El País) [2] [6] [7]. The White House frames the revision as vindication of its agenda; outside researchers say revisions and one-quarter beats do not settle structural effects or distributional costs [1] [2].
2. Jobs and labor market: low unemployment, concentrated gains
Multiple sources report unemployment has remained relatively low and private employers continued hiring, with much of new employment clustered in healthcare (CEPR) [2]. Reuters and El País note early signs of cooling in some labor indicators and of possible downward risks to activity that could affect hiring if they materialize [7]. Available sources do not provide a comprehensive year‑end payroll total or a single monthly unemployment rate for 2025; they point instead to a picture of continued, but uneven, labor-market strength [2] [7].
3. Inflation, prices and affordability: politics and pocketbook pain
Voters report persistent cost pressures: a majority say they see higher grocery and utility prices and many are trimming holiday spending, and a Reuters on‑the-ground quote said “Prices are up 20 to 30 percent under Trump” (Axios; The Guardian; Reuters) [3] [8] [9]. The White House counters that targeted price declines have occurred for some food items and says mortgage rates and inflation are improving since January (White House) [10]. FactCheck.org finds some presidential claims about inflation and investment overstated or unsupported by independent data [11]. In short, consumer sentiment and affordability are weak even as the administration points to selected price improvements [3] [10] [11].
4. Trade and tariffs: policy wins with clear economic costs
Tariffs are a central policy lever this term. The White House credits tariff revenue—reporting large customs receipts—and ties tariffs to industrial reshoring and higher manufacturing output [12]. But reporting and analysis show concrete costs: retaliatory buying pauses (China and soybeans), rising input costs for farmers, special aid packages for affected constituencies, and tariff uncertainty hurting business planning (Axios; Reuters) [13] [9]. CEPR and Investopedia cite tariff-driven uncertainty as a drag on investment and as a reason the administration’s moves could widen income and regional disparities [2] [6].
5. Markets, investment and reshoring claims: bright stock market, fuzzy promises
Many sources note that the stock market “has done remarkably well” while private-sector investment announcements touted by the president include large, partly unfirm claims (CEPR; FactCheck.org) [2] [11]. FactCheck.org and other analysts caution that some reshoring and investment figures cited by the White House are inflated, conditional, or not yet realized—reducing their value as evidence of sustained structural change [11].
6. Political economy: approval, uncertainty and potential fallout
Public approval on the economy has fallen to historically low levels for Trump, with just 31% approval in AP‑NORC polling and Republican backing slipping (Axios; AP; Fortune) [3] [4] [5]. CEPR emphasizes that the administration’s rapid, unpredictable policymaking—many executive actions and fast reversals—has amplified economic uncertainty, which in turn shapes business and voter behavior [14] [2]. That context helps explain why positive GDP revisions coexist with widespread affordability complaints.
7. Bottom line and what’s not in these sources
The administration’s selective indicators—revised GDP, higher customs receipts, and some sectoral gains—can be marshaled as proof of success; independent analysts emphasize tariff costs, distributional losses, and policy uncertainty [1] [12] [2] [13]. Available sources do not provide a unified, audited year‑end accounting of all key indicators (comprehensive employment series, full-year inflation decomposition, or finalized investment realizations) and therefore do not settle whether short‑term gains will translate into durable, broadly shared improvements (not found in current reporting).