How do public opinion polls of presidential approval compare to historians' rankings for Trump and others?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Public approval polls show Donald Trump’s day-to-day popularity in the 30–50% range depending on the poll and timing (examples: 39% in Reuters/Ipsos, 42% net in NYT analysis, 36% in some Gallup/AP readings) [1] [2] [3]. Historians’ surveys place Trump near the bottom of modern rankings — e.g., the Presidential Greatness Project and related expert surveys ranked him last among surveyed presidents in 2024/2025 [4] [5].
1. Polls measure present approval; historians rank legacy
Public-opinion polls ask whether a sitting president is doing the job now; that yields short‑term snapshots that move with events, the economy and news cycles. Contemporary polling for Trump during late 2025 ranged from the high 30s to low 40s in approval — Reuters/Ipsos reported 39% approval in mid‑December 2025, and other outlets identified similar mid‑to‑low 40s net measures in contemporaneous analyses [1] [2]. Gallup and specialty trackers maintain historical time series for those short‑term job‑approval numbers [3] [6].
2. Historians focus on long‑term effects and rank differently
Surveys of presidential scholars evaluate presidents on long‑term accomplishments, leadership, and consequences. The Presidential Greatness Project’s 2024 survey of experts placed Trump at the bottom of its list (rank #44) and follow‑up expert surveys cited in Wikipedia put his 2024 score far below peers [5] [4]. Expert surveys deliberately aim to be retrospective and are affected by scholars’ judgments about long‑run outcomes rather than current popularity [4].
3. The gap is expected — different questions, different samples
The divergence between polls and historian rankings is predictable: polls sample the public and measure approval now, while historian rankings sample experts and judge historical greatness over decades. Sources show Americans’ immediate appraisals can differ from expert rankings; Gallup polling that asks the public to predict how presidents will be remembered produces different distributions than scholarly greatness surveys [6] [5].
4. Variability across polls and subgroups changes the picture
News outlets reported subgroup swings that altered headline approval numbers. Urban samples, for example, shifted markedly for Trump between November and December 2025 in one private poll, moving from mid‑30s approval to low‑40s among urban respondents [7]. National trackers aggregate many polls and weight by pollster quality (e.g., Silver Bulletin builds on FiveThirtyEight methodology) to smooth short‑term noise [8].
5. Historical ranking processes are contested and imperfect
Expert surveys and compilations acknowledge limits: historian rankings depend on which experts are polled, the criteria used, and the time elapsed since a presidency. Wikipedia summarizes debate about bias and subjectivity in these rankings and notes that low early rankings for a recently inaugurated president were criticized as premature — a historian’s judgment depends on long‑term perspective [4]. The Presidential Greatness Project and Siena/CSRI polls are influential but contested in interpretation [4] [5].
6. Two competing narratives about “where Trump stands”
One narrative from public polling emphasizes that substantial blocs of Americans continue to approve of Trump’s performance even amid slippage and issue‑specific weakness (e.g., economy dissatisfaction noted by Axios and Reuters reporting) [9] [1]. The opposing narrative from historians stresses institutional, legal and normative judgments that produced very low scholarly rankings in 2024–25 [4] [5]. Both narratives are visible in current sources.
7. What this means for readers and analysts
Short‑term approval polls predict political stamina, electoral prospects and immediate mandate perception; historian rankings shape long‑term legacy and academic memory. Readers should treat approval ratings as indicators of current political fortunes and historian surveys as assessments of long‑run impact — neither is a direct substitute for the other. Sources show that Trump can be simultaneously middling in public approval polls and very low in expert rankings [1] [4].
Limitations and gaps in sources: available sources do not provide a unified dataset directly comparing approval‑level percentiles to specific historian‑ranking scores for all presidents; detailed methodology differences across every cited poll and survey are not fully enumerated in the provided material (not found in current reporting).