Fact check: How did Donald Trump's leadership style compare to other US presidents?

1. Why many Americans perceive Trump as trying to seize more power — and the data behind the claim

A consistent finding across public polling and contemporaneous commentary is that a large share of Americans believe Trump sought to expand executive authority beyond predecessors. A 2025 Pew Research Center survey reported 69% of Americans held this view, with 49% judging it harmful to the country; his approval ratings in that polling cycle were substantially negative overall ^[1]. These perceptions reflect visible behaviors—frequent public attacks on institutions, attempts to influence Department of Justice decisions, and rhetoric that framed opponents as existential threats—that reinforced impressions of power consolidation. Polls capture public sentiment but cannot alone adjudicate legal or constitutional boundaries; however, they show broad social concern about the direction of presidential power under Trump ^{[1] [4]}.

2. Scholarship links rhetoric and foreign-policy choices to an interest-driven leadership posture

Academic analysis of Trump’s 2016 campaign rhetoric and subsequent MENA policy finds continuity between campaign promises and executive behavior, indicating a foreign-policy style that privileges immediate US interests and transactional bargains over multilateral commitments. The operational-code and leadership-trait study frames Trump’s approach as non-interventionist when costs exceed narrow benefits, aligning behavior with a leadership identity centered on personal and national self-interest rather than classical alliance stewardship ^[2]. This scholarship helps explain policy decisions like pressure on allies for burden-sharing and selective engagement, showing that rhetorical posture translated into concrete statecraft patterns rather than being mere campaigning bluster ^[2].

3. Psychological and attitudinal studies complicate causal claims about supporters and leadership traits

Research examining dispositional traits among political constituencies presents a contested and sensitive dimension: one study found correlations between malevolent personality markers (e.g., narcissism, psychopathy) and positive views of Trump, coupled with lower empathy scores among certain supporters ^[5]. This line of inquiry does not prove that Trump himself embodies those traits, nor does it prove voters’ traits caused his leadership choices. Instead, it suggests mutually reinforcing dynamics: a leadership style that valorizes assertiveness and grievance can attract particular followers, and those followers can empower behavior that rewards loyalty and amplifies confrontational tactics. Such findings must be weighed against methodological limitations and contested interpretations ^[5].

4. Journalistic investigations document use of executive levers to pursue political ends

Contemporary journalism documents episodes where Trump appears to have leveraged government power for political ends, including public demands that prosecutors act against opponents and public dismissal of scientific consensus when inconvenient. Reporting has highlighted instances—like public pressure on the Department of Justice and disputes over public-health guidance—where political advantage and institutional norms conflicted ^[4]. Journalistic accounts underscore how leadership style translated into operational decisions, portraying a pattern of instrumentalizing institutions to achieve political objectives, which fed both domestic polarization and international anxieties about predictability and norms ^[4].

5. Scholarly synthesis situates Trump within presidential historical variation

Edited volumes and multi-author assessments argue that Trump’s presidency merits study as both a continuation and a departure: continuation in patterns of strong-person leadership found in earlier eras, and departure in the degree of rhetorical directness, norm-challenging, and social-media-enabled mobilization ^[3]. The book-length treatment frames Trump’s legacy across domestic, foreign policy, and rhetorical dimensions, suggesting that lasting institutional effects will depend on countervailing reforms, political pushback, and normative re-anchoring by subsequent administrations and courts ^[3]. This perspective situates Trump within a broader arc of presidential adaptation to changing political technology and polarization.

6. International leaders’ reactions reveal mixed assessments that sharpen the stakes

World leaders’ reactions ranged from pragmatic praise for transactional gains on trade and immigration to sharp criticism over unpredictability and weakened multilateralism, illustrating that international appraisal split along interest lines ^[6]. Allies who perceived immediate policy advantages often lauded results; multilateral institutions and long-standing partners voiced concern over norm erosion and reliability. These external responses underline that leadership style has tangible diplomatic consequences: where short-term bilateral wins occurred, longer-term strategic trust and institutional cooperation sometimes suffered, complicating assessments of net national interest ^[6].

7. What remains contested: motives, long-term institutional damage, and historical placement

Debate persists about whether Trump’s style reflects ideological conviction, personal disposition, political strategy, or a blend of all three; studies point to elements of self-interest and populist strategy, but causation is disputed ^{[2] [5] [4]}. The scale of long-term institutional damage likewise remains an open question, contingent on legal rulings, congressional checks, and public norms reasserting limits. Comparative historians will place Trump relative to other presidents based on different weightings—policy outcomes, norm erosion, or popular mobilization—so assessments will vary as new archival and legal judgments emerge ^{[3] [1]}.