Which US presidents are most commonly ranked as harmful by historians and why?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Historians and academic surveys most often place James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and (in modern polls) Donald Trump among the presidents judged most harmful or least effective; common reasons given include failure to prevent civil war or to protect Reconstruction, corruption and policy failures, and in Trump’s case accusations of norm‑breaking and institutional harm [1] [2] [3]. Major multi‑survey projects (C‑SPAN, Siena, Presidential Greatness Project) and news summaries show recurring patterns: antebellum and Reconstruction failures and corruption dominate older “worst” lists, while contemporary rankings emphasize executive abuses, polarization and policy damage [4] [5] [3].
1. Why historians single out Buchanan and Johnson: collapse and counter‑Reconstruction
James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson appear repeatedly in historian rankings because each presided over moments when presidential action — or inaction — had catastrophic political consequences. Scholars fault Buchanan for failing to check secession and for policies that strengthened pro‑slavery forces, helping set the path to civil war; Andrew Johnson is criticized for opposing Congressional Reconstruction, vetoing civil‑rights measures and provoking a constitutional crisis that led to his impeachment, all of which left long‑term damage to Black citizenship and Congressional authority [1] [2].
2. Corruption, scandal and the “administration that betrayed public trust”
Several 19th‑ and early 20th‑century presidencies are ranked poorly because of corruption and scandal. Grant’s administrations, for example, are judged harshly for financial scandals such as Black Friday and the Whiskey Ring even though his record on Reconstruction is sometimes reassessed more favorably; similarly, Warren G. Harding’s era is commonly flagged for Teapot Dome–style scandals. These judgments come from synthesizing historian lists and popular survey compilations used to build “worst” lists [1] [5].
3. Modern presidents: polarization, norms and institutional harm (Trump and Biden in polling)
Recent surveys and commentary show contemporary presidents being judged on different axes. Donald Trump features near the bottom in several modern expert and popular rankings because critics point to executive‑branch norm‑breaking, chaotic appointments, and handling of crises such as COVID‑19; a 2021 C‑SPAN and later expert surveys placed him among the lowest ranked figures, a finding cited repeatedly in news and opinion coverage [6] [3]. Polls and media pieces also report that many Americans expect Joe Biden’s limited historical standing at present, but historians note that public assessments can soften over time [7] [8].
4. How historians measure “harm” — multiple criteria, shifting standards
Historians do not rank presidents by a single metric. Major academic and media syntheses average scores across crisis leadership, moral authority, constitutional stewardship, economic management and long‑term national effects; as a result, presidents who presided over or contributed to national disintegration (Buchanan), who undermined Reconstruction and civil rights (Johnson), or who are perceived to weaken institutions or norms (Trump) score poorly on several dimensions simultaneously [5] [4] [2].
5. Partisan context and the time factor: rankings evolve
Contemporary presidents face partisan noise that can skew immediate rankings; historians and pollsters often caution that reputations change after time passes. Gallup and academic commentators note that figures such as George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter were reassessed more positively over decades, so current low rankings — especially for living or recently departed presidents — can reflect present politics as much as long‑term harm [7] [9].
6. Disagreements among sources and visible agendas
Different outlets emphasize different cases. Opinion pieces (e.g., The Guardian) assert that Trump’s second term could be uniquely harmful and cite a poll of historians ranking him worst ever, which reflects both scholarly judgment and editorial stance [3]. Aggregators and crowd‑ranked lists (Ranker, Factinate) mix popular sentiment and academic polls, producing lists that can amplify contemporary public anger as much as scholarly consensus [5] [10]. Each source carries an implicit agenda: academic surveys aim for methodological rigor, news outlets package results for audiences, and opinion writers highlight political warnings.
7. Limitations and what’s not in the current reporting
Available sources document which presidents recur on “worst” lists and why, but they do not provide a single definitive list accepted by all historians; they also do not settle long‑term causation versus short‑term perception for modern presidencies — that debate remains open. Detailed methodological breakdowns for every cited poll (sample frames, question wording) are not provided in the snippets available here, so claims about exact ranks or margins should be checked against full survey reports before being treated as definitive [5] [4] [7].
Bottom line: historians most consistently name Buchanan and Andrew Johnson as uniquely harmful for their roles in national fracture and rollback of rights, while modern expert and public surveys increasingly rate Donald Trump among the most damaging due to institutional and normative concerns; how lasting those judgments prove will depend on time, new evidence and changing scholarly priorities [1] [3] [5].