Who do historians rank as the worst US presidents?

1. Why historians single out the same few presidents — and what that consensus actually means

Historians rank presidents by criteria such as crisis leadership, public persuasion, moral authority, administrative skills, and policy achievements; these frameworks produce persistent low scores for presidents judged to have failed on one or more existential tests for the office. James Buchanan is condemned for failing to prevent sectional breakdown and the Civil War; Andrew Johnson is condemned for obstructing Reconstruction and facing impeachment; Warren G. Harding is associated with corruption scandals and weak leadership; Franklin Pierce is tied to policies that inflamed sectional tensions; and Donald Trump’s low placement in recent scholar surveys reflects institutional concerns, two impeachments, and evaluations of competence during crises. These findings come from long‑running expert polls (Siena, C‑SPAN/APSA) and journalist summaries of those surveys that emphasize institutional stewardship as a major yardstick ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. How the Siena College and C‑SPAN/APSA surveys line up — and where they diverge

The Siena College Research Institute and the C‑SPAN/APSA surveys both solicit evaluations from presidential scholars, but they differ in sample size, scoring scales, and category weighting, which produces broad agreement about the worst presidents but divergent ordering and emphases. Siena’s multi‑decade polls repeatedly show Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan near the bottom for Reconstruction and pre‑Civil War failures while placing Trump among low ranks in contemporary iterations; C‑SPAN’s 2021 survey rates presidents on ten leadership qualities and similarly penalizes those judged to have failed core presidential functions. Axios’ reporting on a 2024 APSA survey found Donald Trump with the lowest average score (under 11 on a 0–100 scale), which aligns with Siena and C‑SPAN in treating Trump as a modern outlier in low rankings, though older historical figures remain prominent at the very bottom in many aggregate lists ^{[4] [2] [5]}.

3. The role of scandals, policy failures, and crisis management in “worst” labels

Historians’ negative judgments revolve around three recurrent failure modes: scandals and corruption, policy decisions that worsened national crises, and inability to manage cataclysmic events. Harding’s posthumous reputation collapsed because of Teapot Dome and other corruption revelations; Buchanan and Pierce are judged for policy choices that accelerated sectional conflict over slavery; Johnson’s obstruction of Reconstruction and impeachment defined his failure in advancing civil and constitutional stability; Hoover’s association with the onset of the Great Depression also places him frequently near the bottom in many lists. Contemporary rankings that place Trump low emphasize his impeachments, institutional strain, and pandemic-era governance as primary drivers of scholars’ assessments ^{[6] [1] [3]}.

4. Aggregating three major scholarly lists gives a clearer profile, but not unanimity

Analysts who average APSA, Siena, and C‑SPAN results find a cluster of consistently low performers—not a single agreed “worst” president—because aggregation smooths methodological differences while preserving recurring names at the bottom. Factinate’s 2025 aggregation of these surveys places James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson at the very bottom, with Donald Trump and Warren G. Harding also clustered near the lowest ranks. Aggregates highlight continuity in scholarly judgment: failures tied to national fracture (mid‑19th century), executive obstruction of congressional reconstruction, and, in the contemporary era, concerns about norm erosion and crisis mismanagement ^{[3] [7]}.

5. How contemporary politics shapes attention to recent presidents in rankings

Recent surveys show more intense debate and sharper divergence about modern presidents than about 19th‑century figures, because living memory, partisan polarization, and new documentary records invite contested interpretations. Donald Trump’s low standing in APSA and Siena surveys (including his unique status as a two‑time impeached president) drives media attention and sometimes overshadows older institutional failures in public discourse; journalists and scholars explicitly note the difference between enduring historical judgments (Buchanan, Johnson) and rapidly formed contemporary consensus (Trump), which may shift as historians gain more temporal distance ^{[2] [1]}.

6. Bottom line for readers: who to name if asked “the worst” — and why nuance matters

If asked to list the presidents most frequently ranked worst by historians, the defensible short list includes James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Warren G. Harding, Franklin Pierce, and Donald Trump, with Herbert Hoover and Franklin Pierce also recurring depending on the survey and criteria. This consensus reflects historians’ prioritization of crisis avoidance, constitutional stewardship, and ethical governance, but it is not a simple popularity contest: methodology, the time elapsed since an administration, and evolving scholarly priorities (civil rights, institutional norms, economic stabilization) shape these rankings, so readers should treat “worst” as a scholarly judgment grounded in explicit criteria rather than an absolute verdict ^{[1] [3] [4]}.