Is trump a good president
Executive summary
Evaluations of whether Donald Trump is a “good president” split sharply along policy lines and partisan views: his administration has issued at least 217 executive orders and dozens of major actions through 2025 [1] [2], while his public approval fell to the mid‑30s (36% in Gallup in late Nov. 2025) as disapproval reached 60% [3]. Critics warn of aggressive use of pardon power and actions they say erode norms (New York Times opinion) while the White House touts policy wins on immigration and other priorities [4] [5].
1. What “good” means: competing standards
Judgments about presidential performance rest on different yardsticks: policy delivery (laws, orders, judges placed), political effectiveness (approval ratings, coalition management), and constitutional norms (use of pardon power, removals of institutional protections). Sources show Trump pursuing a high‑activity policy agenda—217 executive orders in 2025 alone [1] [2]—while facing criticism for norm‑breaking behavior such as expansive pardons discussed in The New York Times [4]. These are contradictory measures of “goodness” depending on which standard a reader values [1] [4].
2. Policy output and administrative footprint
The Trump White House has been prolific: as of December 2025 the administration had signed hundreds of executive actions including 217 executive orders, 54 memoranda and 111 proclamations [1] [2]. Ballotpedia and the Federal Register catalog that activity and list judicial nominations and agency appointments, signaling real administrative change [1] [2]. The White House highlights immigration reductions and other claimed “wins” on policy and enforcement [5].
3. Public opinion and political costs
Public response has been unfavorable overall: Gallup polling in late November 2025 recorded a 36% approval rating—the lowest of his second term—with 60% disapproval [3]. Multiple polls reported sliding support among independents and even some decline among Republicans [3] [6]. News outlets link some of this erosion to contentious episodes such as the historic government shutdown and other crises [7] [6].
4. Constitutional and institutional concerns
Opinion writers and some observers warn the administration’s exercise of executive powers threatens norms. The New York Times argued the pardon power and other authorities risk “wreaking havoc” if used without restraint, invoking historical anxieties about concentrated executive power [4]. Critics say expansive pardons for January 6‑related convictions and other interventions send dangerous signals about accountability [8] [4].
5. Foreign policy and national security posture
Reporting and administration documents reveal a foreign‑policy mix: the administration increased support for Israel and undertook strikes on Iranian targets, while pursuing peace initiatives that some critics say favored Russia in the Russo‑Ukrainian conflict and floated tough economic penalties if Russia didn’t agree to terms [9]. The administration released a 33‑page National Security Strategy that lays out its priorities, but analysts note Trump’s mercurial style could complicate implementation [10] [9].
6. Economic and institutional signals
Trump has signaled ambitions to reshape economic governance, including naming a Fed chair contender and weighing major tariff or sanction proposals; Reuters reported he would announce his Fed nominee in early 2026 [11]. Legal and industry trackers (Davis Polk, Holland & Knight) have been cataloguing regulatory and executive changes that could affect markets and institutions [12] [13].
7. What supporters point to and what critics highlight
The White House frames falling immigration numbers, policy reversals and administrative action as proof of delivery for voters [5]. Supporters emphasize brisk action and appointments [1] [2]. Opponents focus on norm erosion, controversial pardons, declines in approval, and institutional upheavals such as board removals at cultural institutions [4] [3] [14].
8. Limitations and what the sources don’t say
Available sources document actions, polling, and commentary through late 2025 but do not provide a single objective metric that settles “good president.” They do not, in this collection, deliver comprehensive economic outcome measures (GDP, employment trends) attributable solely to administration policy; those specific performance data points are not found in current reporting provided here. The sources present diverging perspectives—administration claims, polling data, and critical opinion pieces—so readers must choose which weight to give each [5] [3] [4].
Bottom line: Assessments are polarized. The administration demonstrates high policy activity and clear priorities (217 executive orders, numerous nominations) that pleases its base [1] [2] [5]. Simultaneously, independent polling shows substantial public disapproval and commentators warn of institutional risks from aggressive use of executive power [3] [4]. Which side defines “good” depends on whether one prioritizes rapid policy change or preservation of democratic norms.