Which U.S. presidents are most frequently ranked lowest by historians and why?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Historians’ surveys repeatedly place James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and — more recently — Donald J. Trump among the lowest-ranked U.S. presidents; multiple expert polls show Buchanan consistently dead last and Trump appearing in the bottom five in recent rankings (C‑SPAN and related surveys) [1] [2]. Experts give these men low marks for catastrophic crisis management, constitutional or democratic norms violations, policy failures and/or corruption—factors historians use to rank “greatness” [1] [3] [2].
1. Who lands at the bottom — and why historians single them out
Historians’ cross‑polling produces a clear pattern: James Buchanan is almost always ranked last because he failed to prevent the collapse into civil war and is judged to have enabled secession through inaction and poor leadership [3]. Andrew Johnson is ranked among the worst for obstructing Reconstruction, vetoing civil‑rights legislation and clashing destructively with Congress at a pivotal moment for civil rights and national reconciliation [1] [4]. Recent expert surveys have put Donald Trump near the bottom for a combination of weak legislative achievements, the refusal to accept electoral defeat that culminated in violence at the U.S. Capitol, and legal controversies that scholars say bear on presidential fitness and legacy [1] [2]. Each name maps to clear, recurring themes historians cite: failure in crisis, surrender or abuse of institutional responsibility, and corruption or norm‑breaking [1] [3] [2].
2. How historians measure “worst”: criteria and recurring fault lines
Major academic surveys ask historians to rate presidents across categories such as crisis leadership, moral authority, congressional relations and performance in the context of their times; low overall scores reflect consistent weakness across those categories rather than a single failing [1]. For example, C‑SPAN’s methodology aggregates judgment on ten leadership traits — a president who fails in crisis leadership and moral authority while alienating Congress will sink in the rankings [1]. Popular outlets that compile or average multiple polls use similar cross‑referencing to produce lists; their bottom slots typically correlate with scandals, policy disasters or existential mismanagement [1] [5].
3. Why some unpopular presidents are not always judged worst
Public approval at exit and long‑term historical assessments do not map perfectly. Presidents who leave office unpopularly — Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush and even Joe Biden by some contemporary polls — have in time seen reassessments of their records; historians distinguish immediate unpopularity from durable failure and often rehabilitate leaders who solved long‑run problems [6] [1]. Conversely, a president who presides over scandals, constitutional crises, or who presides over national breakdowns in critical moments will fare poorly in expert rankings even if they retained partisan popularity in office [1] [3].
4. The influence of contemporary politics and methodology on rankings
Surveys are time‑sensitive: C‑SPAN postponed a planned 2025 poll citing concerns that a non‑consecutive return to office would turn a historical survey into punditry, showing how the political moment shapes whether and how scholars evaluate leaders [1]. Other rankings average polls from different years and constituencies (political scientists, historians, journalists), which produces variance; media or crowd‑sourced lists (Ranker, opinion websites) often amplify present‑day partisan perceptions rather than expert synthesis [5] [7]. The methodology — who is polled, when, and which attributes are weighted — materially changes who appears “worst” [1] [5].
5. Competing perspectives and contested cases
Some presidents widely viewed as failures by historians (e.g., Warren G. Harding, Franklin Pierce) are sometimes defended on narrow grounds such as policy continuity or context, and other scholars urge caution before consigning a president to the bottom because long‑term consequences can be reinterpreted [2] [8]. The Durham University analysis underscores that “greatness” often follows transformational leadership under extreme challenge; by that standard, presidents who did not confront or resolve existential crises are more likely to be ranked poorly, but the line between failure and the absence of opportunity remains contested [8].
6. What the rankings tell us — and what they don’t
Expert rankings reveal that historians punish presidents for failing stewardship in moments that mattered — civil war, Reconstruction, constitutional crisis, or clear corruption — and they value crisis performance, institutional respect and durable policy effects [1] [3]. Available sources do not mention a single definitive, universally accepted “worst” beyond Buchanan’s near‑consensus, and they show methodological differences produce different bottom‑ten lists [3] [1]. Readers should treat any single list as a snapshot shaped by timing, pollsters and the attributes weighted in the survey [1] [5].
Limitations: this account summarizes themes in the supplied reporting and polls; it relies on the surveys and analyses cited in those sources and does not attempt original polling or archival reassessment [1] [3].