Which presidents appear most often on historians' worst-presidents lists and what criteria are used?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Historians’ worst-presidents lists repeatedly place James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Franklin Pierce near the bottom; recent scholarly surveys also put Donald Trump very low, with Trump scoring 10.92 on a 0–100 scale in a 2024 survey of political scientists and historians (Trump 10.92; Buchanan 16.71 in that poll) [1]. Major scholarly ranking projects say they evaluate presidents on leadership in crises, legislative skill, relations with Congress, and policy outcomes — criteria that drive why antebellum presidents who failed to avert Civil War rank so poorly and why scandal or perceived institutional abuse drags modern presidents down [2] [3].
1. Which presidents show up most often as “worst”
Across multiple historian-driven lists and scholarly surveys the same names recur: James Buchanan is the most consistently ranked worst president; Andrew Johnson and Franklin Pierce also appear near the bottom; more recent surveys add Donald Trump among the lowest-rated modern presidents [3] [1]. Popular crowd-sourced or partisan lists vary — Ranker and opinion outlets show broader variation and include other figures depending on their voters’ biases [4] [5].
2. Why these same names repeat: crisis failure and consequential harm
Scholars emphasize failure to manage existential national crises as the single greatest driver of negative rankings. Buchanan is condemned for failing to check secession and help avert the Civil War; Andrew Johnson is penalized for his Reconstruction policies and clashes with Congress; Franklin Pierce is criticized for policies that inflamed sectional tensions — these are substantive, consequence-driven judgments rather than mere personality critiques [6] [3].
3. The standard scholarly criteria that produce “worst” ratings
Prominent surveys ask experts to rate presidents on multiple leadership dimensions: performance in crises, legislative skill, relations with Congress, moral authority and public persuasion, administrative skills, economic stewardship, and foreign policy — with allowances for historical context. C-SPAN’s and similar surveys explicitly use a 10-category leadership rubric that drives aggregated greatness/worst scores [2] [7].
4. How methodology shapes outcomes: experts vs. publics
Scholarly rankings rely on historians and political scientists and emphasize long-term consequences and archival records; public or partisan lists (web polls, Ranker, partisan sites) reflect short-term popularity, scandal salience, or ideological agendas and thus can elevate different names such as modern presidents who remain polarizing [3] [4]. The methodological mix explains why Trump appears much lower in scholar surveys (e.g., 10.92 score) while popular vote- or opinion-driven lists may vary widely [1] [8].
5. Partisan and temporal shifts: reputation changes over time
Historians note reputations can improve or worsen with distance from events. Some presidents once unpopular (e.g., Eisenhower) climb in later assessments; others remain stuck at the bottom because their failures produced durable damage [6] [3]. Polling of contemporary public views also shows expectations about historical judgment — for example, Americans in a 2025 Gallup survey expected Joe Biden to be judged negatively by history, illustrating how present attitudes color anticipations of legacy even before time provides perspective [9].
6. Where disagreement and implicit agendas show up
Sources show explicit debate about ideological bias in rankings: some critics argue perceived liberal bias lowers conservative presidents’ scores while others say consistent bottom-rank placements (Buchanan, Johnson, Pierce) reflect clear, cross-ideological scholarly consensus [3]. Popular sites and partisan organizations, including party communications and activist outlets, use “worst” lists tactically to shape political narratives rather than to contribute to scholarly assessment [10] [5].
7. Limitations and what available sources do not mention
Available sources do not mention any single, universally accepted quantitative threshold that defines “worst” across all lists — rankings depend on each survey’s scale and sample [3] [2]. Available sources do not give a full meta-analysis combining every major scholarly survey into one definitive frequency count of how often each president appears among worst lists; they provide examples and repeated names but not a single consolidated frequency table [3] [1].
8. Bottom line for readers
If you want a defensible short list of repeatedly singled‑out worst presidents, historians’ surveys point to James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Franklin Pierce above all, with Donald Trump ranked near the bottom in recent scholarly polls; those conclusions rest on cross-cutting criteria — crisis management, legislative skill, congressional relations and long-term policy consequences — and vary when lists rely more on public opinion or partisan objectives [1] [2] [3].