Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How have presidential rankings evolved since 2000?
Executive Summary
Presidential rankings since 2000 show continuity at the top and bottom while revealing notable shifts for recent occupants of the White House: established historians and institutional surveys consistently place Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Franklin D. Roosevelt at the top, whereas long-critiqued figures such as James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson remain at the bottom, and contemporary presidents such as Barack Obama and Donald Trump have seen material movement in reputation among scholars and polls. The trend combines methodological continuity—regular historian surveys like C-SPAN and Siena—and changing political context, with some mid- and late-career reputational rebounds reflected in surveys through 2021 and analyses extending into 2024–2025, producing a measured but evolving consensus about presidential performance [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Why the old giants still dominate the podium — and why that matters for rankings
Historians’ surveys conducted repeatedly since 2000 show a consistent top tier anchored by Lincoln, Washington and FDR, reflecting durable criteria such as crisis leadership, lasting policy impact, and symbolic national unity; those criteria privilege transformational wartime and founding leadership and thus produce stability in the upper ranks across multiple surveys cited in the analyses. The Siena Research Institute and C-SPAN frameworks both use multi-category scoring that emphasizes leadership, crisis management, and policy achievements, which biases results toward presidents associated with existential national turning points, producing stable elite consensus about the “greats” despite political cycles and new scholarship [3] [4] [2]. This persistence matters because survey design and expert composition shape which qualities rise to the top, meaning the dominance of certain presidents reflects both historical impact and the evaluative lenses historians bring to their work.
2. Who’s climbing — and why contemporary presidents sometimes improve over time
Several sources document upward movement for modern presidents as additional time, scholarship, and changing political concerns reshape evaluations: Barack Obama’s placement in the top ten by 2021 illustrates how post-presidential policy legacies and comparative perspective can improve a president’s standing in expert surveys, and survey updates from 2000 through 2021 show such mobility is possible. The analyses note that methodological consistency—C-SPAN’s repeated 10-category approach and Siena’s multi-dimension ratings—permits direct comparison, revealing that two-term presidents or those whose accomplishments age well tend to climb, while one-term presidents without enduring policy success more often stagnate or decline, a dynamic that produces gradual reputational recalibration rather than dramatic reversal [2] [4] [3]. This trend highlights that reputation is time-dependent and sensitive to new archival evidence, shifting partisan lenses, and evolving standards.
3. Who’s stuck at the bottom — and structural reasons they don’t recover
The bottom ranks remain occupied by figures like James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson because structural failures—inability to prevent national disintegration or to pursue Reconstruction effectively—are durable and hard to reinterpret positively. Multiple surveys and scholarly compilations repeatedly place these presidents low, and the analyses show continuity in those negative appraisals across instruments and years, indicating that some failures are intrinsically resistant to revision. The effect is compounded by category weighting in major surveys, where leadership and crisis management carry heavy evaluative weight; catastrophic missteps during national crises tend to anchor a president’s low ranking for generations, a pattern visible in the repeated placement of pre-Civil War and Reconstruction-era presidencies near the bottom across the referenced studies [1] [2] [3].
4. The role of methodology and who’s doing the ranking — it shapes the story
Differences in sample size, participant composition, and category weighting materially affect outcomes: C-SPAN’s surveys (noted as conducted in 2000, 2009, 2017, and 2021) increased participant numbers and retained a consistent 10-category scoring system that allows trend comparison, whereas other exercises such as Siena’s studies segment ratings by background, leadership and policy, producing category-specific variability that can change a president’s profile without dramatically altering overall rank. The analyses underline that length of term, disciplinary mix of respondents (historians vs political scientists), and the date of the poll all influence results, creating method-driven shifts that explain part of the movement seen since 2000 even when core judgments remain steady [4] [5] [3].
5. Political context, polling limitations, and competing narratives about recent presidents
Contemporary political polarization and changing electoral behavior—illustrated by 2024 voting pattern analyses referenced in the materials—color public and some scholarly perceptions of recent presidents, producing contested narratives about legacies and generating more volatile rankings for living or recently departed presidents. The analyses note increases in survey participation and shifting voter demographics that mirror evolving scholarly debates, meaning reputational swings for presidents such as Trump or Obama reflect both new empirical assessments and partisan reception; this produces competing plausible interpretations that persist until long-term policy and historical consequences are clearer [6] [4] [5]. Understanding rankings since 2000 therefore requires reading both the stable scholarly consensus about certain presidencies and the more fluid reassessments of recent figures.