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.
Fact check: Trump said his first term we had the best economy ever.
Executive Summary
Donald Trump’s claim that “his first term we had the best economy ever” is not supported by the economic measures most analysts use; growth and employment improved in his early years but did not reach historic highs relative to other presidencies, and his policies produced mixed outcomes on deficits, growth and manufacturing [1] [2] [3]. Independent reviews show modest average GDP growth before the pandemic, tax cuts that did not deliver sustained faster growth, and later economic disruption from COVID-19 that complicates any simple “best ever” ranking; the data point to a qualified performance rather than an unambiguous record-setting economy [1] [2] [3].
1. The Big Claim and How Economists Measure “Best” — Why Numbers Matter
Evaluating “best economy ever” requires looking at multiple indicators—GDP growth, unemployment, wages, productivity, and fiscal health—not a single slogan, and on those metrics Trump’s first-term record is mixed rather than exceptional. Analysis shows real GDP growth averaged roughly 2.8% in the first three years before the pandemic, a solid but not extraordinary pace compared with strong postwar expansions, and averaged 2.67% excluding the pandemic year, which does not support a superlative label [2] [1]. The Associated Press points out that while unemployment fell and job creation continued, the administration’s tax cuts did not produce the sustained acceleration in growth that was promised and deficits increased, which are critical components of long-term economic strength [1]. The scorecard comparing administrations underscores that external shocks—most notably the pandemic—complicate comparisons and require nuance in declaring any presidency the “best” economically [3].
2. What the Data Show on Growth and Jobs — Modest Gains, Not Records
Measured job creation and unemployment trends during Trump’s first three years were positive, and unemployment hit low levels that continued a trend from the prior administration, but those gains were part of a longer recovery that began in 2009 and thus reflect continuity as well as new policy effects [2] [1]. Real GDP growth at an annualized rate of about 2.8% in Trump's pre-pandemic years is respectable; however, it is not uniquely high in the context of modern U.S. economic history and it compares closely with growth rates under his successor, indicating that the record was not singularly transformative [2] [3]. Analysts note that headline job numbers and growth rates obscure distributional issues like wage growth for lower-income workers and regional manufacturing shifts, where promised reversals of long-term trends did not materialize fully [1].
3. Tax Cuts and Deficits — The Trade-off That Undercuts “Best Ever” Claims
The 2017 tax cuts were central to the administration’s economic case, pitched as a catalyst for sustained faster growth, but evidence shows those cuts did not produce the promised boom while they contributed to rising federal deficits, an outcome highlighted by fact-checkers and economic analysts [1] [2]. The Associated Press and other reviews document that deficits surged as tax revenues fell relative to projections and that the growth boost was smaller and shorter-lived than advocates predicted, undermining claims that the policy secured a historic economic victory [1]. The economic scorecard notes that fiscal deterioration is a key consideration often omitted from political slogans, because higher deficits can constrain future policy options and long-term growth, meaning an apparently strong short-run statistic does not automatically translate to the “best ever” label [3].
4. Trade Policy and Manufacturing Promises — Mixed Results on Jobs and Factories
Tariff and trade strategies were promoted as a route to bring manufacturing jobs back, but available analyses find limited and uneven success, with tariffs raising costs for some U.S. firms and not reversing long-term manufacturing declines, according to reporting and economic assessments [1] [2]. The Associated Press specifically notes that tariffs did not restore lost factory jobs at scale and that retaliatory measures by trade partners imposed costs on U.S. farmers and exporters, muddying the narrative of a simple manufacturing renaissance [1]. Economists in the scorecard emphasize that while trade policy can protect certain industries in the short term, durable manufacturing revival requires broader shifts in competitiveness, investment and workforce training—areas where outcomes during the first term were at best mixed [3].
5. Comparative Context — Biden, Obama and the Problem of Apples-to-Oranges
Comparisons with the Obama and Biden presidencies show overlapping trajectories: growth and employment trends often continued across administrations and were shaped by global forces and shocks, making direct “best ever” claims misleading without granular context [2] [3]. Analysts find that growth rates under Trump’s early years were similar to those under his successor and that each administration faced distinct headwinds—recovery dynamics, a pandemic, inflationary pressures and international conflicts—that complicate tidy rankings [2] [3]. The scorecard underscores that a balanced assessment must weigh resilience and policy trade-offs, noting that neither Trump nor Biden presided over an economy free from major external disruptions, and therefore superlative claims like “best ever” obscure important qualifiers about timing, causes and sustainability [3].