Is Trumps first or second term better so far
Executive summary
Voters and analysts disagree on whether Donald Trump’s second term (starting Jan 20, 2025) is “better” than his first (2017–2021). Early polls showed higher approval at the start of term two (47%) than at the start of term one, but later 2025–2026 polling and analyses record falling approval, rising concerns about political violence, and sharp policy reversals via executive orders that contrast with his first-term institutional achievements like the Supreme Court majority [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. A tale of two starts: early approval and preparation
At the outset of his second term, polls found Trump’s approval higher than his 2017 opening—Pew reported a 47% approval early in 2025, higher than at the start of his first term—suggesting a stronger baseline of public support as he returned to the White House [1]. Commentators also noted that Trump appeared more prepared and surrounded by a loyalist team in 2025 than in 2017, with advisers and Project 2025 figures lined up to implement an aggressive agenda [5].
2. Executive action vs. lasting legislation: different tools, different results
Observers pointed out that Trump’s second term began with an “explosion of executive action,” including mass executive orders, high-profile pardons/commutations, and reversals of Biden-era policies, but with relatively little major new legislation in the opening months—the Laken Riley Act and budget measures were among the few enactments cited [3]. That contrasts with the long-term institutional footprint of his first term—most notably shaping the federal judiciary and securing major tax legislation—which produced lasting legal outcomes [4] [6].
3. Policy differences that matter: climate, immigration, and fiscal choices
Reporting shows the second-term agenda moved quickly to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, pause Inflation Reduction Act funding, reinstate a national emergency at the southern border, end CBP One services, and pursue designation of Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations—explicit early policy reversals that differ in tone and scope from many 2017–2021 actions [7]. The “One Big Beautiful Budget Act” (OBBBA) embedded first-term tax cuts and added Medicaid work requirements while projecting a $3 trillion increase in debt over ten years, highlighting fiscal trade-offs in term two [7].
4. Public reaction and political costs: approval, polarization, and predictions of violence
Public sentiment shifted through 2025. While early approval outperformed the 2017 launch, subsequent polling during 2025–2025 showed volatility and decline: YouGov and Economist polls recorded swings in net approval and Gallup reported a second-term low of 36% in late 2025, with disapproval at 60%—signaling a political cost to the administration’s approach [2] [8]. Surveys also documented heightened public expectations and perceptions of increased political violence during the second term [9].
5. Effectiveness vs. checks: more power, fewer institutional restraints
Analysts argue Trump’s second team was more effective at executing an agenda because it is staffed by loyalists and built on plans like Project 2025; The Atlantic and AEI pieces warn this makes term two both more consequential and more confrontational—with worries about undermining norms and checks that were more present (or differently staffed) in 2017 [10] [4]. That effectiveness produced rapid action but also spurred legal battles and political backlash [3].
6. Election and midterm implications: short-term wins, long-term risks
Think tanks and scholars noted tangible accomplishments credited to the second term—major tax legislation and claimed shifts on border security, and foreign-policy episodes mentioned by Brookings—but they also warned these early achievements did not translate to political stability for Republicans: special-election swings and midterm prospects looked worse for the party as of late 2025 [11]. The mix of policy wins and declining approval creates asymmetric political risks going into 2026 [11].
7. How to judge “better”: metrics and divergent viewpoints
There is no single definition of “better.” Supporters emphasize action, deregulatory moves, tax permanence, and judicial outcomes as superior continuities or improvements from term one [4] [5]. Critics emphasize institutional erosion, controversial pardons, concerns about political violence, and falling public approval as evidence the second term is worse [3] [10] [8]. Independent analysts stress the difference between short-term executive activity and durable legislative or institutional change [3].
Limitations and final note: available sources provide contemporaneous polling, policy summaries, and opinion pieces but do not offer a single, objective “scorecard” that ranks overall performance of the two terms; assessments depend on which metrics (approval, lasting legal changes, policy reversals, democratic norms) a reader values most [3] [4] [1].