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: How many of Trump's promises were fulfilled during his presidency?
Executive Summary
President Trump’s administration has pursued a broad agenda aligned with the conservative Project 2025 blueprint and a deregulatory push, with trackers and watchdogs reporting roughly 47–48 percent of Project 2025 recommendations or objectives either completed or initiated as of October 2025. Government release of regulatory priorities also documents hundreds of economically significant deregulatory actions, while the White House highlights major claimed achievements that it says fulfill key campaign promises [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Why the “half fulfilled” headline keeps appearing — a closer look at the numbers
Multiple trackers converge on a similar headline that about 47–48 percent of Project 2025 items have been enacted or started, but they count different things. One tracker reports 119 objectives completed and 66 in progress out of an implied total tied to Project 2025, producing a near-50 percent figure [1]. Another independent analysis from the Center for Progressive Reform frames the count differently, reporting 251 of 532 domestic policy actions as initiated or fulfilled, yielding a 47 percent share [2]. These similar percentages reflect correlated methodologies but different baselines and categorizations, which matter when interpreting “fulfilled.”
2. What types of actions are being tallied as “fulfilled” or “initiated”?
The counts encompass a mix of completed regulatory rollbacks, executive actions, and policy implementations rather than a narrow tally of campaign-stated promises. The Spring 2025 Unified Agenda catalogs 243 economically significant actions and the withdrawal of many Biden-era rules, underscoring a broad deregulatory focus [3]. Trackers count both finalized rules and actions “in progress,” meaning some items are partial changes, proposed rules, or policy directives rather than irreversible statutes. As a result, the quality and permanence of counted items vary significantly across entries [1] [2] [3].
3. How different actors frame the same data for different purposes
Observers with distinct agendas emphasize different elements of the same datasets. Project 2025-aligned trackers and some White House statements highlight the volume of completed objectives to argue promise-keeping and momentum [1] [4]. Progressive analysts frame the tally to underscore systematic policy shifts while also noting partiality and scope, such as counting 251 of 532 domestic recommendations as initiated or fulfilled [2]. Each presenter selects baselines and definitions that favor either breadth of accomplishment or deep policy impact, which affects public perception and political messaging.
4. Which promises and policy areas show the most movement?
The evidence points strongest to deregulation and administrative rulemaking as areas with measurable activity: the Unified Agenda’s record of 243 significant deregulatory actions and explicit withdrawals of prior rules signals tangible implementation in regulatory policy [3]. Project 2025 trackers and the Center for Progressive Reform also attribute progress across domestic-policy recommendations, suggesting particular movement on regulatory, immigration, and agency-directed initiatives [1] [2]. These patterns show administrative tools and executive actions are the primary mechanism for meeting many listed promises, rather than new legislation.
5. What important distinctions are often omitted from headline counts?
Headline percentages fail to clarify whether items are legally binding, reversible, or fully implemented, and they often mix disparate actions—like issuing an executive order, proposing a rule, and enacting statutory change—into a single count [1] [2] [3]. The Center for Progressive Reform’s focus on domestic recommendations underscores that some counted items are narrower bureaucratic changes, not broad policy transformations [2]. The Unified Agenda shows many actions are categorized as “economically significant,” yet that label does not uniformly indicate finality or long-term durability [3]. These omissions matter when evaluating whether promises are truly fulfilled.
6. Where the administration’s own claims differ from independent tallies
The White House presents a list of achievements—sealing the border, large-scale deportations, economic and energy claims—that it frames as evidence of promise-keeping [4]. Independent trackers corroborate substantial administrative movement but use different metrics and thresholds, reporting roughly 47–48 percent of Project 2025 items initiated or completed [1] [2]. The discrepancy lies less in whether action occurred and more in how one defines completion, permanence, and policy scope; the White House compiles accomplishments broadly, while trackers separate completed, in-progress, and policy-proposal stages.
7. The big picture: progress, caveats, and what to watch next
Taken together, available sources document substantial administrative progress aligning with Project 2025 and deregulatory priorities through mid–late October 2025, but they also reveal methodological variance and important caveats about durability and scope [1] [2] [3] [4]. Future assessments should track which actions become legally entrenched, which are reversed or blocked by courts or Congress, and which remain only proposed. Observers should watch for clarified baselines, item-level documentation, and independent audits to move beyond percentage headlines toward a more precise accounting of which specific promises are definitively fulfilled.