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.
What has trump done bad in his 2nd term
Executive summary
Donald Trump’s second term (began January 20, 2025) has produced a mix of controversial executive orders, aggressive trade and border moves, and tumbling approval ratings — with polls showing approval near 37% by November 2025 [1]. Reporting and analyses also describe policy shifts (tariffs, immigration enforcement, welfare of foreign-aid programs), political infighting after poor GOP election results, and heightened scrutiny of companies and institutions under the administration [2] [3] [4].
1. Early policy blitz and executive orders: rapid, sweeping changes
Trump issued many executive actions soon after inauguration that rescinded prior orders and rearranged federal priorities; trackers like Ballotpedia list a long string of orders in the administration’s first 100 days [5]. Student-press and local coverage catalogued controversial social-policy orders — for example measures aimed at athletics and Title IX, and rollbacks of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives — which generated legal and civil-rights challenges [6]. These rapid changes reflect an administration intent on immediate, high-impact shifts, but they also concentrated opposition and litigation risks [5] [6].
2. Trade and the market: tariffs, a universal import duty, and CEO unease
Trump reintroduced aggressive tariff policy, including a widely reported 10% universal import duty announced April 2, 2025 and described elsewhere as later paused, and earlier tariffs that prompted retaliation [2]. Forbes and CEO-index reporting describe how these moves, plus other controversial policies, forced CEOs to scale back public engagement and altered corporate strategies because firms felt heightened scrutiny from the White House [4]. Business reaction and market volatility underscored that trade shocks and tariff talk were a tangible consequence of the administration’s agenda [2] [4].
3. Immigration and border enforcement: enforcement spike and political fallout
Multiple sources describe intensified immigration enforcement: the administration reinstated a national emergency at the southern border, ended certain CBP One services, named a “border czar,” and pursued more aggressive ICE actions and refugee-admissions cuts — all tied to political debate and court battles [2] [1]. Public concern about immigration varied in polls, but the administration’s actions clearly shifted enforcement practices and became a frequent political flashpoint [2] [1].
4. Foreign aid and global health controversies
Reporting and the Wikipedia summary note a contentious funding freeze in January 2025 that the HIV Modeling Consortium estimated led to additional deaths in sub‑Saharan Africa while questions remained about whether waivers and funding flows were restored — an episode that raised humanitarian and reputational concerns for the administration [2]. Available sources do not mention internal White House justifications beyond what is cited in that overview [2].
5. Politics, public approval and the midterm test
By November 2025, Trump’s approval had fallen toward the high‑30s (37% reported by The Guardian), a significant decline from earlier in the year and one factor analysts linked to Democratic gains in local and state races that commentators described as a referendum on Trump’s agenda [1] [3]. Newsweek and other outlets framed post‑election days in November as a period of infighting and damaged political capital for the president after those defeats [3].
6. Allegations of weaponizing government and threats to norms
Commentary and reporting — including opinion and deep‑dive features — raised alarms about plans to use executive power, reshape agencies (cited plans to take over entities like the FTC and FCC), and install loyal officials to pursue political opponents, a theme that has drawn constitutional and First Amendment concerns [7] [8]. Opponents interpret these moves as attempts to consolidate power; supporters argue they are corrective reforms. Both perspectives are present in the coverage [7] [8].
7. Democracy questions and third‑term rhetoric
Writers and academics have flagged rhetoric and strategic talk about extending influence beyond two terms, with commentators and legal scholars exploring theoretical routes and the risks they pose to constitutional norms; The New York Times and the LSE blog examined such possibilities and fears of overreach [9] [10]. Coverage shows both speculative scenarios and sober warnings about democratic erosion, but available reporting includes debate about feasibility as well as motive [9] [10].
8. What critics say versus defenders’ framing
Critics call the term a “disaster” for governance and social policy, citing the rapid rollbacks, humanitarian impacts, and political retribution plans [11] [7]. Defenders or sympathetic coverage emphasize pro‑business instincts, deregulation, stronger enforcement of immigration laws, and an agenda meant to fulfill campaign promises; Forbes documents mixed reactions from CEOs who initially engaged then pulled back as policies crystallized [4] [8]. Both frames appear in the record.
Limitations: this analysis relies only on the provided sources; many claims about specific outcomes, legal challenges, or internal White House rationales are either summarized in those sources or not addressed there, and where reporting is absent I note that the available sources do not mention further detail [2] [5].