Was Joe Biden a great president
Executive summary
Joe Biden’s presidency left a record of substantial policy achievements—major infrastructure and semiconductor investments, pharmaceutical price negotiation, expanded Medicare benefits and sustained job growth—while also ending with low public approval and notable foreign-policy and political setbacks; whether he was “great” depends on weighting durable policy wins against unresolved crises and weak public standing [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Public judgment tilts negative: by his final weeks most national polls showed approval in the high 30s and majorities saying he would be below average or poor historically [6] [7] [5] [8].
1. Legislative accomplishments that matter long after the headlines
The Biden administration pushed through large, bipartisan and partisan landmark bills that reshaped infrastructure, technology and health-care economics: the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and CHIPS and Science Act drove unprecedented federal investment and private-sector commitments for manufacturing and semiconductors, while new Medicare authorities negotiated lower prices for certain drugs and capped out-of-pocket costs—moves the White House and archival fact sheets say will yield billions in savings and immediate benefits to millions of seniors [1] [3].
2. Economic record: real growth and jobs, but inflation cut into public credit
Measured macroeconomics under Biden include a rebound in real GDP that peaked at 6.2% in 2021 and multiple years of growth at or above roughly 2.5%, and the addition of millions of jobs over the term—though some Bureau of Labor figures were later subject to downward benchmarking adjustments—yet inflation remained a persistent political problem that many voters cited as their top economic worry [2] [4].
3. Domestic policy wins paired with uneven political payoff
Policy wins on healthcare enrollment expansion, drug-pricing negotiation and social protections for veterans and LGBTQ+ Americans translated into tangible outcomes cited by administration sources and independent summaries, but those gains did not translate into broad public acclaim: public assessments of the administration’s ethics and tone declined over time, and Democrats’ favorable views softened from early optimism to more muted final judgments [3] [9] [5].
4. Foreign-policy and crisis moments that shaped reputation
High-profile foreign-policy episodes—most notably the chaotic U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan—proved politically toxic and eroded early approval margins, and critics and some outlets argued these events underscored limits in execution and messaging even where strategic decisions had roots in prior administrations [7] [4]. Media retrospectives characterized his term as paradoxical: substantial accomplishments alongside glaring failures that together make legacy assessments contested [10].
5. Approval ratings and public legacy: data-driven skepticism
Across Gallup, RealClear/aggregates, Ipsos/Reuters and other trackers, Biden’s approval trended from above 50% in the first year to a consistent mid-to-high 30s finish in many final polls, with many Americans saying they expected him to be remembered as below average or poor—Morning Consult and AP-NORC found he left office with net approval underwater in most states and with fewer people calling him “great or good” than for recent predecessors [6] [7] [11] [12] [13] [5] [8].
6. How to answer “Was he great?” — a balanced conclusion
If “great” is judged by sweeping legislative impact, durable economic recovery, and structural investments in industry and health care, the record supports a positive, consequential presidency with lasting policy footprints [1] [2] [4]. If “great” is measured by public approval, crisis management optics and political dominance at the ballot box, the record is weak—ending with historically low favorability in many polls, high-profile foreign-policy embarrassment, and unresolved immigration and inflation concerns that shaped voter judgment [7] [4] [5]. The impartial summary: Biden was a consequential president with major policy achievements but not a broadly popular or universally admired one; labels like “great” depend on whether policy accomplishments or public standing carry more weight for the evaluator [1] [2] [5].