Talk:First presidency of Donald Trump

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the First presidency of Donald Trump article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Politics: American High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

United States: Presidents / History / 50,000 Challenge High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance).
	This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2010s Mid‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Consensus on separate articles:

Current consensus is to split the first term of Donald Trump as president to First presidency of Donald Trump and the second term of Donald Trump as president to Second presidency of Donald Trump. This was agreed to here.

Section sizes

Section size for First presidency of Donald Trump (88 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	8,274	8,274
2016 election	3,480	3,480
Transition period, inauguration, and first 100 days	3,566	3,566
Administration	4,901	16,738
Cabinet	7,381	7,381
Dismissal of James Comey	4,456	4,456
Judicial appointments	4,726	8,973
Supreme Court nominations	4,247	4,247
Leadership style	6,947	56,951
False and misleading statements	12,488	12,488
Rule of law	11,592	11,592
Relationship with the news media	11,300	11,300
Twitter	14,624	14,624
Domestic affairs	67	248,687
Agriculture	2,302	2,302
Consumer protections	2,362	2,362
Criminal justice	7,025	12,926
Presidential pardons and commutations	1,732	1,732
Drug policy	3,025	3,025
Capital punishment	1,144	1,144
Disaster relief	182	10,943
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria	8,589	8,589
California wildfires	2,172	2,172
Economy	14,311	34,151
Taxation	6,603	6,603
Trade	13,237	13,237
Education	4,833	4,833
Election integrity	652	652
Energy	7,880	7,880
Environment	25,157	25,157
Government size and regulations	4,859	4,859
Guns	2,664	2,664
Health care	13,123	50,532
Reproductive rights	5,742	5,742
Opioid epidemic	3,763	3,763
COVID-19 pandemic	27,904	27,904
Housing and urban policy	2,055	2,055
Immigration	18,139	39,388
Family separation policy	9,393	9,393
Travel bans	7,678	7,678
2018–2019 federal government shutdown	4,178	4,178
LGBT rights	7,890	7,890
George Floyd protests	2,669	18,354
Photo-op at St. John's Episcopal Church	6,545	6,545
Deployment of federal law enforcement to cities	9,140	9,140
Science	5,567	5,567
Space	1,145	1,145
Surveillance	623	623
Veterans affairs	3,648	3,648
Voting rights	4,939	4,939
White nationalists and Charlottesville rally	5,750	5,750
Foreign affairs	5,889	49,390
Defense	7,244	7,244
Afghanistan	4,407	4,407
China	1,528	1,528
North Korea	7,859	7,859
Turkey	2,859	2,859
Iran	6,841	6,841
Saudi Arabia	6,645	6,645
Israel / Palestine	4,655	4,655
United Arab Emirates	1,463	1,463
Russia and related investigations	15,972	47,131
Special counsel's report	28,020	28,020
Counter-investigations	3,139	3,139
Ethics	3,837	56,979
Role of lobbyists	2,210	2,210
Potential conflicts of interest	13,855	13,855
Saudi Arabia	1,058	1,058
Transparency, data availability, and record keeping	6,792	6,792
Hatch Act violations	2,173	2,173
Security clearances	3,439	3,439
Impeachment inquiry	12,863	12,863
Use of the Office of President	10,752	10,752
Elections during the first Trump presidency	3,136	23,846
2018 midterm elections	559	559
2020 re-election campaign	2,354	20,151
Lost re-election and transition period	4,297	4,297
Electoral vote count and U.S. Capitol attack	6,715	6,715
Aftermath	6,785	6,785
Historical evaluations and public opinion	49	8,051
Historical evaluations	1,771	1,771
Opinion polling	3,836	3,836
Democratic backsliding	2,395	2,395
See also	655	655
References	76	76
Further reading	3,327	4,641
Historiography, memory and teaching	1,314	1,314
External links	1,470	1,470
Total	538,908	538,908

On 6 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to First presidency of Donald Trump. The result of the discussion was Speedy moved.

Please update the section under economy.

Currently, the paragraph on the economy has the following line:

In February 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. entered a recession.[223][224]

Line can be left but content needs to be added:

U.S. recession ended in April 2020, making it shortest on record As per WP:RS

Concerns about Bias in the Article

=== Relying on Authority ===

The article leans heavily on fact-checkers and mainstream media sources like The Washington Post and The New York Times to support claims about Trump's falsehoods and misleading statements. This might make readers more likely to accept these claims without questioning them.

=== Picking and Choosing ===

Selective Presentation of Facts

The article mainly focuses on the negative aspects of Trump's presidency, like false statements, controversial policies, and high turnover rates, while ignoring positive achievements or different viewpoints that could give a more balanced picture.

=== Preaching to the Choir ===

Assuming Agreement

The article seems to assume that everyone reading it already agrees that Trump is bad, using language and framing that assumes readers share the same negative view.

=== Making Things Too Simple ===

Simplified Narratives

The article often oversimplifies complex issues like economic policies, judicial appointments, and foreign relations, only showing the negative side without exploring the bigger picture or considering other perspectives.

=== Unsupported Claims ===

Lacking Proof

Some claims in the article, such as Trump's supposed disrespect for the rule of law and democracy, are made without enough proof or detailed analysis to back up these serious accusations. ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been at this for over 10 years, and I've never seen Wikipedia editors scurry off to implement one user's generalized suggestions for improvement, or to address one user's generalized concerns about bias. It just doesn't work that way. You can participate as an active editor, subject to all the rules and processes that all editors live by. Or you can make specific, policy-based suggestions for changes to articles, and they will be considered by the article's editors. But this is a waste of your time. For further information, read: Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you, the fact that the Russia Election Interference Hoax is even mentioned when it’s been proven over and over again that it was a HOAX is even in this article proves there’s plenty biases. Every thing in this article criticizes the former president and fails to mention his many accomplishments, but yet mentions every single controversy he’s had. Right or left encyclopedias should be non biased. The average American sees this when trying to do research. Right or left anyone not looking at this from a political point of view and take the manufactured hate for one man out of their heads for one second would see that this and 75% of mainstream media is doing their best to degrade Trump. There’s articles that disprove almost all the hate and biased statements made about the Trump campaign with creditable facts and proof but no we must completely change the landscape of this site and internet media in general and criticize any person who supports Trump or the Republican Party and lock any pages that have the potential of people editing and telling the people the real TRUTH. Is this the America/world you really want to live in? Restrictions on the “Fair media” like this only apply when the other side has facts that you don’t like Dreadpirate43 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please try getting your news from a reputable source. Russia has interfered with our elections. Proven, and demonstrated at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah because the justice system that brought hundreds of cases against Trump since he took/left office just randomly stopped pursing perhaps their most prevalent claim they had against the man they hate so much. It’s been proven and admitted by Mark Zuckerberg that Meta actively promoted Biden/Harris during the last election and shadowbanned content promoting the GOP yet theirs not any articles about “Meta Election Interference in the 2020 Election” The Russia Hoak was blown up in the media by the Clintons and leftist news and gave nothing hearsay and incredible evidence, but when the mainstream media uses it as its talking points for 4+ years you end up with a million articles of ACCUSATIONS so much that the ones that prove that this thing was a HOAX with the actual court papers as their evidence it gets buried. BIPARTISAN MEDIA SHOULD BE A PILLAR IN OUR COUNTRY BUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE WHY WE DIVIDE Dreadpirate43 (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS, and stop using all capital letters in your comments. It's sen as shouting on the Internet, so is poor manners. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s how real people talk when they’re upset about this unjust bullshit. I have respect for almost every person on this earth even the people who I was directly talking too, but I’m absolutely sick of it, I love how I’m called out on something as simple as typing in caps or “sounding offensive” because it may “hurt someone’s feelings” yet someone like RFK Jr. can have his character and legacy tarnished because of the opinions of people who run a site that just happens to be where a large majority of people go to first when researching a new person. Think RFK Jr’s feelings are hurt when literal lies are told about him and he’s painted as a “whack job”. The man can’t even explain himself anymore because the narrative is already instilled in most people from website like this a legacy media. So again let’s UNITE not FIGHT. Have a problem with my caps so be it, your still going to wake up in the morning and life will go on. Dreadpirate43 (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it would be bad for RFK Jr if he was called a "whackjob" or had lies told about him, but this article doesn't do either of those things. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First president since Carter to initiate no new military conflicts?

Does this warrant inclusion in the subsection of foreign policy? From what I've researched, this point is factually correct and would seem to merit inclusion here.

A fact check from USA Today, linked here

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/01/fact-check-trump-not-first-president-since-eisenhower-without-new-war/6086636002/

furthers the point that military conflicts with and without Congressional approval have occurred in every presidential term prior to Trump up until and including Reagan, but no such conflicts were initiated during Trump's term.

I would think this does warrant inclusion in the foreign policy subsection of Trump's presidency, especially considering the apparent 35-year track record of previous US presidents in this regard. Danielnrg (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some would argue that the reasons for this were not really positive. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's relevant to his policy, what does positive or negative matter? I don't really understand what it is you're trying to say, to be perfectly honest. Danielnrg (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source that says it was due to policy? HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does it need to be due to policy to be worthy of inclusion? It doesn't seem outlandish to include this detail compared to other Wiki articles I've seen.

I will note that it appears I've been suggesting an edit to the wrong article. I was attempting to submit for the foreign policy subsection of the broader Donald Trump article - itself a subsection of the presidency portion.

But your feedback can inform or preclude a talk submission in the proper article feed, which is why I'm submitting this here despite realizing my mistake.

It seems a more fitting inclusion in a brief summary that includes "Hallmarks of foreign relations during Trump's tenure included unpredictability, uncertainty, and inconsistency. Tensions between the U.S. and its European allies were strained under Trump."

Do you think I should make a talk submission for that article, as I intended to? Danielnrg (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned policy because YOU did. I regard that wording you just quoted as very accurate. Trump didn't have formal policies in most areas, including international relations. He just reacted based on his own emotions at the time. Fortunately, in the areas of starting wars, the US has a lot of safety valves built into it's systems. It's hard for a leader to start a war on a whim. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Bush and Dick Cheney would beg to differ. God forbid an accomplishment made by the Trump Administration is controversial to post Dreadpirate43 (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with a potential second Trump adminstration?

Supposing Trump wins in 2024, would this article be renamed to Presidencies of Donald Trump, as is the case with Grover Cleveland? Or would a new article be made for the second term, given the increased volume of info? I know this is a bit early to be asking this, but still. EA09thesecond (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see a second article, unlike someone who had two or more consecutive terms. TFD (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that this question is becoming relevant. Hektor (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this article already has a cleanup tag for being too long, I think having separate articles is the way to go. PolarManne (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a mention about attempts to weaponize the I.R.S. against political rivals?

I believe the Rule of law section of this article could be updated to mention that Trump wanted to use the I.R.S. to target James B. Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Andrew G. McCabe.

A recent story from New York Times states the following:

But by late 2017 into early 2018, Mr. Trump’s attention shifted back to an old preoccupation and he wanted to go the offensive. He told aides he wanted to use the I.R.S. to target Mr. Comey; Peter Strzok, the lead F.B.I. agent from the Russia investigation; Lisa Page, a top F.B.I. aide; and Andrew G. McCabe, the bureau’s deputy director, according to federal court records and previous public statements made by Mr. Kelly, the White House chief of staff at the time.

Repeatedly, Mr. Kelly and Mr. McGahn, the White House counsel, strongly cautioned Mr. Trump against such talk. To them, using the federal government to go after those he saw as his enemies was a tactic from an authoritarian playbook. Mr. Kelly specifically told Mr. Trump that along with being immoral and self-destructive, weaponizing the I.R.S. was illegal.^[1]

References

^ Schmidt, Michael S. (21 September 2024). "As President, Trump Demanded Investigations of Foes. He Often Got Them". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 21 September 2024. Retrieved 22 September 2024.

I don't have a proposal for specific language, but just a short mention along with this citation would suffice. Thank you. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this something he actually tried to do or just something he discussed? If he didn't make any moves toward it, I'm not sure why it would be notable. I would check the source, but it is paywalled, and the archive link isn't working for me. Catboy69 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biased

this article and the language contained therein is clearly biased against Donald Trump. It is not presented as a listing of fact, rather a combination of fact, opinion, lies, and personal diatribe. Wiki continues to disappoint as a "reputable" encylopedic digital manuscript.

There was no Russian election interference in 2020. That is a lie. Of the many legal accusations against him that have been made, none have been upheld. This man has endured scrutiny that his opponents could never endure. Wiki is asking for donations and will receive none from me as I do not trust it as an information source. "Fake news. Very sad." 216.16.60.218 (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections was real and it's happening again this year too. And he was convicted of 34 felonies. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add context

In the section of January sixth, please add that Trump encouraged his supporters to march "peacefully and patriotically" as shown in the full speech of the clip next to the section.

NicoConservative (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Speedy moved. Second presidency of Donald Trump has already been created. I see one "technical" oppose, citing Presidencies of Grover Cleveland, however the article on Trump's 2017–2021 presidency would be far too long if we were to incorporate everything from his 2025&ndash2029? presidency. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency of Donald Trump → First presidency of Donald Trump – He is elected president for a second term of office now, meaning this should be moved. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy support - Second presidency of Donald Trump has already been made, and the chances of him somehow not becoming President in January is incredibly small. PolarManne (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technical oppose: Given Presidencies of Grover Cleveland, there might be an argument for renaming this Presidencies of Donald Trump instead. Depends on if both terms can be handled here or not. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, if moved to First presidency of Donald Trump, then Presidencies of Donald Trump should be a disambig instead. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Goku V This article is already too long, if we add all contents that would happen during his second presidency to this article, it would be more long than how it is today. Best is divide first and second presidencies as suggested. Franklin D. Roosevelt also has different articles on his presidencies. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support dotXK 12:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - This article has been tag for being too long so a split is justified. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for accuracy, it is the first presidency, not the only presidency. cagliost (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll probably speedily move it in a few if no one else objects (that is if I don't fall asleep first). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Seems sensible now there's going to be a second presidency. This is Paul (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom 『π』BalaM314 〘talk〙 13:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Linking

@Batong1930: Regarding this edit, see MOS:SOB. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC) }}[reply]

The merging of the 1st and 2nd presidency into this article

I see that User:Interstellarity has just merged both pages. I oppose this, mainly because this article already has a verylong tag. We have more than enough content to fill multiple articles, and the second term hasn't even begun yet!

Edit: Additionally, this goes against the recent consensus in "Requested move 6 November 2024" (above).

-OXYLYPSE (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OXYLYPSE: Hi, just saw this and very briefly looked at the RM discussion above. You're right. I did go against consensus and will not pursue any further action on this. Interstellarity (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Schmidt, Michael S. (21 September 2024). "As President, Trump Demanded Investigations of Foes. He Often Got Them". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 21 September 2024. Retrieved 22 September 2024.

[1]