Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

What is Trump really going to do?

A look at the popularity of his promises

Donald Trump
Remon Haazen/Getty Images

President-elect Donald Trump is rapidly turning out names of potential nominees for his incoming administration. Most are strong supporters not only of Trump himself, but also his agenda. It is highly likely that they will be more than happy to help the incoming president implement his wishes.

Trump may also be emboldened by what he perceives to be an electoral mandate (although his final tally came up a bit short of one). Supporters and opponents alike wonder which campaign promises he will keep and which policies he will prioritize. So, what did the voters who supported him want him to do? Data collected for the GW Politics Poll, which I direct with colleagues at George Washington University, provides some insights.


Presidents like to hit the ground running before the opposition can organize and their political capital erodes (which is why the first 100 days is emphasized). What can be helpful is for presidents to build momentum by getting some “easy wins” that don’t generate widespread opposition. Members of Congress, as well as governors and other actors, are likely to defer to the president on issues that are particularly popular. Some of Trump’s more popular campaign promises involve taxes, tariffs and immigration. However, there are some legal, logistical and funding challenges that may make quick implementation of some of these policies difficult.

Probably the easiest policies for Trump to quickly enact relate to taxes. Although Trump has challenged Republican policy orthodoxy in many ways, tax cuts remain the key unifier of the party. Considering that Republicans will control both chambers of Congress, tax reform could be an easy win. And while the details of tax policy can get exceptionally complex and might cause some defections in a very tight House majority, some of the broader tax promises Trump has made enjoy strong support among his voters. In addition to reinstating personal income tax cuts from his first term, Trump has made corporate tax cuts and eliminating taxes on tipped wages and Social Security benefits part of his campaign pledges.

Reducing the corporate tax rate was an issue of disagreement within the electorate. Among Trump voters, 83 percent said they strongly or somewhat support lowering the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 15 percent for companies that make their products in the United States, compared to only 38 percent of those who voted for other candidates. The issue of eliminating taxes on tipped wages has broad bipartisan support (and Vice President Kamala Harris even adopted the position during her campaign), with 81 percent support of Trump voters for eliminating these taxes, and 62 percent of those who voted for other candidates also in support.

Eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits was even more popular (89 percent of Trump voters and 77 percent of those who voted for other candidates). Considering the popularity of these proposals, any resistance would solely be based on concern over lost revenue, but budget hawks are notoriously rare in an incumbent president’s party and Democrats are ill-positioned to resist, especially since changes in the tax code can be easily added to budget reconciliation bills (thereby bypassing a cloture vote). Tax cuts should be a relatively easy accomplishment for a new Trump administration.

Tariffs no longer face strong bipartisan opposition. Among Trump voters, 73 percent said they strongly or somewhat support increasing tariffs on most imports, compared to only a quarter of those who voted for other candidates. Considering the administrative lag in implementation due to an investigation necessary to assert presidential authority on the grounds of national security, there may be some delay in implementation. Instead, the threat of tariffs might be used by Trump as a bargaining chip if he wishes to conduct new trade negotiations.

Trump has famously declared that he would begin mass deportations of illegal immigrants on day one of his administration. While this plan is popular among Trump’s voters (90 percent in support), there is a good deal of opposition (only 18 percent of those who voted for other candidates supported the plan). The feasibility and cost of deportations could make full implementation unlikely. Concern regarding the inflationary repercussions of deporting the labor supply responsible for picking and processing the nation’s food may also curtail the program. Likely legal challenges could also stall the program, resulting in the same partial implementation as Trump’s border wall.

Not surprisingly, Trump’s voters showed little support for allowing individuals in the country illegally to find a way to stay. Only 23 percent favored a legal way for illegal immigrants to gain citizenship. Similarly, Trump voters had little sympathy for “dreamers” — with only 36 percent of his voters favoring a policy allowing young adults who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay and work in the U.S. legally. Stepping up immigration enforcement and capping asylum claims were popular among Trump’s voters. A large majority (92 percent) of his voters favored an increase in funding border security along the U.S.-Mexico border. Similarly, 86 percent of Trump voters support limiting the number of immigrants who can claim asylum.

Trump’s voters also supported drastic, if not cruel measures to deter illegal immigration. Among Trump voters, 39 percent said they strongly or somewhat agree with the statement that it is appropriate to separate undocumented immigrant parents from their children when they cross the border in order to discourage others from crossing the border illegally. Attitudes regarding immigration among Trump voters also spilled over into the legal immigration process. A majority of Trump voters (58 percent) said it should be much or slightly harder than it is currently to immigrate to the U.S. legally.

Given the support of his voters and the potential obstacles for various policies, it is likely tax cuts are one promise that Trump is able to fulfil completely. Although popular, tariffs will be more difficult given the national security requirement and inevitable legal challenges. Changes to immigration policy are also likely to come through the legislative process, but mass deportations will probably get stalled due to the logistical and funding difficulties and inevitable legal challenges. Much like the Muslim ban effort, it is likely Trump will try to move quickly on this issue, but will have to recraft and significantly scale it back. Of course, a lot of what Trump decides to do will depend upon those who advise him, so it will be important to continue to watch for these signals to decipher which policies may be prioritized as the ex-president re-assumes office.

Belt is a professor and the director of the Political Management Master’s Program at the George Washington University. He is the co-author of four books, including “ The Presidency and Domestic Policy ” with Michael Genovese and the late William Lammers.


Read More

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less