Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

U.S. President Donald Trump takes the stage during a reception for Republican members of the House of Representatives in the East Room of the White House on July 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump thanked GOP lawmakers for passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

What are the new Medicaid work requirements, and are they more lenient or more restrictive than what previously existed?

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Constitution
Imagining constitutions
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

A Bold Civic Renaissance for America’s 250th

Every September 17, Americans mark Constitution Day—the anniversary of the signing of our nation’s foundational charter in 1787. The day is often commemorated with classroom lessons and speaking events, but it is more than a ceremonial anniversary. It is an invitation to ask: What does it mean to live under a constitution that was designed as a charge for each generation to study, debate, and uphold its principles? This year, as we look toward the semiquincentennial of our nation in 2026, the question feels especially urgent.

The decade between 1776 and 1787 was defined by a period of bold and intentional nation and national identity building. In that time, the United States declared independence, crafted its first national government, won a war to make their independence a reality, threw out the first government when it failed, and forged a new federal government to lead the nation. We stand at a similar inflection point. The coming decade, from the nation’s semiquincentennial in 2026 to the Constitution’s in 2037, offers a parallel opportunity to reimagine and reinvigorate our American civic culture. Amid the challenges we face today, there’s an opportunity to study, reflect, and prepare to write the next chapters in our American story—it is as much about the past 250 years, as it is about the next 250 years. It will require the same kind of audacious commitment to building for the future that was present at the nation’s outset.

Keep ReadingShow less