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

Fulcrum Roundtable: Militarizing U.S. Cities
The Washington Monument is visible as armed members of the National Guard patrol the National Mall on August 27, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Fulcrum Roundtable: Militarizing U.S. Cities

Welcome to the Fulcrum Roundtable.

The program offers insights and discussions about some of the most talked-about topics from the previous month, featuring Fulcrum’s collaborators.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

Context: history

Keep ReadingShow less
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less