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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard on stage

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to be the director of national intelligence.

Adam J. Dewey/Anadolu via Getty Images

How a director of national intelligence helps a president stay on top of threats from around the world

In all the arguments over whether President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for director of national intelligence is fit for the job, it’s easy to lose sight of why it matters.

It matters a lot. To speak of telling truth to power seems terribly old-fashioned these days, but as a veteran of White House intelligence operations, I know that is the essence of the job.

Keep ReadingShow less
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Peter W. Stevenson /The Washington Post via Getty Images

How RFK Jr. could reverse our nation’s foolish approach to obesity

The river was swift and unrelenting, its currents carrying victim after victim downstream. Local villagers responded by stringing nets across the water to prevent further drownings. Yet, despite their efforts, the death toll continued to rise.

Eventually, a newcomer to the village asked a simple yet critical question: “Why are people falling into the river in the first place?” Following the water upstream, the villagers discovered the source of the problem: a crumbling bridge sending person after person into the rapids.

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting with signs

Hundreds of supporters of trans rights rallied outside the Supreme Court on Dec. 4. The court will consider a case determining whether bans on gender-affirming care for children are unconstitutional.

Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Supreme Court ruling on trans care is literally life or death for teens

Last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether banning essential health care for trans youth is constitutional. What the justices (and lawmakers in many states) probably don’t realize is that they’re putting teenage lives at risk when they increase anti-trans measures. A recent report linked anti-transgender laws to increased teen suicide attempts among trans and gender-expansive youth.

In some cases, attempted suicide rates increased by an astonishing 72 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mother offering a glass of water to her toddler son.
vitapix/Getty Images

Water fluoridation helps prevent tooth decay – how growing opposition threatens a 70-year-old health practice

Driving through downtown Dallas, you might see a striking banner hanging at the U-turn bridge, near the Walnut Hill exit on Central Expressway (US 75): “Stop Fluoridation!” Below it, other banners demand action and warn of supposed dangers.

It’s not the first time fluoride has been at the center of public debate.

Fluoride alternatives

For those who prefer to avoid fluoride, there are alternatives to consider. But they come with challenges.

Fluoride-free toothpaste is one option, but it is less effective at preventing cavities compared with fluoride-containing products. Calcium-based treatments, like hydroxyapatite toothpaste, are gaining popularity as a fluoride alternative, though research on their effectiveness is still limited.

Diet plays a crucial role too. Cutting back on sugary snacks and drinks can significantly reduce the risk of cavities. Incorporating foods like crunchy vegetables, cheese and yogurt into your diet can help promote oral health by stimulating saliva production and providing essential nutrients that strengthen tooth enamel.

However, these lifestyle changes require consistent effort and education – something not all people or communities have access to.

Community programs like dental sealant initiatives can also help, especially for children. Sealants are thin coatings applied to the chewing surfaces of teeth, preventing decay in high-risk areas. While effective, these programs are more resource-intensive and can’t replicate the broad, passive benefits of water fluoridation.

Ultimately, alternatives exist, but they place a greater burden on people and might not address the needs of the most vulnerable populations.

Should fluoridation be a personal choice?

The argument that water fluoridation takes away personal choice is one of the most persuasive stances against its use. Why not leave fluoride in toothpaste and mouthwash, giving people the freedom to use it or not, some argue.

This perspective is understandable, but it overlooks the broader goals of public health. Fluoridation is like adding iodine to salt or vitamin D to milk. These are measures that prevent widespread health issues in a simple, cost-effective way. Such interventions aren’t about imposing choices; they’re about providing a baseline of protection for everyone.

Without fluoridated water, low-income communities would bear the brunt of increased dental disease. Children, in particular, would suffer more cavities, leading to pain, missed school days and costly treatments. Public health policies aim to prevent these outcomes while balancing individual freedoms with collective well-being.

For those who wish to avoid fluoride, alternatives like bottled or filtered water are available. At the same time, policymakers should continue to ensure that fluoridation levels are safe and effective, addressing concerns transparently to build trust.

As debates about fluoride continue, the main question is how to best protect everyone’s oral health. While removing fluoride might appeal to those valuing personal choice, it risks undoing decades of progress against tooth decay.

Whether through fluoridation or other methods, oral health remains a public health priority. Addressing it requires thoughtful, evidence-based solutions that ensure equity, safety and community well-being.The Conversation

Noureldin is a clinical professor of cariology, prevention and restorative dentistry at Texas A&M University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Keep ReadingShow less