Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

​​Five-week report card on Trump 2.0

Opinion

Donald Trump

Donald Trump

Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC via Getty Images

According to Forbes, New York Magazine, Time, and Inside Higher Education, Donald Trump sent letters to high schools and colleges attended, plus SAT College Board personnel, threatening them with legal action if they released his academic records. One certainly might wonder why a 78-year-old man elected to the highest office in the U.S. would spend time focusing on this issue, which is relatively meaningless compared to one’s strength of character, integrity, honesty, and work ethic.

The grading that really matters is the grades the American public gives Mr. Trump during his first 100 days of office or 180 days -- according to the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 playbook -- as the time designed for Trump to implement their proposals. Trump’s actions will be graded by the world for eternity.


America’s 335 million citizens, especially the ~51 percent of voters who voted for someone else to become USA’s 47th president, deserve a five-week report card on Trump’s 2.0 endeavors. Recall Trump said at the 2024 Republican National Convention he was running for president “for all of America, not half of America because there is no victory in winning half of America.”

Twenty-nine issues have come front and center before the public since Jan. 20. Let’s see what the majority of citizens think of Trump’s 2.0 presidency to date:

  • A Feb. 19 Quinnipiac poll revealed the majority of Americans feel Trump has failed on seven issues: immigration, economy, foreign policy, trade, federal workforce, Russia-Ukraine war, and Israel-Hamas conflict.
  • According to a new Pew Research Center survey, 56 percent of U.S. adults disapprove of Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship (February 21).
  • Since January 20, Trump has signed 64 executive orders and issued 27 proclamations while more than 70 lawsuits have been filed against Trump for his – most constitutional law professors have said- anti-democratic and anti-constitutional actions. Hence, a February 14 Pew Research Center survey found that “65 percent of U.S. adults say it would be `too risky’ to give Trump more power to deal directly with many of the nation’s problems.”
  • According to Data for Progress, a super majority of voters oppose Trump’s proposal to take ownership of Greenland, Canada, Panama Canal, and Gaza.
  • A YouGov poll revealed that the vast majority of Americans oppose Trump ending humanitarian aid to foreign countries (USAID), abolishing the Department of Education, and disbanding OSHA (ibid).
  • Only 24 percent of Americans approve of Donald Trump withholding congressionally appropriated funds (ibid).
  • President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance said judges should not have the power to review or block executive actions; 3 out of 5 Americans disagree (ibid).
  • Of the 16 federal bodies (e.g., NASA, FBI, CIA, FEMA, USAID, DOGE-Department of Government Efficiency, etc.), the one that is the least favorable by Americans is DOGE, created by Mr. Trump (ibid).
  • In separate Quinnipiac and Pew Research Center polls, 54-55 percent of voters think Elon Musk has too much power in making decisions affecting America (Politico, Feb. 19).
  • Only 12 percent of Americans think Trump should seek out billionaires’ policy advice (AP/NORC poll).
  • Two-thirds of consumers think Trump isn’t focused enough on the prices of products, which he said would be lowered on January 20 (CBS News).
  • A majority to a supermajority of Americans oppose Trump’s plan to impose tariffs on goods imported from Mexico, Canada, and Europe (ibid), identified by the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board as “the dumbest trade war in history” (February 1-2).
  • Trump shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), whereby farmers purchase $2 billion in agricultural products annually, and research is conducted at institutions like Iowa State University, Virginia Tech, and hundreds of other major universities (KCCI Des Moines).
  • Due to Trump’s actions, the National Federation of Independent Business’s uncertainty index for small businesses recently reached its third highest level, coinciding with Stanford’s index of policy uncertainty for big businesses (Wall Street Journal, Feb. 12).
  • Trump’s program to deport immigrants illegally residing in America receives 59 percent approval (CBS News); Trump hits a home run with this issue.

To date, Trump has failed to serve the majority of Americans on 28 of 29 issues that are of importance. Evidence is replete Trump has not fulfilled his promise of being a president “for all of America.”

There are two additional developments that need to be mentioned. First, support for Trump by farmers, teachers, civil servants, CEOs, adults aged 18-44, and people 65 and over is rapidly declining. Secondly, a February 3-16 Gallup poll revealed Trump has a 45 percent job approval rating, which is 15 percent below the historical average for 10 other presidents elected since 1953.

With five weeks down in Trump 2.0 and 203 weeks to go, as Alexander Pope said in his 1733 poem, “hope springs eternal” ... though it seems unlikely.

Steve Corbin is a professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.


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