Talk:First 100 days of Donald Trump's second presidency

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the First 100 days of Donald Trump's second presidency article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Not moved, 15 April 2025, to First 100 days of the second Trump administration, see discussion.
Moved, 28 April 2025, from First 100 days of Donald Trump's second presidency to First 100 days of Donald Trump's second presidency, see discussion.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

United States: History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history.

Presidents of the United States: Donald Trump Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesPresidents of the United States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events.
Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate.

ref

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/11-things-trump-day-1-presidency-rcna184423

--Another Believer _(Talk) 17:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Americans are born female

I believe that the text "Trump issued several executive orders, which included...declaring all Americans are now legally born female" is WP:NPOV, especially WP:DUE and, if the idea is mentioned, that it should be reported not in Wikipedia's voice, but as a WP:FRINGE opinion. There is a relevant dicussion at Talk:Executive Order 14166#"everyone is female now" that I won't copy here. Sjö (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s neutral to say that it says everyone is a female as confirmed in a reliable source

https://m.jpost.com/omg/article-838803 148.69.58.211 (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source clearly does not know what it is talking about or jesting, so it is undue to add such silly nonsense from one opinion piece. The unborn will only ever produce one type of sex cell dictated by the chromosomes he/she has inherited from each parent. Hardyplants (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you aren’t a reliable source. Please share proof of your PHD in biology 79.168.93.9 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerusalem Post is not in the list of reliable sources on Wikipedia. Cassiopeia talk 01:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And Snopes says that "all humans are female" is false: [1].Sjö (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes aren’t a reliable source 79.168.93.9 (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network, and it is on the reliable source list of Wikipedia. Cassiopeia talk 00:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anything with a name like the "International Fact-Checking Network" couldn't possibly be a neutral, unbiased, apolitical, non-corrupt source. 2A00:23C6:2AB5:6A01:BC13:3096:F795:6132 (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Format Suggestion

These first hundred days should probably be presented by day rather than by category or this will end up a rehash of the Second presidency of Donald Trump section for the same purpose. However, breaking it down by day like they do in the Ukraine war timelines might provide a different more detailed understanding. Of course there are tables I can find in other articles, but I dunno. It's a thought, but I'm not bold enough just to do it today. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be more appropriate for an article titled Timeline of the first 100 days of the second Donald Trump presidency. This is not a timeline article and should be broken up by topic, and the use of proseline should be avoided. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on +6 polling

72, you are repeatedly introducing this edit to the page saying that Trump has a +6 approval rating. As I stated before, this information is already included and is referring to the fact that it is +6 from his prior inauguration where he was at 43%, he is now at 47%. You keep saying that he is at 56%. This is incorrect. Please stop adding this information and editing warring. A collection of your edits on this issue: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6. BootsED (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read sources more carefully:

“Back in January of 2017, Donald Trump became the first president in US History to start his presidency with a net negative approval rating,” Enten said. “Look at where we are now in January 2025, considerably better at plus-6 points. “That’s up 9 points,” he continued. “To borrow a Donald Trump phrase, ‘That’s big league.’”

Source: https://www.pennlive.com/news/2025/01/cnn-stunned-by-trump-poll-very-much-unlike-what-we-saw-8-years-ago.html

Also, since when is 43 -> 47 a plus of 6? --77.22.168.12 (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, tired and bad at math. Not sure what the +6 is referring to then. The exact polling shows his approval rating at 47% up from 43% in 2017. I don't know what the +6 to +9% you are referring to comes from. Either way he is not at 56%. BootsED (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is. They just used another poll. There isn't only one poll. Thats why both are included now. -77.22.168.12 (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the poll, please. The poll they are referring to is the Reuters poll that says it as 47%. BootsED (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is literally what the CNN analyst said. See the video here. This is verbatim what Harry Enten says. https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-data-guru-stunned-trumps-approval-shift-from-eight-years-ago-very-much-turned-around 77.22.168.12 (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It says Reuters/Ipsos poll on the graphic. This is the only poll they can be referring to. It clearly says 47%. BootsED (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a different Reuters/Ipsos poll then, there is no other explanation. What is relevant is that he have a CNN analyst saying these exact words, and CNN is generally considered reliable. 77.22.168.12 (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Net" and "+6" refers to the difference between the approve and disapprove percentages (47% - 41%). Jfire (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Jfire. 72, will you please self-revert? BootsED (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the explanation with the whole net approval rating thing. - 77.22.168.12 (talk) 77.22.168.12 (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ongoing

i think it maybe ought to be mentioned in the beginning that this time period is currently ongoing. it's sorta implied but not directly mentioned. Warpfrz (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Day 1 Executive Orders

There were 78 biden era executive actions overturned on day 1 ([2]). The source given for the 78 executive orders ([3]) is only one executive order, and it undoes the biden era presidential actions. The list of presidential actions ([4]), the federal register ([5]), and the American Presidency Project ([6]) only shows 26 executive orders on Jan 20. There is a consensus on 26 executive orders on day 1 ([7] [8] [9] [10]). 2620:0:E00:4037:0:0:0:34E (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Twitter

The article mentions the name "Twitter" as the current name, even though by this point it had long rebranded to "X". Maddox121 ForgotHisPassword (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Project 2025

Where would be a good place to mention the following?

Skye Perryman, chief executive of Democracy Forward said: "He acted as if he didn't have anything to do with Project 2025, when we know and have seen that he's really seeking to accelerate that agenda." Time Magazine

The way it is currently, it only implies a contradiction (and that smacks of WP:OR. Why can't we cite an administration critic who outright declares it a contradiction? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could we for example insert, "... which Democracy Forward says contradicts Trump's earlier assertion that he didn't have anything to do with Project 2025"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this page exist?

Donald Trump is serving his SECOND term. Everyone has seen an entire term of him before so they have much more data to work with which kinda makes the analysis of the first 100 days of his second term insignificant. The whole point of a first 100 days page is looking at the symbolic significance and the benchmark period of a president's first 100 days in office. It's not really the same when you have 4 years worth of data beforehand. Just because he's "technically" classed as 2 presidents doesn't mean we have to treat his second presidency like it's a first term. 2A00:23C6:2AB5:6A01:BC13:3096:F795:6132 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But most people treated Cleveland's second term like whole different president... go look up Wikipedia's discussions about him in List of Presidents, his article etc. Trump should be treated as Cleveland in this case.84.54.73.46 (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The title is specific and factually descriptive. It's not an opinion or preference. This is Wikipedia. User12345lr54321 (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Presidents of the United States/Donald Trump task force which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Day 100 is 29 April 2025

The only way day 100 isn't until the 30th is if you don't count the day he was sworn in - 20 January - as the 1st day.

i.e. 20 JAN 2025 is not "day 0"; it's day 1 of his 2nd term. Darr247 (talk) Darr247 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dar247

I thought the same as you about the number of days, so I did some checking. It seems that it’s counted from Inauguration Time of Jan 20th at noon.

This means that technically the 100 days finishes at 12 noon on April 30.

Jan 11.5 days

Feb 28 days

Mar 31 days

Apr 29.5 days

Regards

JohnI (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except days don't end at noon.
If we deduct golfing time, the first 100 days ends sometime in June. Darr247 (talk)

Well days can be a length of time or actual days. Previous articles for Obama, Biden and Trump’s first presidencies have the 100 days as finishing on 30 April. This article isn’t consistent with them.

Regards

JohnI (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 April 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) --Regards, KB~Abhiimanyu7 talk 02:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First 100 days of the second Donald Trump presidency → First 100 days of Donald Trump's second presidency – Follows precedent in other articles. (First 100 days of Joe Biden's presidency, First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency AsaQuathern (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this change, it is pretty pointless and the page titles are talking about 2 nonconsecutive presidencies meanwhile the examples are consecutive presidencies AppleyAppleson (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support,in line with other past US presidencies. The first 100 days of Trump's first presidency should subsequently be moved as well. –Tobias (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support – consistency is key, and the less wordy article titles are, the better. WikiEdita65 (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.