Talk:Second presidency of Donald Trump

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2025

Change "Trump's singing of executive orders" in section "Executive orders" to "Trump's signing of executive orders". C.A. Fantasy Author (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

"Going after political opponents"

Trump frequently promised to exact retribution and revenge against perceived political enemies through his 2024 campaign, and has said he has "every right" to go after political opponents. The source cited by the author of this comment does not even come close to claiming this. The source states clearly and plainly: "[Trump's] return to the White House has sparked anxiety about how much power he has to upend their lives." listing potential mechanisms the president could use. I suggest changing it to how it is stated in the source and not distorting the information. HANGMAN1 (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The source that was already present described it this way: "President Trump has said he has “every right” to go after political opponents." I also just added another source that supports the language used in the article:

Since 2022, when he began preparing for the presidential campaign, Trump has issued more than 100 threats to investigate, prosecute, imprison or otherwise punish his perceived opponents, NPR has found.

A review of Trump's rally speeches, press conferences, interviews and social media posts shows that the former president has repeatedly indicated that he would use federal law enforcement as part of a campaign to exact "retribution."

I took out the part about revenge since he didn't explicitly use the word revenge in his statements. ^📻NuclearSpuds_🎙️ 06:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate references help

I noticed that reference 331 and 396 (as of the time I'm sending this) are duplicate references, but as reference 331 is from an excerpt in another article, I have no idea how to merge the two together. Can someone think of a way to remedy this? CorrectionsJackal (correct me) 08:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Somebody must have fixed this. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The references are still there. Now they are references 406 and 471. CorrectionsJackal (correct me) 14:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, CorrectionsJackal. They moved again. Maybe you could learn how to name refs at WP:REPEATCITE. It's a useful skill. If you have trouble holler again but this time please tell me what the refs say so I can find them. Good luck. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I know about ref names, and if you look at the article history, I've been repeatedly removing duplicate references. However, since one of the references is from a direct excerpt from another article, it is tricky to use ref names. Either I use ref names on the one used directly on the article (which would cause problems if that excerpt were to be removed), or use ref names on the article that this article is taking an excerpt from (which would cause problems if that excerpt were to be altered so that the reference is removed, plus issues with the other article, etc.)

There's a DuplicateReferences extension, which should tell you the numbers of the duplicate references because they are very prone to changing for the subject of this article. CorrectionsJackal (correct me) 01:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

You didn't give me any of the ref content. Maybe someone else will help you. Signing off. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, here's the ref link: https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/31/nx-s1-5282274/trump-administration-purges-health-websites CorrectionsJackal (correct me) 02:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

New article for Actions against the legal profession

I think Trump's actions regarding the legal profession and the coverage of that issue are so extensive as to be useful to have their own article. I would going to work on setting that up. Let me know if people feel differently. Remember (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Making the separate article since I didn't hear any objection. Remember (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

And to clarify, I created the article here - Targeting lawfirms and lawyers under the second Trump Administration. Remember (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2025

Add to the public opinion the Cory booker filibuster 24.0.157.166 (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Split Proposals

Due to concerns about the length of the article, there's some ideas on how to move some of the information to other pages.

These are how some topics were arranged under Trump's first term, it may be a good idea to create a version of these pages for his second term.

Social policy of the first Donald Trump administration

Economic policy of the first Donald Trump administration

Environmental policy of the first Donald Trump administration Cahlin29 (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cahlin29: I'd support this. We're not even three months in to a four-year presidency and this article is already unwieldy and getting far too long. We will invariably have to make these splits eventually, so we might as well do them now. DecafPotato (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

If anyone would be so daring, here are the red links to make it easier:

• Social policy of the second Donald Trump administration
• Economic policy of the second Donald Trump administration (currently a redirect)
• Environmental policy of second Donald Trump administration

DecafPotato (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. I also helped in editing the page, and its gotten so long, then again, Trump is moving at lightning speed. Over 111 executive orders and we haven't even closed off April. TheFloridaTyper (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a user created Science policy of the second Donald Trump administration I expect more types of these pages will be created in the coming months. Cahlin29 (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I support splitting this article similar to the first term. And I also support @DecafPotato's title proposals. Though should we make this an RFC? Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bondegezou tagging you here in case you want to work with any of these editors to spin-off information from this article. Cahlin29 (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I created Science policy of the second Donald Trump administration as it was one of the larger sections without its own article. DecafPotato's suggestion is obviously sensible. Bondegezou (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

May I suggest an easy way to deal with article size is to remove §Background? All or most of this information is easily found elsewhere. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the article has to be coherent within itself, so some Background is appropriate. I hacked it down a lot recently and it could probably be further abbreviated, but something needs to remain.

Long-term, the article will keep growing, so creating spin-off articles and summarising issues here is the way to go. Bondegezou (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I've just created Education policy of the second Donald Trump administration; we can probably now summarize most of the content in this article in the "Education" and "Actions against higher education" sections. DecafPotato (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Missing topic

I really think that the protests against trump should get their own section, or at least in a "reactions" section Not a kitsune (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi. This topic has its own articles, many of them. For example, Protests against Donald Trump and Protests against the second presidency of Donald Trump. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Then I think there should be a link there Not a kitsune (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I added a bunch. You're welcome to add more. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Not a kitsune (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Split section

I would like to propose splitting the current Actions against political opponents and the media section on this page to a separate Government targeting of political opponents under the second Trump administration page. This new page would serve as the top-level page for the relevant Targeting of law firms and lawyers under the second Trump administration, Activist deportations in the second Trump presidency, and other pages that will be created as time goes on and Trump expands his targeting of political opponents and civil society.

Pinging @Soibangla owing to your great work on creating pages on this topic in the past. BootsED (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Length

This article is MASSIVE. (like the low taper fade). How can we make it shorter, I think removing stuff he thought about doing but hasn’t or just removing fluff like unnecessary elaboration. General ideas but what do you think Eg224 (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

See conversations above. Cahlin29 (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2025

In "Actions against political opponents and the media" near the end of the first section:

"nd has said that he wpuldjail reporters who refuse to name the sources of leaks."

Ive noticed that it says "wpuldjail", which i assume should bw "would jail".

i. e. change wpuldjail to would jail pretty please Robertthelama (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC) robert :3

 Already done Done by Loserhead EvergreenFir (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

well, i was gonna reply, but thanks loserhead (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Should we change title to “First 100 days of President Trump’s second term”?

I went ahead and started a new article—

Second presidency of Donald Trump, 2025, 2nd quarter

Please help if this by-the-quarter approach appeals to you. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

later edit — It looks like the short, new article I created will be deleted. Please don’t spend a lot of time. And we’ll just put up with the length of our current article. I mean, many of us probably download photos bigger than this all the time without missing a beat! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

——————

And we’d have a week or so. I think it’s fine for there to be some overlap. But now would generally be the time to act.

And we could start an article, “Second 100 days . . ” And later on, maybe “First half of second year . . ”

If we don’t act, the danger will be that our article is either too skimpy or too long. For example, a person remembers that something was a big news story, looks it up in our article, but he or she finds little information.

Your ideas please. Thank you. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support your idea for first 100 days. More than once I've come here and hesitated to add something because this article is overloaded. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Problem — there’s already a Wiki article called First 100 days of the second Donald Trump presidency. This article is a more normal 100 K in length. Our article is in the neighborhood of 350 K. I don’t want to lose material. But we can’t just keep adding to it.

How about we call this article, “First quarter of Trump’s second term” ?  ?? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

As you said, there is already a page for the first 100 days. I also want to note that there are many other articles with the "First/second presidency of [person]" format, so I think it is ideal to continue that precedent. This article is a little long, but I don't think that necessitates changing the subject of the article; sections with corresponding main articles can be trimmed down and sections without corresponding main articles can be made into their own articles and then summarized in their sections in this article. The "first 100 days" article or one of the timelines would also be good destinations for relatively unimportant details that are still worth noting somewhere. I am just hesitant to break with the strong precedent of titles like these because virtually every US president with an eventful presidency has a "Presidency of" article. ^📻NuclearSpuds_🎙️ 01:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

NuclearSpuds, is there some reason this article can't stay to fulfill the "every US president with an eventful presidency" requirement? It can shrink and point to the rest of the tree. Sorry if I misunderstood. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @SusanLesch, I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking so I’ll clarify what I said. I think this article should remain as “Second presidency of Donald Trump” because having an article for a president’s overall term is an established order of things and that seems to be working. I think that instead of changing the name to “100 days” or “first quarter”, we can shorten this article by offloading words over to existing articles that are designated for more comprehensive coverage of specific topics/times. ^📻NuclearSpuds_🎙️ 17:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree—but not that those articles already necessarily exist. My mistake to support a name change. I am in favor of disassembling this one into several articles all linked here under the current name. Does this make sense? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. The existing articles I was looking at are First 100 days of the second Donald Trump presidency and Timeline of Donald Trump's second presidency (2025 Q1) (and also Q2). There are also some links to main articles scattered around the sections in this article. ^📻NuclearSpuds_🎙️ 18:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

FriendlyRiverOtter, are we all on the same page now? Sorry I caused some confusion. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

SusanLesch, thanks for reaching out. However, it’s probably going to be the case that people do something fancy, rather than just let the article develop organically. As an example, if two solid references say different things, people will typically try to heroically split the difference. Rather than simply say, Ref A states . . . Ref B states . . . In this case, I suspect people will try to summarize whole big sections in stiff, formal, plain vanilla ways. And the end result will not be very informative, like not at all. Instead, I wish we just decided to be more loosey-goosey about the length of the article. And I think the actual policy of Wiki is that length limits are only guidelines. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

NuclearSpuds, alright, I understand you as saying we have a strong precedent for articles entitled “Presidency of . . ” Fair enough. I’d just say that with the energy revolving around Trump, both pro- and anti-, we’d have a chance to just maybe . . . do something better.

For example, with tariffs, a lot of it is gamesmanship on the part of President Trump in trying to bring other countries to the table. At the same time, Trump seems to want tariffs to replace some or all of income taxes. And he’s been criticized in trying to take us back to an 1890 “gilded age” type of finance system.

Okay, I think this is a fair summary of President Trump’s tariffs overall.

In fact, I can remember an item on the evening news using a poker analogy and saying something like “China might be in the process of calling Trump’s bluff.” Of course, I wouldn’t dream of using that unless I had the actual reference.

And in general, I’d say our tariff section is timid and inferior to the conversation among adults in a tavern as far as the overall landscape of what Trump is attempting. And with good references and short, juicy quotes — and resisting the impulse to shave these down — our tariff section could and should be better than that conversation. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

And I’ll do what I can, as I’m sure we all will. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Let's hold off on heroics and fancy. We're not in a hurry. Breaking the presidency in quarters is one way. Another way is breaking by topic. Have we decided which we're doing?

I come from the Donald Trump biography where almost every addition is reverted as "overdetail" or for prior consensus. What survives is always written with extreme concision. Here's the abbreviated TOC from the second term:

Early actions
Conflicts of interest
Mass terminations of federal employees
Domestic policy
Immigration
Foreign policy
Personnel
Judiciary

For these, the following links are to "main" articles, "further" or "see also".

First 100 days of the second Donald Trump presidency Why isn't this "administration"?
Conflicts of interest of the second Donald Trump administration (links here) should this be "presidency"?
2025 United States federal mass layoffs
Domestic policy of the second Donald Trump administration(links here)
Economic policy of the second Donald Trump administration
Education policy of the second Donald Trump administration
Science policy of the second Donald Trump administration
Immigration policy of the second Donald Trump administration
Foreign policy of the second Donald Trump administration
Tariffs in the second Trump administration should this be Donald Trump?
American expansionism under Donald Trump
Political appointments of the second Trump administration
Second cabinet of Donald Trump
Hiring and personnel of Donald Trump
List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump

So I don't support the by-the-quarter idea anymore. We've already got a mess on our hands and I think that approach will make things worse.

-SusanLesch (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency

Are there any objections if I start a new article for Cryptocurrency and Donald Trump? I plan to move the subsection "Cryptocurrency ventures" to it and expand slightly. I am no expert and I believe Wikipedia needs an experienced crypto editor to advance it to Start or C class. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm moving this to Cryptocurrency in the second Donald Trump administration. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Qatar not even mentioned

The plane he is planning to receive from Qatar is not even mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.126.66 (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Bias in DEI

It says at some point(i can't find it) that Trump is "fixing civilized society to his own preferences." the vibe just feels very biased against trump 192.12.147.74 (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The sentence is at Social policy: "He sought to remake civil society to his preferences by executive order." He sought to remake doesn't necessarily mean he's succeeding, as your comment suggests; and civil society ≠ "civilized society". It also doesn't necessarily mean he's failing. It merely means he was/is trying, which is exactly what it says.

The sentence cites one reliable source, Associated Press News. Presumably, there are more supporting sources—articles never cite all of the supporting sources or even most of them. If you could show that the supporting sources comprise a minority among sources that discuss the issue, you would have a strong case for change (in my opinion). If the dissenting sources comprise a substantial minority, their viewpoint might be added to the existing text, per WP:NPOV. They have to be reliable sources; see above link.

But the vibe just feels very biased against trump is not a legitimate argument. See WP:TRUMPRCB for more information. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

What a complete mess this Article has become

Knew this was going to happen, but yikes, total word vomit of overanalyzing and unnecessary information. 2601:589:5184:8A0:D8D4:19ED:919:A867 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Specifics? Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)