Talk:First 100 days of the second Donald Trump presidency

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

ref

--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

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]
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
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
]

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]

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_100_days_of_the_second_Donald_Trump_presidency&oldid=1285667692"