Category: Fall 2025

By Athena Smith

October 15, 2025

    

Introduction

Scholars of international organizations overwhelmingly evaluated President Trump’s foreign policy within his first 100 days as negative, and they did so at consistently higher rates than the broader community of international relations scholars. These findings suggest experts viewed Trump’s early actions as damaging to the international order. The international order often hinges on support for institutions’ rules and cooperative frameworks; for example, withdrawals from agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord or threats to NATO’s defense commitments can erode these rules.

Using TRIP’s data from Snap Poll XXII, this post compares those evaluations across paradigms and between International Organization (IO) scholars and the broader IR community to show how theoretical orientation and specialization shaped assessments of President Trump’s foreign policy in his first 100 days. In President Trump’s first 100 days, he withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organization. He also shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and retreated from engagement with numerous United Nations bodies.

Current practice

One of President Trump’s first executive orders, signed February 4th, 2025, is titled: “Withdrawing the United States From and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to All International Organizations.” This order targets the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). President Trump argued that these institutions “act[ed] contrary to the interests of the United States,” “propagat[ed] anti-Semitism,” and “demonstrat[ed] anti-Israel sentiment.” He also sanctioned the International Criminal Court, primarily due to its investigations of Israeli officials.

As part of this executive order, within 180 days the Secretary of State was to review all intergovernmental organizations the United States is a member of to find if they conflict with the interests of the United States. This review would determine if the United States should withdraw its support. President Trump’s cancellation of billions of dollars in U.S. foreign assistance, along with his administration’s efforts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), represent a significant reduction in American commitments abroad. Similarly, his targeting of the UN Human Rights Council and other international agencies reflects a broader effort to weaken international institutions and reduce U.S. engagement abroad.

Data and Analysis

On the question of how President Trump has performed in the area of foreign policy during his first 100 days in office, 82.3% of scholars rated the president “very poorly.” Additionally, 95.7% of scholars said that compared with the past, the United States is less respected by other countries today. Sixty-one percent of scholars said President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change would significantly worsen perceptions among other countries of the United States as a global leader, and 64% of scholars said the same of President Trump’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization. Higher disapproval rates suggest a deeper understanding of the dangers of eroding norm-based institutions such as international organizations, which do not have a basis in binding law and rely on the willful participation and support of their member states. 

The paradigms of international organizations scholars further impact these evaluations, as realism, constructivism, and liberalism hold varying perspectives on the behaviors of states in the international system and subsequently, on the saliency and importance of international organizations. 

On the question of how President Trump has performed on foreign policy in his first 100 days in office, realists evaluated his performance “very poorly” at 64.7%, whereas liberals responded “very poorly” at 86.46%, constructivist 89%, and those who did not use a paradigm at 83.5%. On America’s respect in the world, 87.4% of realists said America was less respected today, compared with 97.9% of liberals, 99.2% of constructivists, and 96.2% of those who do not use a paradigm. 

Individual paradigms reflect personal perspectives on the significance of President Trump’s policies for the international order; scholars who believe states are self-interested and competitive saw President Trump’s policies more positively compared to scholars who believe norms and institutions are more salient in our international system. Liberals and constructivists believe in the importance of international organizations and the saliency of norms and institutions which shape state power. Realists, on the other hand, believe that national interests and power determine behaviors; this leaves them more skeptical about liberal internationalism. 

The same trend is reflected across the last two questions; forty-nine percent of realists believe President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement will significantly worsen global perceptions of America. This stands in comparison to 68.7% of liberals, 72.4% of constructivists, and 54.8% who do not use a paradigm. Forty-six percent of realists believed the same about Trump’s WHO withdrawal, compared to 75% of liberals, 82.7% of constructivists, and 58% of those who do not use a paradigm. 

Disapproval is heightened across these same four questions for scholars of international organizations. This reflects the concern that President Trump’s skepticism of international norms presents a structural challenge to the legitimacy and stability of the international institutional system. On the question of how President Trump has performed on foreign policy in his first 100 days in office, scholars of international organizations rated his performance as “very poorly” at 87.5%, compared to 82.2% of all other scholars. One hundred percent of these scholars agree that other countries now respect the United States less than in the past, compared to 95.6% of other scholars. 

IO scholars also evaluated President Trump’s stance on the Paris Climate agreement more harshly; sixty-eight percent said the withdrawal would significantly worsen American perceptions abroad, and 71.9% of IO scholars said the same of President Trump’s withdrawal from the WHO. These results suggest that both paradigm and specialization strongly color scholars’ perceptions of President Trump’s foreign policies in his first 100 days. Additionally, the data show that IO scholars and non-realist paradigms converge on the view that these policies had disproportionately negative implications for the institutional order.

Conclusion & future implications

Concerned evaluations from IR scholars reflect the reality that the role of the United States in the international order has shifted in President Trump’s first 100 days, as his “America First” program questions and weakens international norms and processes. President Trump’s recent executive orders reflect the belief that the United States is afraid of international cooperation undermining national sovereignty and perceived interests.

A fragmented American approach to international norms will make it more difficult for other states to maintain their commitments to existing standards and solve global challenges. Eroding consensus also means that big issues, like climate change and refugees, will not be met with effective responses at the global level. Buy-in from states is necessary in order to properly condemn bad behavior, and a decline in adherence to norms can also raise the possibility of miscalculation and conflict. President Trump’s early foreign policy decisions raise critical questions about the resilience of global cooperation.

By Marissa Romero

September 5, 2025

    

Introduction

American political opinion is difficult to generalize, whether based on specialization in politics, partisanship, or the personal qualities desired in a leader. While many scholars disapprove of the actions and policies undertaken by the Trump administration during his second term, the general public has been more divided. Furthermore, party loyalty among scholars and the public differs widely when it comes to choosing a political leader. Least accounted for may be the personal opinions between both groups, varying in how closely they align with their political views.

Using a combination of public polls and scholar surveys from the Teaching, Research and International Policy (TRIP) Project, I will explore the rift between public and scholar opinion on what a good leader looks like, how influential partisanship is in both groups, and the gradual shift in the qualities Americans prefer in leaders. This blog post will explore perceptions of world leaders by focusing on President Trump in his second term, while also drawing comparisons to past American presidents. By examining approval in the first 100 days, perceptions of leadership qualities, and foreign policy performance, this post will highlight a potential shift in American political values and a growing separation between the public and scholars on what makes a good leader.

100 Days Comparisons

Each administration’s first 100 days in office are indicative of the initial support they received when first in office. Biden and Trump’s overall approval ratings and foreign policy stances received varying support from both the public and scholars based on performance and confidence.

Public polls at the start of each candidate’s term showed that Biden was viewed more favorably in his first 100 days than Trump in his first term or second term. Trump’s overall approval rating stood at 39%, compared to Biden’s 59% at the same point in his first term. Comparatively, by his second 100 days in 2025, Trump’s approval had fallen to 40%. This drop may imply a general loss in confidence from the public in Trump’s performance.

During each presidency’s first 100 days, public polls also asked about each administration’s foreign policy performance. When respondents were first asked in a 2025 poll whether Trump could make good foreign policy decisions, 44% expressed confidence in him. But when asked to compare Trump’s policies with Biden’s, nearly half said Trump’s policies would leave the U.S. in a weaker international position, while 38% said they would make the U.S. stronger.

From scholars’ viewpoints, Biden received higher support in his foreign policy performance than Trump during his first 100 days. Eighty percent of scholars said Biden was doing well in this area, while fewer than three percent said the same about Trump. The overwhelming consensus among experts was that Trump’s foreign policy initiatives were not performing well.

Trump also fared poorly when compared to other Democratic leaders. When asked to choose between Trump and Harris, only eight percent of experts believed that Trump would more effectively manage foreign policy issues facing the U.S. More than 90% believed Harris would be more effective than Trump in achieving her foreign policy goals.

Scholars were also asked to evaluate each president’s handling of key foreign policy issues at the 100-day mark, including climate change, immigration, national security, international trade and international human rights. Across every issue, experts expressed greater approval for Biden in 2021 than for Trump in 2025. The sharpest contrast was on climate change: 93% of scholars approved of Biden’s handling, while only five percent approved of Trump’s. When directly compared to each other in 2020, scholars agreed the Biden administration would manage current foreign policy issues more effectively than Trump.

When asked about their party affiliation, the overwhelming majority of scholars identified themselves as Democrats. About two-thirds of scholars identified as Democrats, while only three percent identified as Republicans. Still, 17% of Republican experts said that Biden performed well or very well on foreign policy during his first 100 days in office, and one-third rated his performance as neither good nor poor, demonstrating that Biden’s support cannot be wholly attributed to party loyalty. In contrast, fewer than one percent of Democrat scholars stated that Trump performed well or very well, with the same small share saying his performance was neither good nor poor.

While Republican scholars at times supported Biden’s foreign policy decisions, they were still more likely to support Trump than their Democratic counterparts. When asked, in 2020, which candidate would be able to handle foreign policy more efficiently, Republican scholars were evenly split in choosing between Biden and Trump. Strikingly, less than one percent of Democrat scholars chose Trump. These results underscore how partisan identity shaped scholarly assessments of each president’s early foreign policy actions.

Just as scholars’ views can split based on their political affiliation, general public views do as well. Republican respondents were far more likely than Democrats to approve Trump’s foreign policy decision. However, the split among Republican scholars between the two candidates shows that partisan identity does not always guarantee support for a party’s candidate. The partisan division seen in the general American public and, at times, in scholars provides insight into how influential political affiliation is in determining what makes a good leader.

Respect as a Presidential Value

Respect is a trait that both the public and scholars consider vital for leaders and the U.S. to receive. When surveyed in 2021, nearly all experts agreed that it was important for the U.S. to be respected by other countries, and public opinion follows a similar pattern. In a public poll held in 2021, 87% of Americans said respect was somewhat or very important, a share that has since risen to 91% this year.

Where the two groups diverge is in their perception of whether the U.S. actually commands respect. Surveys in 2025 showed that 95% of scholars said respect is important, but only four percent thought that the U.S. had gained or maintained respect compared with previous years. The public was not asked this specific question. Still, about nine in ten respondents agreed respect matters, with 56% who agreed the U.S. is respected abroad. Both groups value respect, though each has different thoughts on which aspects of respect are most important in a leader and seen in the country.

Qualities Desired

Public polls provide insight into the qualities Americans have wanted in a leader over time. In 2024, one-third of Americans said that Biden was a strong and decisive leader, while 57% said Trump held those traits. While Trump scores higher on authoritative qualities, there is an even larger difference between his and Biden’s perceived personality traits.

When comparing Trump’s conduct in 2020 and Biden’s in 2021, Trump scored higher than Biden on traits of authority but lower on personal image. Nearly half of Americans (46%) said that they liked Biden’s conduct, compared with 15% for Trump’s. In 2024, 46% of Americans described Biden as honest and trustworthy, while only one-third said the same about Trump.

These public opinions are heavily split along party affiliation. Fifty-nine percent of Republicans disliked the way Biden conducted himself as president, while the majority of Democrats (85%) said the same about Trump. In both cases, respondents were far more critical of the opposing party’s candidate, with smaller percentages of Americans saying they could agree with the opposition.

Trump’s job performance approval since beginning his second term has deeply followed partisan lines. His overall approval hit a low of 37% in July 2025, yet Republican support remained strong with about 90% approving of his performance, demonstrating a stark contrast to Democrats’ mere two percent and Independents at 29%. On foreign affairs, Trump received only three percent approval from Democrats and 33% from Independents, but 93% approval from Republicans.

In the final months of Biden’s term, leading up to the 2025 inauguration, many Americans grew dissatisfied with his leadership. By early 2025, half of Americans (51%) were dissatisfied with the U.S. role in foreign affairs, and 58% believed the U.S. had lost global standing under Biden. Only one in three said Biden was performing his duties well.

On specific traits, the partisan divide was stark. Only five percent of Republicans said Biden was a strong leader, compared with 62% of Democrats. Just six percent of Republicans described him as mentally sharp, versus 53% of Democrats. On effectiveness, eight percent of Republicans said he could get things done, compared with 64% of Democrats. A majority of Democrats, 72%, described him as honest, but only 11% of Republicans agreed.

A Different Kind of Race

The 2024 election highlighted what Gallup called a race between character and leadership skills. Trump held an 11 percentage point advantage over Harris on being a strong and decisive leader, and a 12 percentage point lead in the ability to get things done. While Trump outperformed Harris on decisiveness, Harris outscored him on moral character, leading by 13 percentage points. Nine in ten Democrats attributed strong moral character to Harris, while 82% of Republicans said the same about Trump. In 2023, nearly half of Americans said the word “moral” described Biden quite or extremely well, compared with only 35% who said the same about Trump.

These results reflect a longer-term shift in values across parties. In 1994, 95% of Americans said moral leadership was either very or somewhat important in a president. When asked again, moral leadership’s importance dipped below 90% in early 1998 before gradually rising throughout the year to 92% in 1999. By 2018, only 87% of Americans thought it to be of importance, the same as the decreased percentage seen in early 1998. This may demonstrate a trend where morals’ importance becomes secondary to other qualities, such as decisiveness.

Americans are prioritizing managerial capabilities (37%) above moral values (21%) when asked, in 2018, which of the following characteristics is the most important factor when rating how a president is handling his job. This is most evident among Republican voters. Forty-two percent of Republicans said that managing the government was the most important factor compared with 34% of Democrats. Democrats were more likely (24%) to prioritize a leader’s moral values, versus 14% of Republicans. This reflects the deeper partisan divide for preferred leadership traits.

From 1996 through 2002, Republicans consistently rated moral values as more important in evaluating a president than Democrats did, while Democrats consistently placed greater importance on managing the government. In 2018, this pattern reversed, with Democrats placing greater emphasis on moral values and Republicans placing greater weight on managing the government. The shift in values represents the polarization between the two major parties, where certain leadership qualities are becoming attributed to one party.

Conclusion

The divide between Americans cannot be reduced to a single affiliation. Among both scholars and the public, support for a candidate often depended on their personal qualities or policy goals. While both tended to align with their party membership, this pattern was more pronounced among the public. Moreover, the qualities that each party seeks in a leader are shifting from broad leadership traits to more personal characteristics. These divisions reveal a gradual change in the qualities that Americans want in a leader, contributing to the growing polarization of American politics.