Författare: James Cooper Associate Professor of History and American Stu

Donald Trump will be sworn in as the 47th president of the United States on January 20 2025. At that point he will become the first US president since Grover Cleveland – 130 years ago – to serve two non-consecutive terms, having lost the White House only to regain it four years later. In securing four more years in the Oval Office, Trump now has the opportunity to not just be a controversial figure, but to become a historically consequential president as well.

The eminent historian, H.W. Brands, argues that there have only been three great US presidents: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), an opinion with which scholarly opinion polls typically agree.

All three presidents had something in common: dealing with epochal issues and crises. Washington had to win the war of independence and ensure that the United States was established and on a firm footing at home and abroad. Lincoln had to win the civil war and address the nation’s original sin of slavery. FDR was faced with saving the capitalist system following the Great Depression and had to defeat fascism in the second world war.

Therefore, for most presidents, the goal is to be in a second tier of rankings among popular and scholastic memory. These are presidents who changed the direction of the country by influencing its political discourse and public policy. To do this, a president must win two terms of office.

Previous presidents, such as Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, can certainly lay claim to being considered to be consequential political leaders on these terms. Reagan reversed decades of economic and political consensus by declaring, in his first inaugural speech, that: “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

As impactful as the policies of Reaganism may have been, it was his rhetoric that actually set the US political agenda for nearly 40 years.

Obama’s signature domestic reform, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) may once again be under threat of Republican repeal, and this time his old adversary John McCain is not here to save it. Obama’s promise and belief in the optimism of American progress was probably more his real legacy, but was perhaps simply masking the partisanship and divisions under the surface.

Trump 2.0

The response to Trump’s political comeback is as divisive as the man himself. His proponents welcome a political realignment to the extent that the Republican party is now the voice of blue-collar Americans in opposition to the elitism of the Democratic party.

Trump’s opponents say he will position the US on the side of authoritarians and drag the country – and the wider world – into economic turmoil if he follows through with his threat about tariffs. And the idea of a convicted felon limiting employment opportunities for his fellow Americans may also be questioned following his reelection to the highest of political offices, let alone concerns about the future of American democracy.

But there’s no arguing against the proposition that, having won a second term which means he will have utterly dominated US politics for a decade or more, that Trump is a consequential president. He has made the Republican party into the party of Trumpism. And by choosing J.D. Vance as his vice-president, he has potentially settled the question of a legacy for the Maga movement with the potential to carry on into another generation.

Unpredictable: Donald Trump’s foreign policy sometimes keeps even his allies guessing.
EPA-EFE/Anatoly Maltsev

On the international stage – and as a political disruptor – Trump will be a source of uncertainty for governments from Europe to Asia. There are those that argue his is an effective foreign policy approach. His supporters make a great deal of the fact that there were no major wars during his first administration like the ones that now imperil the world today. And to be sure, his inconsistency and the uncertainty that this brings, could be viewed as the embodiment of the “madman theory” which holds that an unpredictable leader is an effective deterrent in the era of nuclear arsenals.

But this will be little comfort for Ukraine, which may no longer be able to count on US support, or for the Nato alliance, for similar reasons.

Challenge for the Democrats

Everywhere from the corridors of power to social media sites will be speculating about the 2028 presidential race. It is here that we will see the real consequence of Trump’s election.

The Republicans will be searching for the candidate best placed to maintain Trump’s coalition. Indeed, “broad coalition” does now seem to be a fair description of the Maga movement. Democrats can no longer point to incredibly marginal Republican victories in swing states as they did in 2016. Indeed, they can no longer say that Trump has not been chosen by the majority of American voters. After being beaten in the popular vote by both Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020, he took the popular vote in 2024 by nearly 5 million votes over Kamala Harris.

Trump increased support for the Republicans in safe blue states such as New York. He has gained support across different demographics, including Hispanics and African-Americans

The challenge now is for the Democrats to change. They need to once again learn the language and address the issues that matter most to the American heartlands. Bill Clinton and his “New Democrats” were the consequence of the Reagan revolution, even declaring that the era of “big goverment” was over as he looked ahead to his own reelection in 1996. Obama was a generational political talent in coalition building, albeit bookended by Republican presidents able to reach beyond their traditional support, particularly with minority voters.

Trump has changed the game in US politics. He may be a highly divisive character who has both provoked and capitalised on the emotions of a deeply divided country. But it’s impossible to argue against the proposition that, in the broad sweep of US political history, the man who has become America’s 45th and 47th president won’t be remembered as a figure of major consequence. Läs mer…

With everything else that is going on in US politics, it would be easy to forget the 40th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s landslide re-election in 1984.

But Donald Trump and his supporters seem keen on keeping the memory of Reagan alive, and building on his foundations. Project 2025 – the 920-page blueprint for a second Trump term from conservative thinktank the Heritage Foundation – mentions Reagan 71 times. These references include those who worked for him and have also contributed to the report, and examples of how the think tank successfully influenced the Reagan administration.

The Heritage Foundation claims it had massive influence in the 1980s, with 60% of its policy recommendations introduced by Reagan, and hopes for the same under Trump with its “bold and courageous plan”.

Reagan was well known for his hands-off management style; Trump might also be happy for others to fill in the details to his pledge to “Make America Great Again”.

Read more:
US election: how control of Congress will matter for the new president

Comparisons have also been made during the 2024 campaign between “the Gipper” (Reagan) and Trump in terms of their leadership style and blurring of status between politician and celebrity.

Reagan’s landslide

So what is about Reaganism Trump supporters want to redeploy? The 1984 election was a defining moment for the Republican party, with Reagan only the sixth Republican president to win successive elections. Trump borrows the slogan used by Reagan in 1980, wanting to “Make America Great Again”.

Ronald Reagan shaking hands with Donald Trump in 1987.
Bill Waterson / Alamy

Between 1984 and 2016, the Republicans were the party of Reagan, with his supporters claiming that he had reversed US economic decline, restored national prestige, won the cold war and put the family at the heart of American politics. Reagan’s rhetoric of small government and lower taxation inspired his successors in the Oval Office – George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush – and Republicans in Congress. The Democrats were even forced to become “New Democrats” in response to Reaganism in order to get back into power.

Culture wars (again)

There are undoubtedly similarities between Reagan and Trump. For instance, their appeal to blue-collar voters, tax cutting policies, strong national defence, and what we would now describe as “culture war” rhetoric. Project 2025 evokes this history: “In 1979, the threats we faced were the Soviet Union, the socialism of 1970s liberals, and the predatory deviancy of cultural elites. Reagan defeated these beasts by ignoring their tentacles and striking instead at their hearts.”

Reagan and Trump both had established careers on screen before coming into politics. As the first president from an entertainment background, particularly his time in Hollywood, Reagan was a master of the camera and earned his title of “The Great Communicator”.

However, there are significant differences between the two leaders in both tone and policy. Reagan governed as a pragmatist and was civil towards his opponents – be they Democrat or Republican. His time as chair of the Screen Actors Guild (the actors’ union) helped him understand the art of the negotiation, but he used it against the unions as president. He became a tough deal maker as his settlement of the air traffic controllers strike showed. But unlike Trump, Reagan often brought optimism to his campaigns, clearly shaped by his midwestern childhood and his years in Hollywood.

Trump’s fame from reality television, and his business empire, meant that he was able to bypass traditional political pathways to the White House. He certainly knows how to use his screen time in front of the cameras and win over his audience. Yet Trump’s style can be more combative and polarising than Reagan’s.

Reaganism v Trumpism

Two areas of public policy underline the difference between Reagan and Trump. The former signed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, granting amnesty to around three million undocumented immigrants so that they could legally remain in what the president referred to as the “shining city on a hill”.

In contrast, from the moment he announced his campaign, Trump redefined the Republican party to one advocating deporting millions of immigrants. In cultural issues, Reagan was vocal in his support for prayer in public schools and opposition to abortion, but he never introduced any legislative change to either of these issues.

Read more:
Project 2025: what is it and why does Trump say he knows nothing about it?

Trump is embraced by the religious right, and readily takes credit for his Supreme Court appointments, which led to the overturning of Roe v Wade in 2022, and has reduced access to abortion for many women in the US.

Remaking government

Trump’s previous term and ongoing conservative language prompted the Heritage Foundation to launch Project 2025. This document calls for a remaking of the federal government and US public policy along conservative principles, such as giving more power to the president, and radical reforms of the civil service and even the FBI.

Trump and his acolytes will look to repeat the dramatic changes in domestic policy achieved in Reagan’s first term. In his first year, Reagan introduced US$39 billion (£30 billion) in budget cuts into law, including reducing spending on social welfare, as well as a massive 25% tax cut. The administration strongly advocated free-market economics and cutting federal regulation.

With Trump’s first term limited by advice and constraints placed upon him by his staff, the separation of powers in the US constitution and perhaps the reluctance of some mainstream Republicans to join his administration, a potential second term could mean an emboldened Trump administration, ready to take a more radical approach.

Reagan changed the Republicans so much that his vice-president, George H.W. Bush, essentially won on the promise of a third term of Reaganism. The longevity of Trumpism may depend on whether the Grand Old Party, the nickname for the Republicans, really is now the Trump party. Läs mer…