was the stock market better under trump?

Lead summary

Was the stock market better under trump? This article answers that question with a data-first review: it summarizes index returns, volatility, sector leadership, and major policy and macro drivers during Donald Trump’s 2017–2021 presidency and reported later-term developments (2025 onward). It highlights the 2017–2020 bull run, the March 2020 pandemic crash and rapid rebound, and the mixed, volatile early 2025 period. Readers will learn which metrics matter, why causation is limited, and practical takeaways for investors. (Source notes and reporting dates are flagged throughout.)

Definitions and metrics: how researchers measure “better”

When asking "was the stock market better under trump", analysts rely on consistent metrics. Key measures include:

• S&P 500 total return (price changes plus dividends) — broad large-cap benchmark.
• Dow Jones Industrial Average (price-weighted index) — legacy large-cap gauge.
• Nasdaq Composite and Nasdaq-100 — growth/technology tilt.
• Russell 2000 — small-cap performance.
• Annualized returns over the chosen window (inauguration-to-inauguration, election-to-election, calendar years).
• Volatility measures (annualized standard deviation, VIX peaks).
• Inflation-adjusted (real) returns and dividend-inclusive total returns.

Measurement choice matters. Different start/end dates, dividend inclusion, or weighting schemes change the answer to "was the stock market better under trump." Many media pieces and research notes cited below use inauguration-to-inauguration or election-day windows; this article flags the window with each figure. (Sources: SmartAsset, Investopedia, CNN.)

Short answer up front

• On many standard windows for Trump’s first term (January 2017–January 2021), major indexes produced strong positive returns: the S&P 500 rose substantially, and the Nasdaq rose even more.
• The period included both a deep, rapid COVID-driven drawdown in March 2020 and a fast rebound thanks to massive monetary and fiscal support.
• Later-reported early-term volatility and policy uncertainty in 2025 produced mixed outcomes across indexes.

Put simply: whether "was the stock market better under trump" depends on the exact window and which indices you measure. Attribution to presidential policy alone is limited; macro factors and central-bank action are dominant drivers.

Market performance during Trump’s first term (2017–2021)

Was the stock market better under trump during his first term? Many reports conclude that returns were strong overall for major U.S. indices from inauguration 2017 through early 2021, but the path was uneven.

• S&P 500: Several media and investment-firm summaries put the S&P 500 price gain for the 2017–2021 window in the mid-60% range (inauguration to inauguration, price-only basis). Different sources report slightly different percentages depending on exact start/end dates and whether dividends are included. (Source: CNN Business retrospective, January 20, 2021; Investopedia summary.)

• Nasdaq Composite: Technology-heavy Nasdaq outperformed the S&P over the term, posting larger cumulative gains driven by a handful of very large-cap tech stocks.

• Volatility: The March 2020 COVID sell-off erased large portions of 2019–early 2020 gains, with the S&P falling roughly one-third from peak to trough in a matter of weeks. The rebound that followed—supported by Fed liquidity, fiscal stimulus, and sector-specific earnings recovery—restored and extended index gains into 2020–2021. (Source: U.S. Bank market commentary; CNN Business.)

Sector leadership shifted across the term. Early-term winners included financials and cyclical sectors as interest rates and growth expectations rose after the 2017 tax law. From 2019–2021, large-cap technology and growth stocks drove much of the headline index gains.

Timeline of key events (2017–2021)

• Late 2016 / early 2017: Post-election rally and risk-on sentiment preceded inauguration.
• 2017: Pass-through effects from the 2017 corporate tax cuts and deregulatory signals supported earnings expectations and equity valuations.
• 2018: Trade tensions and tariff announcements produced episodic volatility; late‑2018 saw a sharp market pullback.
• 2019: Markets recovered; accommodative global central-bank cues helped risk assets.
• February–March 2020: COVID-19 pandemic triggered a rapid global sell-off (S&P drawdown in the ~30–35% range from peak to trough).
• March–December 2020: Massive monetary easing, fiscal relief packages, and targeted support contributed to a fast rebound and new highs for major indexes.

(Reporting context: these events and their market impacts are widely documented by financial press and institutional market notes; see U.S. Bank and CNN Business reporting covering the period.)

Market performance during the 2025 term and later developments (Trump 2.0)

When addressing "was the stock market better under trump" for reported developments after 2024, analysts note a different picture: early 2025 had higher policy-driven uncertainty and episodic market weakness in some time windows.

• As of April–May 2025, coverage highlighted elevated volatility tied to renewed tariff policy announcements and trade uncertainty, producing weak short-term starts for key indices in some accounts. (Source: Axios, April 8, 2025; CNN Business, May 2025.)

• Some narratives describe a steep early decline and then partial rebounds across specific sectors as market participants digested policy specifics and central-bank stance. Outcomes varied across indexes and subperiods.

Important caveat: post‑2024 claims depend strongly on short-run windows (100 days, first quarter, etc.). Short windows are noisy; longer multi-year comparisons provide a cleaner picture but were not fully available in early 2025 coverage.

Comparing presidencies: how Trump’s records stack up

Asking "was the stock market better under trump" invites comparisons with other recent presidents (Obama, Biden) and with long-term historical averages. Key points:

• Measurement choice drives rankings. If one measures returns from inauguration-to-inauguration, from election-day-to-election-day, or over calendar years, the ordering of presidencies by market returns may change.

• Some analyses find stronger absolute stock-market returns under Democratic presidents across modern history when measured on certain conventions; other measures put Trump’s first term among stronger recent four‑year results because of the sizable pre‑COVID rally and the post-crash recovery. (Sources: SmartAsset, Investopedia, Investor’s Business Daily analysis.)

• Short-term political cycles and business-cycle timing matter: presidents who take office early in an economic expansion can record strong market returns even without dramatic policy changes. Conversely, presidents who inherit downturns may see weaker headline returns despite policy efforts.

In short, comparing presidents requires transparency about windows and adjustments. Concluding that the market was categorically "better" under one president without those details risks misleading precision.

Drivers commonly attributed to Trump-era market outcomes

When analysts ask "was the stock market better under trump", they examine several policy and macro drivers that likely influenced performance:

• Fiscal policy: The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act materially changed corporate tax rates and capital-return incentives. Analysts credit the law with supporting earnings and buybacks in 2017–2018. (Source: Investopedia summary of tax law effects.)

• Deregulation: Regulatory easing in select sectors was cited as positive by some business groups and analysts, especially for energy and financial firms.

• Trade policy and tariffs: Tariff announcements and trade tensions with major partners produced episodic market volatility in 2018–2019 and were a headwind for some industrial and agricultural sectors.

• Monetary policy: The Federal Reserve’s interest-rate path, balance-sheet actions, and crisis interventions (notably in 2020) were central to market outcomes. The Fed’s crisis response in March–April 2020 underpinned the rapid equity rebound.

• Pandemic shock and fiscal relief: COVID‑19 was the largest exogenous shock. The size and speed of fiscal packages (direct checks, enhanced unemployment benefits, PPP loans) and Fed support mattered more to the rebound than any single administration’s market messaging.

• Corporate fundamentals: Earnings growth, profit margins, and buyback activity drove long-term returns; in some periods buybacks concentrated returns in large-cap firms.

The overall lesson: presidential policy is one of many influences. Monetary policy, global growth, corporate earnings, and exogenous shocks often dominate short‑term market moves.

Sectoral and market-structure effects

Asking "was the stock market better under trump" without noting sector composition misses critical detail. During Trump’s first term:

• Technology and large-cap growth emerged as the largest contributors to headline index gains, especially in 2019–2021.
• Financials and cyclicals benefited at times from higher rate expectations and deregulation early in the term.
• Small-cap (Russell 2000) performance varied; small caps outperformed in some early windows but lagged when liquidity and policy uncertainty rose.

Concentration risk increased: a handful of mega-cap technology firms accounted for a disproportionate share of S&P and Nasdaq gains in later years. That concentration can make index-level comparisons sensitive to a few names rather than broad-market health.

Methodological considerations and limitations

When forming an answer to "was the stock market better under trump", analysts must address these methodological points:

• Start and end dates: Inauguration-to-inauguration, election-day-to-election-day, or calendar-year windows produce different comparisons.
• Dividends and total return: Price-only returns understate investor value relative to total-return (price + dividends) measures.
• Inflation adjustment: Real returns matter for purchasing-power comparisons.
• Survivorship and selection bias: Choosing different index constituents or timeframes can bias results.
• Attribution error: Markets price expectations about the future; a president’s rhetoric or policies may shift expectations without directly causing economic outcomes.

Good analyses explicitly state their windows and adjustments. Headlines that omit method are likely to mislead.

Academic and empirical studies

Academic work and institutional research often emphasize business-cycle timing over partisan causal effects. Some studies highlight a historical tendency for stronger equity returns during Democratic presidencies, but the consensus attributes much of this pattern to timing (which point in the business cycle a president inherits) rather than direct policy advantages.

Institutional research notes used in the media include CFRA, Morningstar, and TD Economics, which emphasize careful windowing and macro drivers when comparing presidential terms.

Public perception and political use of market performance

Stock indexes are frequently used as shorthand for economic success in political messaging, but that shorthand is imperfect:

• Index gains reflect asset-price changes and are concentrated among investors and retirement accounts, not uniformly across households.
• Media coverage tends to highlight headline index milestones (new highs) without always explaining distributional or macro underpinnings.
• Politicians often tout market moves as validation; prudent observers distinguish between signaling and causation.

Case studies / notable episodes

1. 2017 tax-cut rally

• The 2017 corporate tax cut lifted earnings expectations and supported equity valuations. Many analysts attribute part of the 2017–2018 rally to this policy.

1. 2018–2019 trade tensions

• Tariff announcements and trade negotiations created recurrent volatility; import-sensitive sectors underperformed during headline escalations.

1. March 2020 COVID crash and recovery

• The pandemic produced one of the fastest equity drawdowns in history followed by a swift rebound. The combination of fiscal packages and Fed balance-sheet expansion was decisive for market stabilization.

1. Early 2025 policy uncertainty

• Reported renewed tariff policies and trade-related announcements in early 2025 were associated with episodic short-term declines in some indexes and elevated volatility (Source: Axios and CNN Business, April–May 2025). Short windows showed mixed performance; long-term effects were still contingent on policy details.

Practical implications for investors

If you’re trying to decide based on "was the stock market better under trump":

• Focus on long-term goals rather than short-run political cycles. Presidential terms are one of many noisy factors.
• Diversification matters: sector concentration risk can produce headline outperformance that masks narrow participation.
• Consider total returns (including dividends) and inflation-adjusted performance.
• Be mindful of volatility: political and policy announcements often increase short-term swings.

For users interested in trading or custody infrastructure, Bitget offers exchange services and a Bitget Wallet for self-custody and asset management. Learn about Bitget features and wallet options to help manage access and security for crypto exposures.

Data highlights and recent market anecdotes (selected, date-stamped)

• As of January 20, 2021, media retrospectives reported the S&P 500 had gained roughly mid‑to‑high‑60% in price terms during the 2017–2021 inauguration window (Source: CNN Business, January 20, 2021).

• As of April 8, 2025, reporting highlighted tariff-related volatility and uneven index starts in early 2025 (Source: Axios, April 8, 2025).

• As of May 2, 2025, broader comparisons across presidencies and rolling windows were discussed in market coverage noting that short windows can mislead about longer-term trends (Source: CNN Business, May 2, 2025).

• As of early January 2026, a financial commentary excerpt provided to this article noted particulars about Canadian Natural Resources (CNQ): market cap ~$71B, recent trading range and dividend yield near 5.0%, and commentary on oil‑price risks heading into 2026. The passage observed that AI-driven productivity gains and rising U.S. crude production could pressure oil prices in 2026, creating headwinds for some energy equities in the near term. (Source: excerpt provided to author; reporting date: January 2026.)

• As of December 2025, Reuters reported that Nvidia gained regulatory clearance to resume shipments of certain advanced H200 data‑center GPUs to approved Chinese customers under terms announced by agencies—an event that market commentators flagged as potentially material for revenue expectations in early 2026. Subsequent reporting indicated planned shipments ahead of Lunar New Year 2026 and analyst estimates for sizable incremental revenue in fiscal periods following resumption. (Source: Reuters, December 2025.)

Note: the two itemized anecdotes above are included to reflect contemporaneous market commentary and to illustrate how firm-level developments and geopolitically linked export rules can change market expectations rapidly.

How the media and research sources framed the question

Multiple outlets asked variants of "was the stock market better under trump" by comparing raw index returns across presidencies and highlighting methodological choices.

• SmartAsset and Investopedia compiled index-return comparisons across presidential terms and emphasized that windowing and dividend inclusion matter.
• CNN Business and other news analyses compared returns under Trump and Biden, noting that some short-term measures favored one or the other, depending on the calendar and market cycle.
• Institutional commentaries (U.S. Bank market notes, CFRA-type analyses) focused on the macro drivers—monetary policy, fiscal actions, and exogenous shocks—that explain most variation.

The consistent lesson across sources: headline comparisons are easy; careful attribution is hard.

Practical checklist for evaluating future "presidential market" claims

1. Check the measurement window (inauguration-to-inauguration? election-to-election?).
2. Confirm whether returns are price-only or total-return (dividends included).
3. Adjust for inflation for real purchasing-power comparisons.
4. Inspect sector concentration—are index gains driven by a few names?
5. Ask whether central-bank policy and global growth are the dominant drivers.
6. Avoid attributing causation solely to headlines or executive tweets; look for causal channels that change earnings or discount rates.

Data sources and further reading

Primary sources typically used for these comparisons include S&P Global index pages, official index providers, and institutional market commentaries from major banks and independent research firms. Media pieces referenced in this article include SmartAsset, Investopedia, CNN Business, Axios, Investor’s Business Daily, and U.S. Bank market notes (reporting dates called out above). For firm-level episode details (e.g., CNQ, Nvidia), contemporaneous press reporting and company filings offer the most verifiable numbers.

References and sourcing notes

• SmartAsset — comparative ranking pieces on presidential market performance (various dates).
• Investopedia — long-form explainers on measurement choices and outcomes.
• CNN Business — retrospectives and 2024–2025 comparative coverage (sample dates: Jan 20, 2021; Nov 1, 2024; May 2, 2025).
• Axios — reporting on tariffs and market implications (April 8, 2025).
• Investor’s Business Daily — comparative commentaries on presidential market effects.
• U.S. Bank — market-period summaries and chronology of the 2020 crash and rebound.
• Reuters — reporting on firm-level export and policy developments (December 2025 reporting on Nvidia exports to China).
• Excerpted market commentary provided to this article (January 2026) covering Canadian Natural Resources (CNQ) dividend history and 2026 outlook.

(Each quantitative claim above is paired with the source and date where possible. For complete index-level tables and point estimates, consult official index providers or the institutional research pages of S&P Global and major market commentators.)

Final notes and investor action

When people ask "was the stock market better under trump", the right response is conditional: during Trump’s 2017–2021 first term headline index returns were strong overall despite a major pandemic drawdown, but later reported short‑term volatility around 2025 complicated a simple verdict. The correct interpretive frame is to treat presidential terms as one input among many—monetary policy, corporate fundamentals, and global shocks usually carry more weight for market returns.

If you want tools to manage exposure across market cycles and custody for crypto or tokenized assets, explore Bitget’s platform features and the Bitget Wallet. For further reading, consult the listed institutional sources and check official index provider pages for precise total-return calculations.

Further exploration: use the measurement checklist above to compare any future presidential window you read about. Clear windowing, dividend inclusion, and inflation adjustment will give you the reproducible answer you need.

Explore Bitget's educational resources and the Bitget Wallet to learn more about managing market exposure and custody. Stay data-driven when you evaluate headlines about political cycles and market performance.