Fact Check: Did stock market go up 88% in Donald Trumps first term

Fact Check: Did stock market go up 88% in Donald Trumps first term

Published April 3, 2025
VERDICT
False

# Did the Stock Market Go Up 88% in Donald Trump's First Term? ## Introduction The claim that the stock market increased by 88% during Donald Trump's...

Did the Stock Market Go Up 88% in Donald Trump's First Term?

Introduction

The claim that the stock market increased by 88% during Donald Trump's first term as President of the United States has circulated in various discussions about his economic policies and their impacts. This assertion requires careful examination of stock market performance metrics, particularly focusing on the S&P 500 index, which is often used as a benchmark for overall market health.

What We Know

  1. Stock Market Performance: According to multiple sources, the stock market did experience significant gains during Trump's presidency. For instance, the S&P 500 index rose approximately 67% from the time of Trump's inauguration in January 2017 until the end of his term in January 2021 148. This figure is notably lower than the claimed 88%.

  2. Sector-Specific Gains: The technology sector, in particular, saw substantial growth, with reports indicating a rise of over 150% during Trump's term 1. However, this sector-specific performance does not directly correlate to the overall market claim.

  3. Historical Context: Historical data shows that the stock market generally trends upward over long periods, influenced by various factors including economic policies, global events, and investor sentiment. The S&P 500's performance during Trump's term is reported to be one of the stronger performances compared to previous administrations, but not without volatility 37.

  4. Comparative Analysis: Other analyses have compared Trump's stock market performance to that of other presidents. For example, the Nasdaq index reportedly had a gain of 137.6% during his term, which is significant but again does not support the 88% claim for the S&P 500 48.

Analysis

The claim of an 88% increase in the stock market during Trump's presidency appears to be an exaggeration based on available data.

  • Source Reliability: The sources cited, such as Reuters and U.S. Bank, are generally considered credible. Reuters is a well-established news organization, while U.S. Bank provides financial insights based on market data. However, the context and specifics of the claims can vary, and some sources may present information with inherent biases, particularly those that are politically motivated 13.

  • Methodological Concerns: The methodology for calculating stock market performance can vary. Some analyses may focus on specific indices or periods within Trump's term, which could lead to different interpretations of overall performance. For instance, measuring from inauguration to the end of the term provides a different picture than measuring from election day to inauguration day 8.

  • Potential Conflicts of Interest: Financial institutions and political commentators may have vested interests in portraying the stock market performance in a favorable or unfavorable light, depending on their audience or political affiliations. This could influence how data is presented and interpreted 210.

  • Additional Context: Understanding the broader economic context during Trump's presidency, including tax reforms, trade policies, and global economic conditions, is crucial for a comprehensive analysis of stock market performance. Additional data on market volatility, investor sentiment, and external economic factors would provide a clearer picture of the stock market's behavior during this period.

Conclusion

Verdict: False

The claim that the stock market increased by 88% during Donald Trump's first term is false. The S&P 500 index actually rose by approximately 67% during this period, which is significantly lower than the asserted figure. While certain sectors, such as technology, experienced substantial gains, these do not reflect the overall market performance necessary to substantiate the 88% claim.

It is important to note that stock market performance is influenced by a multitude of factors, including economic policies and global events, and can vary based on the specific metrics and timeframes used for analysis. The available evidence does not support the claim, but it is also essential to recognize that stock market data can be subject to interpretation and may be presented with biases depending on the source.

Moreover, while the sources referenced in this article are generally reliable, the potential for conflicting interests and varying methodologies highlights the need for caution when interpreting financial data. Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information and consider the broader context when assessing claims related to stock market performance.

Sources

  1. Reuters. "Trump's stock market: A wild four years." Link
  2. NPR. "Stocks sink again, as Trump's tariff policies spark chaos." Link
  3. U.S. Bank. "Stock Market Under the Trump Administration." Link
  4. Yahoo Finance. "How Did the Stock Market Perform Under Biden vs Trump’s First Term?" Link
  5. Newsweek. "How Donald Trump's Stock Market Performance Compares to Joe Biden." Link
  6. Newsweek. "Chart Shows How Stock Market Is Faring Compared to Trump's First Term." Link
  7. MacroTrends. "S&P 500 Performance by President." Link
  8. Business Insider. "Here's how the stock market performed under President Donald Trump." Link
  9. Business Insider. "Here's How the Stock Market Performed Under President Donald Trump." Link
  10. NBC News. "Trump made the stock market a marker of success. Now he's hedging as markets dip." Link

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Did Donald Trump make America great in his first term?
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Did Donald Trump make America great in his first term?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Did Donald Trump make America great in his first term?

Jul 27, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: We have 50 years of
data that tells us what
corporations do with tax cuts.
This has been one of the most
studied things by universities
around the world for the last
50 years. And in the last 50
years across 18 of the
wealthiest nations in the world
not one has corporate tax cuts
equated to higher job growth.
00:35
Not once. Or we can just look
at the Trump tax cuts passed in
twenty 17. Donald Trump created
40, 000 less jobs a month than
Barack Obama did. And oh by the
way that's leaving out COVID.
That's leaving out all the job
losses from the pandemic. There
is one thing that happens when
you give corporations big tax
breaks. This right here. 50
years of data. You see that red
line on top? That's the rich
getting richer. You see those
two lines on the bottom? That's
the bottom 905percent? No In
01:06
twenty 18 corporations spent
over a trillion dollars on
stock buybacks and created less
jobs than they did in twenty
fourteen, 15, 16, and
seventeen. You see the rich can
afford to pump all of this
misinformation into your brain.
And that's why you believe it.
There's not a single case in
history of tax cuts for the
rich helping an economy in any
way shape or form.
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: We have 50 years of data that tells us what corporations do with tax cuts. This has been one of the most studied things by universities around the world for the last 50 years. And in the last 50 years across 18 of the wealthiest nations in the world not one has corporate tax cuts equated to higher job growth. 00:35 Not once. Or we can just look at the Trump tax cuts passed in twenty 17. Donald Trump created 40, 000 less jobs a month than Barack Obama did. And oh by the way that's leaving out COVID. That's leaving out all the job losses from the pandemic. There is one thing that happens when you give corporations big tax breaks. This right here. 50 years of data. You see that red line on top? That's the rich getting richer. You see those two lines on the bottom? That's the bottom 905percent? No In 01:06 twenty 18 corporations spent over a trillion dollars on stock buybacks and created less jobs than they did in twenty fourteen, 15, 16, and seventeen. You see the rich can afford to pump all of this misinformation into your brain. And that's why you believe it. There's not a single case in history of tax cuts for the rich helping an economy in any way shape or form.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: We have 50 years of data that tells us what corporations do with tax cuts. This has been one of the most studied things by universities around the world for the last 50 years. And in the last 50 years across 18 of the wealthiest nations in the world not one has corporate tax cuts equated to higher job growth. 00:35 Not once. Or we can just look at the Trump tax cuts passed in twenty 17. Donald Trump created 40, 000 less jobs a month than Barack Obama did. And oh by the way that's leaving out COVID. That's leaving out all the job losses from the pandemic. There is one thing that happens when you give corporations big tax breaks. This right here. 50 years of data. You see that red line on top? That's the rich getting richer. You see those two lines on the bottom? That's the bottom 905percent? No In 01:06 twenty 18 corporations spent over a trillion dollars on stock buybacks and created less jobs than they did in twenty fourteen, 15, 16, and seventeen. You see the rich can afford to pump all of this misinformation into your brain. And that's why you believe it. There's not a single case in history of tax cuts for the rich helping an economy in any way shape or form.

Jul 30, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Former Georgia
Democratic House candidate Carl Sprayberry, who publicly called for the assassination of President Donald Trump in a social media post, has been arrested as part of a sweeping, multi-agency childtrafficking operation.
Unverified
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Former Georgia Democratic House candidate Carl Sprayberry, who publicly called for the assassination of President Donald Trump in a social media post, has been arrested as part of a sweeping, multi-agency childtrafficking operation.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Former Georgia Democratic House candidate Carl Sprayberry, who publicly called for the assassination of President Donald Trump in a social media post, has been arrested as part of a sweeping, multi-agency childtrafficking operation.

Aug 2, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The image presents a political meme contrasting economic indicators from "6 months ago" and "Today" in relation to a statement attributed to Donald Trump about the state of the country.
Claim Attributed to Trump: The meme states that "Trump just said that 6 months ago we had a dead country and people didn't think we would survive."
Economic Data - 6 Months Ago:
GDP: +2.8%
Dow Jones: 45,014
S&P 500: 6,086
Gas Prices: $3.03
Economic Data - Today:
GDP: -.03%
Dow Jones: 42,098
S&P 500: 5,888
Gas Prices: $3.14
Visual Representation: The image includes side-by-side photos of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, positioned above the respective economic data sets.
Partially True

Fact Check: The image presents a political meme contrasting economic indicators from "6 months ago" and "Today" in relation to a statement attributed to Donald Trump about the state of the country. Claim Attributed to Trump: The meme states that "Trump just said that 6 months ago we had a dead country and people didn't think we would survive." Economic Data - 6 Months Ago: GDP: +2.8% Dow Jones: 45,014 S&P 500: 6,086 Gas Prices: $3.03 Economic Data - Today: GDP: -.03% Dow Jones: 42,098 S&P 500: 5,888 Gas Prices: $3.14 Visual Representation: The image includes side-by-side photos of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, positioned above the respective economic data sets.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The image presents a political meme contrasting economic indicators from "6 months ago" and "Today" in relation to a statement attributed to Donald Trump about the state of the country. Claim Attributed to Trump: The meme states that "Trump just said that 6 months ago we had a dead country and people didn't think we would survive." Economic Data - 6 Months Ago: GDP: +2.8% Dow Jones: 45,014 S&P 500: 6,086 Gas Prices: $3.03 Economic Data - Today: GDP: -.03% Dow Jones: 42,098 S&P 500: 5,888 Gas Prices: $3.14 Visual Representation: The image includes side-by-side photos of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, positioned above the respective economic data sets.

Jul 31, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript
00:00
911 was a false flag. For the
first 10 years, I did not think
anything other than the
official narrative then after
being shown a video, a close up
video of building number seven
coming down and that got me
going because it's obvious to
me that building seven was was
a controlled demolition because
the building collapses from the
bottom down. The trade centers
were unique in that they were
designed to withstand the
00:33
impact of a a a jet. From what
I understand the the outer
skeleton of the building. The
outer columns was like a a fish
net and you had these inner
core columns which was
substantial thick steel beams
to withstand four or five times
what the loads were. Got it.
The engineers always over
design a building. No steel
frame building has ever
collapsed before or since 9/
eleven. So that should say
something right there. And it
said that building seven it was
01:05
aggressive collapse that it was
caused by fire but progressive
collapse unlike the twin
towers, the twin towers
collapse from the top down.
That's a progressive collapse.
Sure. Floor by floor by floor.
But if you look at the videos
of building seven collapsing,
it collapses uniformly, it's
collapsing from the bottom, the
building stays intact all the
way to the bottom of the ground
and you could see the sides
caving in on it. For a building
to collapse uniformly which the
video show all the load bearing
it would have to have failed
01:36
simultaneously. Now, fire
doesn't act like that. I came
across an analogy of the twin
towers and if you could
visualize cast iron stoves
stacked. One on top of each
other. The stoves up at the
top. Yes, there's fire and
they've been damaged but the
stoves on the bottom, they
haven't been damaged. Okay. So,
the structure underneath all of
that is intact. So, it's
impossible for a building to
collapse near free fall speed
and increase. Without a
02:07
controlled demolition. You're
running into the path of most
resistance. I something else is
going on. I don't believe that
it was just the planes or the
fires I think that and they
examine the dust and they found
what they call thermitic
material which is like a
explosive incendiary which was
in the dust samples and that's
documented. There were reports
of the buildings were
undergoing a extensive elevator
renovation in the two or three
years prior to all kinds of
02:40
workers they had access to the
the core the cores of the
building and on the day of the
attack the the elevator company
would not assist in the
operations of the elevators and
the elevator company was the
elevator company it
subsequently went out of
business and a couple of years
after that
False

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Obama became president illegally because he was born in Kenya.

The Bush family is involved in the New World Order (NWO).

Hillary Clinton was passed over by the Vatican for the presidency because people care more about race than character.

The Vatican is described as "Satan's earthly HQ" and supposedly orchestrates various political events.

Trump was anti-Illuminati, fought a stolen election, and was targeted by a coup and various conspiracies.

The COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is framed as part of a satanic/globalist plan (NWO).

Jesus gave Trump two terms because of what the Vatican did on 9/11.
False

Fact Check: Obama became president illegally because he was born in Kenya. The Bush family is involved in the New World Order (NWO). Hillary Clinton was passed over by the Vatican for the presidency because people care more about race than character. The Vatican is described as "Satan's earthly HQ" and supposedly orchestrates various political events. Trump was anti-Illuminati, fought a stolen election, and was targeted by a coup and various conspiracies. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is framed as part of a satanic/globalist plan (NWO). Jesus gave Trump two terms because of what the Vatican did on 9/11.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Obama became president illegally because he was born in Kenya. The Bush family is involved in the New World Order (NWO). Hillary Clinton was passed over by the Vatican for the presidency because people care more about race than character. The Vatican is described as "Satan's earthly HQ" and supposedly orchestrates various political events. Trump was anti-Illuminati, fought a stolen election, and was targeted by a coup and various conspiracies. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is framed as part of a satanic/globalist plan (NWO). Jesus gave Trump two terms because of what the Vatican did on 9/11.

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →