For nearly nine decades, Gallup Inc. has stood as one of the most authoritative voices in American public opinion polling. Since the mid‑20th century, the firm’s presidential approval ratings have been a staple of political analysis, offering a consistent measure of how the public perceives the nation’s chief executive.
That long‑running tradition has come to an unexpected halt. In a move that has surprised many observers, Gallup recently announced it will no longer track approval ratings for President Donald Trump — ending a data series that dates back 88 years. The sudden decision has sparked widespread reaction, ranging from serious debate among scholars to conspiracy‑tinged speculation on social media.
Understanding what this change means — and what it does not mean — requires looking at Gallup’s history, its official explanation, and how presidential approval polling has evolved in recent years.
A Pillar of Political Measurement
Gallup’s presidential approval ratings have been a consistent presence in American political life since the 1930s and 1940s. Beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt and continuing through every administration since, Gallup’s weekly tracking polls have offered an ongoing snapshot of public sentiment toward the sitting president.
The measure itself is straightforward: respondents are asked whether they approve or disapprove of the way the president is handling his job. While simple in form, the number has long served as a benchmark in news media, academic research, and public discourse.
Political scientists have used Gallup’s approval ratings to examine how presidential actions — from foreign policy decisions to economic performance — influence public perception over time.
Recent Trends in Trump’s Approval
Before Gallup’s announcement, its polling showed President Trump’s approval rating had declined significantly during the 2025 calendar year. In February 2025, Gallup’s tracking indicated a 47 percent approval rate. By December 2025, that figure had fallen to 36 percent — one of the lowest readings of his presidency.
These declines reflected broader political headwinds. Inflation and economic concerns, debates over policy direction, and partisan polarization all contributed to more negative public sentiment in major national surveys.
Yet despite these trends, the decision to end Gallup’s tracking was not framed by the firm as a direct response to the president’s standing.
Gallup’s Official Explanation
In a statement provided to media outlets, Gallup spokesperson Justin McCarthy addressed the decision directly. According to McCarthy, the landscape of presidential approval measurement has changed significantly.
“The context around these measures has changed,” McCarthy said. “They are now widely produced, aggregated, and interpreted, and no longer represent an area where Gallup can make its most distinctive contribution.”
In other words, Gallup acknowledged that approval rating data are now generated by many different organizations, platforms, and analytics firms. With a proliferation of polling sources — including online aggregators, academic institutions, and private survey firms — Gallup concluded its own contribution in this specific area was no longer as valuable or unique as it once was.
A second Gallup spokesperson, quoted by The Hill, explained that the shift is part of a larger strategic realignment.
“This change is part of a broader, ongoing effort to align all of Gallup’s public work with its mission and is a strategic shift solely based on Gallup’s research goals and priorities,” the spokesperson said.
Gallup emphasized that it remains committed to rigorous, long‑term research on issues that shape people’s lives, citing its other major polling programs — including the Gallup Poll Social Series, the Gallup Quarterly Business Review, the World Poll, and its broader portfolio of U.S. and global research.
The firm also stressed that its work will continue to adhere to the highest standards of social science.
Social Media Reaction and Public Speculation
Despite Gallup’s carefully framed explanation, many social media users reacted with skepticism or curiosity. On platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), users offered a range of interpretations, from light‑hearted memes to more speculative theories.
One user joked about the timing of the announcement, contrasting the end of approval polling with President Trump’s recent low numbers. Another suggested — without evidence — that the practice was discontinued because the results had become politically uncomfortable for certain audiences.
A third user pointed to the historical significance of Gallup’s ratings, noting that the firm’s last recorded approval figure for Trump was among the lowest in its history, and then adding a sarcastic comment suggesting suspicion.
It is important to note that none of these online theories are backed by evidence. Social media reactions — while often colorful and emotionally charged — do not substitute for rigorous analysis or official explanations.
Expert Perspectives on the Change
Scholars and pollsters who track public opinion trends have generally interpreted Gallup’s decision as reflective of broader methodological shifts, rather than a politically motivated retreat.
Dr. Emily Reardon, a professor of political science who studies polling and public opinion, pointed out that presidential approval ratings have become less central in political coverage over the past decade.
“With the rise of online panels, daily tracking by multiple firms, and public aggregators, the idea of one ‘official’ approval rating has diminished,” Reardon said. “Gallup is recognizing that its resources may be better deployed into areas where its work remains more distinctive.”
Other analysts also noted that many media outlets now rely on aggregated approval measures — which combine data from multiple polling firms — rather than single sources. This trend reduces the influence of any one pollster.
Dr. Carlos Vega, a polling consultant with several decades of experience, echoed this view:
“We live in a world where public opinion data is abundant. Gallup’s decision seems to acknowledge that the firm’s unique value may lie outside routine presidential polling, especially when so many other outlets provide similar metrics.”
What This Means for Political Coverage
Gallup’s decision has implications both for how the media covers presidential approval and for how citizens interpret public sentiment data.
First, the absence of Gallup’s approval ratings removes a long‑standing point of reference from political discourse. For generations, Gallup’s numbers offered a consistent, historical benchmark that could be compared across administrations. Journalists, historians, and students often cited those figures when examining presidential performance over time.
Without Gallup’s contribution, comparative analysis may rely more heavily on aggregated or multi‑source data. While this can still offer meaningful insight, it may lack the familiar continuity that Gallup provided.
Second, the change underscores the need for consumers of public opinion data to be discerning. With more polling sources than ever, the quality, methodology, and sampling techniques of each survey can vary widely. Understanding these differences — and recognizing that no single number tells the whole story — is essential.
The Broader Context of Polling Today
The world of public opinion polling has transformed dramatically since Gallup first began measuring presidential approval nearly 90 years ago. Advances in technology, sampling methodology, and data collection have both expanded access to information and introduced new challenges.
Telephone polling, once the standard, has been joined — and in some cases supplanted — by online panels, mobile surveys, and mixed‑mode approaches. Pollsters also face ongoing challenges related to response rates, sampling biases, and demographic shifts.
At the same time, technological tools have enabled real‑time tracking and big‑data analysis that were unimaginable in the mid‑20th century. The rise of social media sentiment analysis and instantaneous feedback loops has further diversified the ways in which public opinion is monitored and interpreted.
Gallup’s decision, in this context, reflects a broader evolution in the field of opinion research — one in which tradition intersects with innovation.
Looking Ahead
Although Gallup will no longer issue standalone presidential approval ratings, the firm’s broader research portfolio remains active. Its long‑running social series, business reviews, and global polling efforts will continue to generate data that shape understanding of public attitudes on a range of issues.
For political analysts and historians, the end of Gallup’s approval tracking marks the close of a significant chapter in American political measurement — one that began with radio broadcasts and handwritten survey responses and ended in an era of digital data and multi‑source aggregation.
For the public, the change serves as a reminder that the ways in which opinion is measured — and the tools we use to understand national sentiment — continue to evolve. And while the conversation surrounding presidential approval remains alive, the framework through which it is tracked may look very different than it has for nearly a century.
Emily Johnson is a critically acclaimed essayist and novelist known for her thought-provoking works centered on feminism, women’s rights, and modern relationships. Born and raised in Portland, Oregon, Emily grew up with a deep love of books, often spending her afternoons at her local library. She went on to study literature and gender studies at UCLA, where she became deeply involved in activism and began publishing essays in campus journals. Her debut essay collection, Voices Unbound, struck a chord with readers nationwide for its fearless exploration of gender dynamics, identity, and the challenges faced by women in contemporary society. Emily later transitioned into fiction, writing novels that balance compelling storytelling with social commentary. Her protagonists are often strong, multidimensional women navigating love, ambition, and the struggles of everyday life, making her a favorite among readers who crave authentic, relatable narratives. Critics praise her ability to merge personal intimacy with universal themes. Off the page, Emily is an advocate for women in publishing, leading workshops that encourage young female writers to embrace their voices. She lives in Seattle with her partner and two rescue cats, where she continues to write, teach, and inspire a new generation of storytellers.
