Updated Feb. 14, 2026 — Gallup announced on Feb. 11, 2026 that it will stop publishing individual presidential approval and favorability ratings, ending a continuous public-service dataset that began in 1938. The move—framed by Gallup as an organizational refocus—reopens questions about how Americans measure presidential performance. Longstanding Gallup figures show Harry S. Truman recorded the lowest approval Gallup ever measured, while recent years have produced new firsts in polarization. This piece explains the announcement, reviews the historical record and considers what losing Gallup’s long-running tracker means for politics, media and scholarship.
Key takeaways
- Gallup said on Feb. 11, 2026 it will cease publishing approval and favorability ratings of individual political figures, ending a service that began in 1938.
- The lowest Gallup presidential approval on record is 22%, recorded for Harry S. Truman in a Gallup survey conducted Feb. 9–14, 1952.
- Donald Trump is the first U.S. president to score below 50% in his first administration and again during the first year of his second term, according to Gallup’s historical polling.
- Gallup framed the change as a shift in research priorities rather than an explicit commentary on polling quality or demand.
- Presidential approval ratings have historically tracked economic indicators, major national crises and partisan polarization, giving them outsized influence on media coverage and political strategy.
Background
George Gallup, a statistician who founded the American Institute of Public Opinion, popularized standardized questions about presidential performance in the late 1930s. The core question—asking whether respondents approve or disapprove of how a president is handling the job—became a staple of national polling and a shorthand gauge for public sentiment. Over decades, those approval figures have been cited by journalists, historians and political scientists as a proxy for the country’s mood and for a president’s political capital.
Approval numbers respond to many forces: the state of the economy, wars and foreign crises, major legislative wins or scandals, and changes in media ecosystems. Gallup’s continuous series offered a long-run baseline useful for comparing administrations across eras. The dataset’s longevity made it a reference point for understanding both short-term swings and long-term trends in public attitudes toward the presidency.
Main event
On Feb. 11, 2026, Gallup said it will stop publishing approval and favorability ratings of individual political figures “starting this year,” a decision the organization described as reflecting an internal shift in focus. The announcement, reported in major outlets on Feb. 14, 2026, marks the end of a service that Gallup began in 1938 and that has been maintained across many presidential administrations. Gallup’s statement to news organizations said the change “reflects an evolution in how Gallup focuses its public research and thought leadership.”
The immediate effect is administrative: Gallup will retire the routine release of approval numbers that media and analysts have used to track presidents in near real time. For decades those figures supplied a quick metric reporters could cite when describing the health of an administration or the public’s reaction to current events. Without Gallup’s routine releases, newsrooms and scholars may rely more heavily on alternative pollsters and aggregated indices.
Gallup’s archive contains highs and lows across administrations; its longest-running series now closes after nearly nine decades. Among the most cited entries in that archive is the 22% approval level measured for Harry S. Truman in mid-February 1952, a nadir often linked to a weak economy, the Korean War, domestic labor strife and corruption scandals that affected public trust near the end of his second term. The dataset also records modern trends: heightened partisan sorting and a pattern of lower baseline approvals for recent presidents compared with mid-20th-century peaks.
Analysis & implications
Gallup’s withdrawal from routine approval publishing shifts the informational landscape for political reporting. Editors and producers who relied on a single, longstanding source will now either substitute other national pollsters or lean more on multi-poll aggregators. That redistribution raises questions about comparability: Gallup’s methods, question wording and historical continuity made long-term comparisons easier than using a patchwork of sources with differing designs.
For scholars, the immediate concern is methodological continuity. Researchers studying presidential change over decades have used Gallup’s series as a stable reference; discontinuing releases complicates future longitudinal work and may force researchers to adjust models or reweight datasets. Secondary consequences include a potential increase in the use and influence of private polling firms and real-time commercial trackers, which often use different sampling frames and question formats.
Politically, losing a widely recognized benchmark can alter messaging strategies. Campaigns and administrations use approval numbers to calibrate strategy, time policy pushes and tout momentum. If media attention switches to alternative trackers with different volatility or bias patterns, the rhythm of political narratives and perceived mandate could change. Finally, the change could accelerate interest in richer metrics—like issue-specific approvals, net trust, or engagement measures—over simple job-approval percentages.
Comparison & data
| Item | Value / Note |
|---|---|
| Gallup tracking period | 1938–2026 (service ending announced Feb. 11, 2026) |
| Lowest recorded presidential approval | Harry S. Truman — 22% (Feb. 9–14, 1952) |
| Recent notable pattern | Donald Trump — first president to dip below 50% in his first administration and in the first year of a second term (Gallup records) |
The small table above highlights the timeline and two headline data points preserved in Gallup’s archive. Truman’s 22% remains the series low, a concrete data point referenced across textbooks and coverage. The modern pattern of lower initial approvals and deep partisan divides means contemporary figures behave differently from mid-20th-century norms, complicating simple historical comparisons.
Reactions & quotes
“This change reflects an evolution in how Gallup focuses its public research and thought leadership.”
Gallup (official statement)
“Do you approve or disapprove of the way Roosevelt is handling his job as president?”
George Gallup (foundational poll question)
Newsrooms and academic observers reacted to Gallup’s announcement with a mix of surprise and pragmatic planning. Some newsroom sources described immediate steps to expand use of multiple pollsters and aggregators. Academic polling experts noted that losing a single, long-running benchmark increases the importance of rigorous method reporting and transparency among remaining pollsters.
Unconfirmed
- Whether Gallup’s decision was driven primarily by budget, audience demand, or internal strategic priorities remains unconfirmed beyond the organization’s public statement.
- Any internal data-quality concerns or methodological changes that may have influenced the decision have not been publicly disclosed and are therefore unverified.
- Claims that political pressure or external influence forced the change are not substantiated by available public records at this time.
Bottom line
Gallup’s announcement on Feb. 11, 2026 ends a near-90-year public dataset that has been central to how Americans and analysts measure presidential performance. Harry S. Truman’s 22% approval in Feb. 1952 remains the low-water mark in that archive; in contrast, modern patterns—exemplified by Donald Trump’s sub-50% readings in his early terms—reflect increasing polarization and shifting baselines.
Practically, newsrooms, campaigns and researchers will adapt by broadening their polling sources and by emphasizing methodological transparency. The loss of a single, widely recognized benchmark heightens the need for clear caveats when reporting approval numbers and for careful aggregation when making historical comparisons.