Unemployment remains low, inflation is minimal, and economic growth has been steady for almost a decade. As a college professor who often grades, I would rate the US economy as an A- overall, but with the caveat that a more equal distribution of economic gains could warrant a higher grade. However, Trump's policies, not the economy itself, should also be taken into consideration when evaluating his performance. To provide an unbiased assessment, I have examined surveys conducted by the University of Chicago involving around 50 economists from various political perspectives. Surprisingly, these economists overwhelmingly agree that Trump's policies are harmful. This is why many economists are concerned about his presidency, despite the economy doing well. Trump's trade policy, particularly his protectionist tendencies and imposition of tariffs on products like aluminum and steel, goes against economic wisdom. These tariffs have harmed the competitiveness of US manufacturers and have not been seen as beneficial to Americans' welfare by any of the economists surveyed. Additionally, global supply chains have made these tariffs more expensive than they would have been in the past. The United States initiated a trade war with China, leading to China retaliating by increasing tariffs on American goods. Trump caused unnecessary confusion by suggesting he would terminate the North American Free Trade Agreement, leading to a new deal that may not be much different from the original. There is uncertainty about whether Congress will approve the new deal. Many economists criticize Trump's protectionist tendencies, as seen when he declared himself "Tariff Man" on Twitter and financial markets reacted negatively. Even the president's Council of Economic Advisers has determined that his tariffs will harm economic growth. Even according to Trump's own preferred measure, the trade balance, his policy has not been successful as the trade deficit is now at a 10-year high. In terms of fiscal policy, Trump's approach has not been effective as well. The idea behind fiscal policy is that during good times, the government should reduce spending so that during bad times it can increase spending and decrease taxes to support the economy. Trump's $1.5 trillion tax cut, his main accomplishment, provided stimulus when it was arguably not necessary. Due to the unusually high budget deficit in a strong economy, the increasing government debt will hinder fiscal policy's ability to provide economic stimulus during the next downturn. Although Trump may argue that the tax cut was intended to promote long-term economic growth rather than short-term stimulus, economists believe it will fail to achieve that goal as well. Most experts surveyed before the bill was passed predicted that the tax cut would not significantly increase the gross domestic product in the long term. While some argue that simplifying the tax code could be beneficial, the regressive nature of the tax plan would likely outweigh any potential benefits. Recent data suggests that the promised investment boom from the tax cut has not materialized. Despite economists' strong support for Trump's infrastructure spending plans, they have not been implemented despite the potential for bipartisan backing. Monetary policy should be straightforward for a president: appoint competent individuals and allow the Federal Reserve to carry out its duties. Trump has succeeded in choosing Jerome Powell as Fed chairman, who has received positive ratings from economists. Trump's other Fed appointments have also been conventional, resulting in a group of policymakers that Jeb Bush might have selected if he had become president. Trump's interference in the Federal Reserve's decision-making process has negatively affected his grade in this category. Most developed countries, including the United States, typically keep monetary policy separate from political influence to ensure stability and low inflation. However, Trump has publicly criticized Fed Chairman Powell for not lowering interest rates and has even hinted at potentially removing him from his position. This behavior undermines Powell's ability to make independent decisions and could ultimately harm the economy. Trump's actions are counterproductive and create unnecessary complications for the Federal Reserve. His program goes against the commonly accepted beliefs of both Democratic and Republican economists. Despite this, the economy is performing well, raising the question of whether this success is due to luck rather than sound decision-making. Trump's fortunate timing allowed him to inherit an economy that had been steadily improving since around 2010, as evidenced by various economic indicators. Even though Trump may not be responsible for the current economic trajectory, he should be acknowledged for not derailing it. It is possible that the president may not have a significant impact on economic outcomes. However, there is concern that the negative consequences of Trump's policies may not have fully materialized yet. The uncertainty caused by the chaotic policy process of his administration may have deterred some investors, even though their absence is hard to quantify. Furthermore, Trump's tax cuts that are not funded are leading to a debt burden that will need to be repaid by future generations. By weakening the independence of the Federal Reserve, he may have diminished its ability to combat inflation. Additionally, easing regulations in the financial industry may benefit large banks in the short term but could raise the risk of future financial disasters. Removing environmental regulations likely boosted profits for certain businesses but accelerated climate change. Restricting immigration may have decreased job competition, but economists fear it could stifle innovation and economic growth in the long term. It is also possible that Trump's approach is correct, and economists are mistaken. As someone who is officially recognized as an economist, I personally do not agree with this, but it appears that Trump also does not trust the opinions of economists. This was reported by the New York Times News Service in 2019.