Trump's Year in Review: Here Are His Biggest Accomplishments in 2017

January 02, 2018

WRITER

How did President Donald Trump fare in the first year of his presidency? Doc recently guest-hosted for Glenn and covered some of Trump’s major accomplishments in 2017. What do you think of his list of Trump’s wins?

Is an End to 2017’s Journalistic Drought in Sight?

“It was a pretty good year,” Doc said. “I’ve got to give the guy credit.”

Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court

Republicans passed a major tax reform bill

Jerusalem recognized as the official capital of Israel

U.S. withdrew from the Paris climate accord

Obama administration’s deal with Cuba rescinded

EPA regulations rolled back

Listen to the audio clip or read the transcript below for more.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: Let's talk about the truth now. Because I mentioned, yes, Glenn Beck did not support vote for or support President Trump. I didn't as well. But we've been pretty honest, calling the balls and strikes as we see them.

Is that good, or is that bad? And early on, the first big thing President Trump did was appoint Neil Gorsuch. And by some people's desire or reason they voted for him, that was enough.

Fill that seat that was vacated by Antonin Scalia, with a true conservative. Maybe that was enough. And I gave him high marks for that.

Then the following couple months, not a lot got done. There were some things that I didn't like. A little bombastic. Still gave him high marks. Okay. And that's kind of been the malaise I think during the summers. Little stories here and there. And the media just obsesses over his tweet and fake news claims and this stuff. And I didn't I say do the math and add up what the president had accomplished. Because, by the way, did they repeal Obamacare? Nope. Didn't get it done.

A lot of stuff we were hoping that they didn't get done, but that's they, the party, including the Republicans in Congress.

If you look at President Trump's track record, it was a pretty good year. Shockingly good year.

When I went down the list to prepare for today, I got to give the guy credit. So Neil Gorsuch, he did sign the tax reform bill.

Now, Congress did a lot of that work. So give them their due. The president did use the bully pulpit and suggest, you know, dropping the corporate tax rate down to 20 percent. It ended up being 21. Still good. But he did sign it and support it and got behind it.

He recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Said they were going to remove the embassy. Okay. That's pretty big for people who supported him, supported Israel, said that's what should happen there. That's a huge step that everybody else has kicked the can down the road. Right? Clinton did it. Bush did it. Obama did it. All when they're campaigning. Absolutely.

Got to be in Jerusalem. That's American policy since the '90s or whatever.

You going to do it? Well -- so you support it? Oh, absolutely.

But you're going to move it? Well...

That's what they're doing, right? Because they're playing both sides. They're playing politics. He said we're going to do it. Okay.

He signed an executive order that demanded that two regulations be killed for every new one that it creates. When that happened, I said, fantastic, if they do it. So far, he has.

He's eliminated more than he's created. It's a -- by a huge margin. Can't remember the percent. It's like 8-1 or something. They've actually done it. He cut 16 rules and regulations for every one. But that's an old statistic from months ago. So I don't know what the actual updated number is. But it's at least that. And this is a little loose. It saves 8.1 billion. That metric is a little off. But the number of rules and regulations cut versus created is true. He signed 15 congressional regulatory cuts by themselves.

He withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement. Okay. That's pretty significant.

KAL: People flipped out on that one.

DOC: They did. And when it was out -- I even talked about it. But looking back, now even more significant than I realized at the time, because there's a lot going on. You know what I mean?

Signed an exact order. Cutting the time for infrastructure permit approvals.

Okay. That's a little less, but still solid. He withdrew from the TPP. Huge.

And I remember why I didn't give him enough credit for that one. Because it was not -- we're pull out of the TPP. It was, well, we're going to do this. Think we're going to do that? Yeah, we pulled out.

It was, he almost didn't do himself a service as people. Because some of this stuff he campaigns on, then when it comes down to it, there's a moment of hesitation. Maybe they're just playing the media, whatever it is.

But then they do it. But during that hesitation, I'm like, ah, he's not doing it, or whatever. Then, okay. Great. He did it.

So it doesn't get -- it's not like he rode into town and said, here's all the stuff I'm going to do. We're pulling out of this stuff. Boom, boom, boom. And you go, hurray. But that's the reason I want to bring up the facts and go down the list.

He started renegotiating NAFTA. Now, that was not as big an issue for some people. But it's worth looking at. He ended Obama's deal with Cuba. Awesome.

Why all of a sudden did we suddenly say, yeah, Cuba is not a problem.

He opened up 77 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas drilling. Solid thing. Expanded some of the different infrastructure projects when it comes to energy, like the Keystone Pipeline. Awesome.

He ordered the EPA to kill Obama's clean power plan. Awesome. And as part of that, he rolled back Obama's attempt to regulate all US waterways. Remember, he was using the Clean Water Act, that even literally the mud puddle behind your house could have been covered. The federal government would have jurisdiction over. Which is ridiculous. It was never designed for that. He rolled that back.

Laid out and challenged now new plans to challenge and stop migration. Ended Obama's catch and release program of illegals.

Has arrested more illegals inside the US now. Started the end of DACA. That's another one that he kind of waffled on when it came down to it, or it seemed like he was going to waffle, but ended up doing the right thing.

Attempted to and in some ways have cracked down on US sanctuary cities. Of course, that was challenged at the Supreme Court. And they said they can't do it. But he did the right thing. Did everything within his power as far as that goes. Has added 100 additional immigration judges to start processing those cases. Awesome. Reinstated and expanded the Mexico City policy, which is misleading. It has nothing really to do with Mexico City or immigration or anything like that.

That's the money -- the foreign aid that is used for abortions, where people get money in foreign aid form, and they can use it for abortion. And he rolled that back

He withdrew from the UN global compact on migration, which is wonderful. They have just said that they are going to -- this is the last couple of days. Nikki Haley announced that they are cutting UN funding. He signed the VA Whistle-blower Act, to crack down. And as part of that, the Veterans Appeal Improvement and Modernization Act and signed the VA Choice and Quality Employment Act.

Now, those are all good steps. More has to be done. Much, much more with the VA. But that's far more than Obama did with that. Just the Whistle Protection Act and their ability to now hold people accountable, where they can be fired.

Now, as soon as he took office, he fired a bunch of people at the VA, at the top. Some of them got their jobs back. That's no fault of his.

That ended up being unions and courts and everything else. But the president did what was right.

Net neutrality wasn't him directly. But on his watch, with his support, one of his guys --

KAL: Didn't he appoint the guy?

DOC: One of them, yeah. Yeah, he didn't get to appoint all of them. Because you still got Mignon Clyburn. Filet Mignon Cly- -- did you know that's Jim Clyburn's daughter? James Clyburn, the forever congressman from South Carolina.

KAL: No, I didn't know that.

DOC: She has no history of telecommunications or anything like that, but she works for the FCC. Hmm. Yeah, she got her job fair and square, I'm sure.

So these are just some of the things that President Trump has done. From a conservative/Libertarian standpoint, that's pretty solid.

Any of the other failures of things like Obamacare, could he have led more on it? Could he have said we need specifically just a repeal, use the bully pulpit more? Maybe. But if you had asked me a year ago, two years ago, three years ago, my opinion on all of these, how do you want a president to rule on this, this, and this? And vote and rescind on executive order and whatever. I would have supported these.

KAL: At least with the Obamacare, didn't he get the fine removed? Like you don't get fined anymore --

DOC: Right. Exactly. The teeth are out of it. You still have to have it by law. But you're not going to have it anymore. So a little bit. I mean, I'm wanting a grander statement of change. But as far as President Trump has gone. When I look back over all the stuff over the last year, he has used his office with most of these actions the right way. And this is in many cases rolling back many of the problems, many of the things that Obama did, some of it unconstitutionally during his eight years. It's going to take a while.

That's the truth.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep