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Obama administration’s deal with Cuba rescinded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.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.