Bill O'Reilly doesn't pull punches. Whether you love his "No Spin" style or find his historical takes a bit too partisan, his "Killing" series has turned him into a de facto historian for millions of readers. When he starts talking about Bill O’Reilly worst presidents, people listen because he frames history like a courtroom drama. He isn't just looking at GDP or legislation. He's looking at character. He's looking at what he calls "the failure of leadership" that leads to national decay.
History is messy.
It isn't just a list of dates. It’s a collection of egos, mistakes, and sometimes, flat-out incompetence. O'Reilly tends to judge the past through a lens of traditionalism and executive strength. If a president was indecisive or allowed the country to fracture, they’re going on his list. Honestly, his picks aren't always the ones you'd expect from a conservative commentator, which makes the whole debate around the Bill O’Reilly worst presidents rankings actually pretty interesting to track.
The James Buchanan Disaster
James Buchanan is almost always at the bottom of every list. O’Reilly is no exception. Buchanan is the guy who basically watched the house catch fire, sat on the porch, and said, "Well, I don't technically have the legal authority to use a fire extinguisher."
He was a "Northern man with Southern principles." That’s a polite way of saying he was stuck. He didn't want the Civil War to happen, but his total lack of action basically guaranteed it. O'Reilly often points out that Buchanan’s failure wasn't just political; it was a moral abandonment of the office. While the South was seizing federal arsenals, Buchanan was busy writing letters about how sad he was.
He didn't lead. He drifted.
In O’Reilly’s view, a president's primary job is to protect the union. Buchanan failed that on a foundational level. He allowed the Dred Scott decision to poison the national discourse, thinking it would "settle" the slavery issue. It did the opposite. It was gasoline on a bonfire. If you’re looking at Bill O’Reilly worst presidents, Buchanan is the undisputed heavyweight champion of failure.
Andrew Johnson and the Ruined Peace
Then there's Andrew Johnson. Imagine following Abraham Lincoln. It’s the hardest act in American history to follow, and Johnson blew it.
O'Reilly has spent significant time—especially in Killing Lincoln and subsequent commentary—detailing the chaos of the post-war era. Johnson was a stubborn, racist tailor from Tennessee who hated the Southern planter class but hated the idea of racial equality even more. He fought Congress on everything. He was the first president to be impeached, and for good reason.
He was a nightmare.
✨ Don't miss: Texas Flash Floods: What Really Happens When a Summer Camp Underwater Becomes the Story
His refusal to protect the rights of newly freed slaves set the country back a century. When O'Reilly discusses the Bill O’Reilly worst presidents, he often focuses on how Johnson’s personal grievances and lack of vision ruined the "Lincolnian" dream of a soft but firm reconstruction. Johnson wasn't just incompetent; he was actively obstructive. He was a man out of time and out of his depth.
Why O'Reilly Often Ranks Jimmy Carter So Low
This is where things get more modern and, frankly, more controversial. O'Reilly lived through the Carter years as a young man, and that experience clearly shaped his worldview. He views Jimmy Carter as the poster child for "the weak executive."
It’s about the 1970s vibe. Gas lines. Inflation. The Iran Hostage Crisis.
To O'Reilly, Carter represents a period of American retreat. He often cites the "Malaise Speech"—even though Carter never actually used the word malaise—as proof that the President had given up on the American spirit. He sees Carter as a good man who was a terrible leader.
But is that fair?
Historians have started to look at Carter a bit differently lately. They look at his deregulation of the airlines and his appointment of Paul Volcker to the Fed, which eventually helped kill inflation under Reagan. But O'Reilly doesn't care about the long-term technicalities as much as the immediate projection of power. If a president looks weak on the world stage, O'Reilly is going to bury them. The 444 days of the hostage crisis are, in his mind, the ultimate stain on the Carter legacy.
The Reagan Comparison
You can’t understand why Carter is on the Bill O’Reilly worst presidents list without looking at how much O'Reilly idolizes Ronald Reagan. To him, Reagan is the antidote. Where Carter was nuanced and cautious, Reagan was bold and certain. O'Reilly's history is often built on these kinds of "Great Man" binaries. You're either a hero or a goat. There isn't a lot of room for the "it’s complicated" middle ground.
The Recent Controversy: Biden and the Rankings
It’s impossible to talk about O'Reilly's view of the presidency without mentioning his current critiques. He has been vocal about placing Joe Biden near the bottom, often citing the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the border crisis.
He calls it a "collapse of order."
🔗 Read more: Teamsters Union Jimmy Hoffa: What Most People Get Wrong
Now, this is where the line between "Historian O'Reilly" and "Commentator O'Reilly" gets very thin. Most academic historians argue you need at least 20 to 30 years before you can truly rank a president. You need to see the "long tail" of their policies. O'Reilly doesn't wait. He’s looking at the "killing" of American prestige in real-time.
He frequently argues that Biden’s age and the perceived lack of a "strong hand" at the tiller put him in the company of Buchanan and Pierce. Whether that holds up in 2050 is anyone's guess, but for O'Reilly’s current audience, it's a settled matter.
Franklin Pierce: The Forgotten Failure
Most people can't tell you a single thing Franklin Pierce did. O'Reilly can. And he hates it.
Pierce was "Handsome Frank," a man who suffered immense personal tragedy—his son was killed in a train accident right before his inauguration—and spent his presidency in a dark cloud of grief and alcoholism. But O'Reilly’s critique is more focused on the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
By signing that act, Pierce essentially repealed the Missouri Compromise. He let "popular sovereignty" decide the fate of slavery in the territories.
It led to "Bleeding Kansas."
It was a total disaster. O'Reilly views Pierce as another "doughface" (a Northerner with Southern sympathies) who was too weak to stand up to the radical factions of his own party. In the world of Bill O’Reilly worst presidents, being "well-meaning but weak" is a far greater sin than being "strong but wrong."
The Nuance: Where O'Reilly Differs from Academics
If you look at the C-SPAN Presidential Historian Survey, you’ll see some overlap with O'Reilly, but also some major divergence.
- Woodrow Wilson: Academic historians used to love him for his internationalism. Now, they've soured on him because of his dismal record on civil rights. O'Reilly dislikes him because of his "progressive" leanings and expansion of the federal government. Different reasons, same result.
- Ulysses S. Grant: O'Reilly is actually quite a fan of Grant as a person and a general, even though Grant’s administration was riddled with corruption. Many older lists put Grant at the bottom. O'Reilly’s "Killing" series helped rehabilitate Grant's image for a certain segment of the population, focusing on his character rather than the scandals of his subordinates.
- Richard Nixon: This is a tricky one. O'Reilly acknowledges the "shame" of Watergate but often praises Nixon’s foreign policy, especially opening up China. He doesn't necessarily put Nixon in the "worst" category, which sets him apart from many liberal historians.
The Metrics of Failure
How do we actually decide who is the worst? O'Reilly uses a few specific "tests":
💡 You might also like: Statesville NC Record and Landmark Obituaries: Finding What You Need
- The "Strong Hand" Test: Did the president control his own administration, or did his cabinet run him?
- The Moral Courage Test: Did he do what was right for the country, or what was politically expedient for his faction?
- The Economic Reality Test: Did the average person's life get worse during his tenure?
- The Global Prestige Test: Is America more or less respected after he left?
It’s a very "no-nonsense" approach. It ignores a lot of the structural problems presidents face. For example, could anyone have stopped the Civil War by 1856? Probably not. But O'Reilly’s philosophy is that a Great Leader makes the impossible possible. If you can't, you're a failure.
It’s a high bar.
Why These Rankings Matter Today
The reason people search for Bill O’Reilly worst presidents isn't just because they want a history lesson. They want a roadmap. We use these rankings to justify our current political leanings. If you think Biden is the worst, you look for parallels in Buchanan. If you think Trump was the worst, you look for parallels in Andrew Johnson.
History is a weapon.
O'Reilly knows this better than anyone. He’s not just writing books; he’s building a narrative of what America should be by highlighting what it shouldn't have been. He views history as a cyclical struggle between strength and weakness.
Actionable Insights: How to Evaluate History Yourself
If you're diving into the world of presidential rankings, don't just take O'Reilly's word for it—or anyone else's. Here is how you can develop your own "No Spin" view of history:
- Read the primary sources. Don't just read O'Reilly's take on the "Malaise Speech." Go read the transcript. It’s actually a fascinating look at the energy crisis and national psychology.
- Look for the "Why." If a president made a catastrophic error, look at what information they had at the time. It’s easy to be a genius in 2026 looking back at 1860. It was a lot harder when the telegraph was the fastest form of communication.
- Check the bias. Every historian has a "tilt." O'Reilly’s tilt is toward the executive. Knowing that helps you filter his information.
- Compare the lists. Take O'Reilly’s list and compare it to the Siena College Research Institute rankings or the American Political Science Association’s list. Where do they agree? Where do they disagree? The truth is usually in the friction between those two points.
- Focus on the long-term impact. A president might be popular when they leave office but look terrible 50 years later (like Warren G. Harding). Or they might be hated when they leave but look like visionaries later (like Harry Truman).
Ultimately, the Bill O’Reilly worst presidents list tells us as much about O'Reilly as it does about the presidents. It tells us that he values order, strength, and clear-cut moral direction. In a world that often feels chaotic and gray, there is a deep appeal in that kind of black-and-white historical judgment. Whether it's "accurate" in the eyes of a Harvard professor is secondary to whether it resonates with the person sitting in their living room, trying to make sense of where the country is headed.
History isn't over. We’re living in it. And today's "worst president" could very well be tomorrow's misunderstood hero—or vice versa.
Next Steps for the History Buff:
To get a more rounded view of these figures, your next move should be to pick up a biography of a "failing" president written by someone with a different ideological perspective. For example, compare O'Reilly's take on Jimmy Carter with Kai Bird’s The Outlier. Or, look at Ron Chernow's Grant to see how modern scholarship has moved away from the "failure" label for the 18th president. Diversifying your sources is the only way to truly escape the spin.