There seems to be two kinds of U.S. Presidents: self-made Presidents (those who came from humble or ordinary backgrounds) and legacy Presidents (those who largely inherited their wealth or status from a family member).

The average IQ of Legacy Presidents can be crudely estimated because George W. Bush scored 1206 out of 1600 on the SAT. I estimate that if all American 17-year-olds took the SAT in the 1960s, the mean and standard deviation would have been 760 and 245 respectively, thus putting Bush at +1.82 SD or IQ 127 (U.S. norms).

Similarly, JFK scored 119 on the Otis IQ test however the original Otis appeared to be scaled to have an SD of only about 10, so JFK’s IQ might have been as high as 129 using the 15 sigma scale. Perhaps 128 if we adjust for inflated norms (JFK was tested in the 1930s and the Otis was normed circa 1920).

Averaging across both men gives a mean of about 128.

However since the earliest days of IQ research it’s been known that criminals average IQs 10 points lower than their law abiding peers. Arthur Jensen writes in The g Factor:

The studies show that nearly all forms of antisocial behavior, especially crimes against persons or
property and crimes that reflect impulsiveness, physical threat, or violence, are more apt to be committed by persons in the lower half of the IQ distribution. Such persons are, on average, about ten to twelve IQ points below the average
IQ of the general population. The more important fact is that the negative correlation between IQ and delinquency exists within families. That is, criminals average about ten IQ points lower than their own full siblings with whom they
were reared.

Since the delinquents and their siblings were brought up together in the same family with the very same socioeconomic and cultural background, these environmental background variables cannot explain the independent role of IQ in antisocial behavior.

A large-scale longitudinal study of delinquency showed that among boys, then thirteen years of age, the relationship between delinquency and IQ remains even when social class, race, and test motivation were statistically controlled. An
important finding of this study was that the degree of seriousness of self-reported delinquent behaviors is inversely monotonically related to IQ.

When the circumstantial differences in the conditions often claimed as the instigating causes of criminal behavior are fairly uniform and controlled, as among Army recruits living together under highly similar conditions, the same
relationship between IQ and delinquency as found in civilian life still exists. Among 1,780 enlisted men in the Army, delinquent behavior serious enough for court-martial conviction showed a (biserial) correlation of .31 with the AFQT, a highly g-loaded test. Other studies conducted in the armed forces show a similar relationship between mental test scores and delinquency.

Thus if Trump gets convicted, one might crudely guess his IQ is 10 points lower than the 128 mean of legacy Presidents, and thus 118. This may help explain why the freakishly big brained college dropout Rosie O’Donnell seemed to look down at him:

It may also explain why according to his lawyer Michael Cohen, he had Cohen “threaten his high school, his colleges, and the College Board to never release his grades or SAT scores.”

On the other hand, another freakishly big brained college dropout, Chris Langan, thinks Trump is smarter than the average Harvard student which he puts at 128 (he was obviously reading my blog):

It may be that his alleged crimes and perhaps low SAT score, was caused by ADD and not mediocre IQ per se. Perhaps he’d do better on the WAIS, especially the older versions that emphasized New York sensibility and social savvy. The other advantage of the WAIS is scores are normed for age.

But it’s interesting to note that Scott Adams estimates Trump’s intelligence is in the top 10% which indicates IQ 120. which is what we’d expect from a “criminal” legacy President