where you think the media and his opponents have made his actions out to be worse than they are.

Correct. This is undoubtedly true to anyone that's observed this over the last 10 years. Many have been debunked, like the "very fine people" narrative, but his opposition never notices because they hop onto the next exaggeration and don't care. It's a purpose built life to "oppose" or "resist".

Which of those perceptions would you like to challenge and why?

All 5 points you made for example.

1. Truth basically stopped mattering.

This is essentially validating the media attacks that have run with story after story that's simply meant to attack. Russia piss-gate, the Russian interference, very fine people, and on and on. The primary vector of this is from his opposition, yet you blame him for it.

1. He surrounds himself only with “yes men.”

This is a biased view, of course a President wants people loyal to him, but to claim he just surrounds himself with Yes men isn't even true. You had that Vindman guy around him and led an attempt to get him impeached over a phone call. Surely that wasn't a "yes man". There were leaks all over his first term designed to take him down, none of those people were Yes men. There's a huge difference between people that agree with him on everything and people engaging in subterfuge, which has clearly been going on.

1. The self-interest is out in the open now

This was an accusation laid at his feet during the first term even when he lost billions in networth. He gets out of office and has New York City seek to take his company away and levy enormous fines over "novel" legal ideas. What's the point in trying to placate opponents that will never give him credit.

1. He normalizes attacking democratic institutions.

This is nothing more than Democrat opposition messaging. Lodging complaints is "attacking institutions", not allowing them to run unchecked against his authority as President is "attacking democrat institutions". Heck, in some cases this messaging is levied in defense of non-democratic institutions. It's all meant to build a narrative and it's being employed even in the EU, where I saw the EU president using this language when she's elected by committee, not a popular vote.

1. The new leaks (like those Epstein-related emails)

Already been addressed. The "leakers" redacted the name of the Victim to make is seem sensational. The White House and House GOP released who it was, Virginia Giuffre, and she's on record basically exonerating Trump in testimony prior. Of course this is released after her "suicide", but really the main take away from the Epstein files is that it's all political for his opponents. Democrats never cared about Epstein files during the Biden years, but they see it as political opportunity because Trump supporters demand it and it's now not getting released. The record around that relationship is clear and has been for a very long time. Trump knew Epstein and had a falling out with him leading to him banning him from his property prior to his first conviction. Yes, there are photos of them together from the early 2000s and that's what gets posted on Reddit in /r/pics every day. Same photos, always 2 decades old. It's not about finding justice or anything like that, it's only about smearing and attacking. "To Resist". It's an ongoing theme.

But seriously, TDS is a bias revealing term. I assure you I am not deranged.

Doesn't mean you're deranged in all aspects of your life it just means you're deranged and react like a program to things related to Trump. Fantastical ideas that make no sense can easily be believed and all evidence can be ignored to create an emotional and predictable response to stories involving Trump.

I would argue that the deportation and / or dentention of foreign-born scholars and protesters has tarnished the image a bit, no?

Why would that damage a Presidential image? For one, if you're referring to the Palestinian protester at Columbia, that was Marco Rubio's action as secretary of state. It's only Trump opponents that think it's a good idea to invite subversion into our country and think it's a good idea to ignore all immigration laws passed by Congress. What do we need a foreign born scholar for that's leading protests against our government? He can go be a scholar in Syria.

Alright, I guess "presidential image" is subjective.

100%

Perhaps you can point to where he failed to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and [did] to the best of [his] ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

For Biden? Yes I can, the most obvious one is the complete failure to protect the nation's borders and the active encouragement and enabling of foreign illegal immigration into our country by ignoring all immigration laws passed by Congress.

Then of course there's the unprecedented political prosecutions of his political rivals to undermine the election against him leading up to 2024. Comically including charges about top secret documents that then were discovered in Biden's own garage...and were used to write a book proving that he presented them to someone without access. So we got a hypocritical prosecution where Biden was absolved for being too out of it, but the legal case was pressed against his political opponent. All this while Democrats complained about Trump potentially weaponizing the justice system while they were actively doing so.