Princeton University professor Eddie Glaude Jr. recently stirred controversy during an MSNBC interview, asserting that Americans who voted for President Donald Trump in the 2024 election did so to avoid electing a Black woman as president.
During a conversation with host Nicolle Wallace on April 7, Glaude described the decision by 78 million Trump voters as a move to “literally throw the republic into the trash bin.” This statement was made in the context of discussing a Supreme Court decision that temporarily halted a lower court order related to a deportation case involving a Maryland resident.
The case concerned Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was incorrectly deported to El Salvador last month, an event the government acknowledged as an “administrative error.” This case provided a backdrop for Glaude’s broader critique of the Trump administration and its supporters.
“We chose a felon who is more interested in loyalty, who is more interested in retribution, who is more interested in grift than in democracy, and we chose a felon because we didn’t want to elect a Black woman,” Glaude stated during the broadcast.
The professor further suggested that Trump supporters would “rather destroy the republic” than vote for Kamala Harris. He noted that neither protests nor resistance movements could compel these voters to “grapple with what motivated them” to make this choice.
Wallace appeared to align with Glaude’s perspective, mentioning that “78 million people voted for someone who wants to shred the Constitution,” according to reports from multiple sources.
This is not the first time Glaude has critically addressed Trump supporters. In December 2024, a month after the election, he described “Trumpism” and “MAGAism” as being fundamentally driven by negative motivations during another appearance on Wallace’s program.
At that time, the Princeton academic argued that the political movement backing Trump represented “the collision of greed and hatred.” He asserted that these elements had always been central to Trump’s appeal, claiming that self-interest and animosity were now in “full view.”
In November, shortly after the election, Glaude suggested on Stephanie Ruhle’s MSNBC program “The 11th Hour” that Trump’s victory was driven by anxiety over demographic changes in the United States. He described the support for Trump as a reaction to the perception that “Whiteness is under threat.”
During that November appearance, Glaude’s assertions faced challenges from Ruhle, who pointed out that economic concerns were significant for many voters. “Eddie, a lot of people voted because their life’s too damn expensive,” Ruhle countered.
Glaude dismissed the economic explanation, insisting that Trump supporters had knowingly voted for someone undermining American institutions. He rejected economic justifications as “BS,” asserting that racial anxiety, not financial concerns, was the primary motivator for voters.
The professor’s comments are consistent with positions he has maintained throughout the Trump era. In 2020, he argued that the racism evident during Trump’s first term was not new but had simply become “louder” and more visible.
Glaude, who leads Princeton University’s Department of African American Studies, has written extensively about race in America. In a 2019 appearance on MSNBC following mass shootings, he criticized what he described as America’s “willful ignorance” regarding white supremacy, suggesting that societal problems extend beyond any single political figure.
More recently, Glaude has argued that identity politics played a significant role in the 2024 election outcome. In comments reported by NPR, he suggested that Trump’s approach to identity resonated with voters, offering them what he called a “permission structure to blame others for their condition.”
The professor rejected the notion that the Democrats’ focus on issues like LGBTQ rights, racism, and abortion rights had alienated voters. Instead, he asserted that such criticisms “prove the point” that identity politics forms the core of America’s political divide.
Glaude’s recent comments have sparked significant discussion across media platforms, with some critics labeling his remarks as divisive. Supporters argue that his analysis brings to light uncomfortable truths about race in American politics that many are reluctant to acknowledge.
The debate surrounding Glaude’s statements mirrors broader national conversations about the role of race, economics, and identity in shaping political decisions, particularly following the 2024 presidential election that returned Donald Trump to the White House.
