Princeton University professor Eddie Glaude Jr. sparked controversy this week during an MSNBC interview where he claimed that Americans who voted for President Donald Trump in the 2024 election did so because they refused to elect a Black woman to the presidency.
Speaking with host Nicolle Wallace on Monday, April 7, Glaude characterized the choice made by 78 million Trump voters as a decision to “literally throw the republic into the trash bin.” The comments came during a discussion about a recent Supreme Court decision temporarily freezing a lower court order regarding the deportation case of a Maryland resident.
The case involved Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador last month in what the government acknowledged as an “administrative error.” This deportation case served as a backdrop for Glaude’s broader criticisms 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 declared during the broadcast.
The professor went on to suggest that Trump supporters would “rather destroy the republic” than vote for Kamala Harris. He added that neither protests nor resistance movements could force these voters to “grapple with what motivated them” to make this choice.
Wallace appeared to agree with Glaude’s assessment, stating that “78 million people voted for someone who wants to shred the Constitution,” according to reports from multiple sources.
This isn’t the first time Glaude has offered sharp criticism of Trump supporters. In December 2024, a month after the election, he characterized “Trumpism” and “MAGAism” as fundamentally rooted in negative motivations during another appearance on Wallace’s program.
The Princeton academic argued at that time that the political movement behind Trump represented “the collision of greed and hatred.” He maintained 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 stemmed from anxiety about demographic shifts in the United States. He characterized the support for Trump as a reaction to the perception that “Whiteness is under threat.”
During that November appearance, Glaude’s claims faced pushback from Ruhle, who noted that economic concerns were a significant factor for many voters. “Eddie, a lot of people voted because their life’s too damn expensive,” Ruhle countered.
Glaude rejected the economic explanation, insisting that Trump supporters had consciously voted for someone who was undermining American institutions. He dismissed economic justifications as “BS,” asserting that racial anxiety, not financial concerns, drove voter decisions.
The professor’s comments align with positions he has taken throughout the Trump era. In 2020, he argued that the racism visible during Trump’s first term wasn’t new but had simply become “louder” and more visible.
Glaude, who chairs Princeton University’s Department of African American Studies, has written extensively on race in America. In a 2019 appearance on MSNBC following mass shootings, he critiqued what he called America’s “willful ignorance” regarding white supremacy, suggesting that societal problems go beyond any single political figure.
More recently, Glaude has argued that identity politics played a central role in the 2024 election outcome. In comments reported by NPR, he suggested that Trump’s approach to identity resonated with voters, providing them with what he termed a “permission structure to blame others for their condition.”
The professor rejected the idea that Democrats’ focus on issues like LGBTQ rights, racism, and abortion rights had alienated voters. Instead, he maintained that such criticisms “prove the point” that identity politics forms the core of America’s political divide.
Glaude’s latest comments have generated significant discussion across media platforms, with some critics characterizing his remarks as divisive. Supporters argue that his analysis highlights uncomfortable truths about race in American politics that many are reluctant to acknowledge.
The debate surrounding Glaude’s statements reflects broader national conversations about the role of race, economics, and identity in shaping political decisions, particularly in the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election that returned Donald Trump to the White House.
