What factors drive racial prejudice among some Trump supporters?
Executive summary
Multiple empirical studies and reviews link increased racial prejudice among many Trump supporters to exposure to his rhetoric, shifts in social norms, and preexisting xenophobic or racial resentments rather than primarily to pure economic anxiety [1] [2]. Experimental and longitudinal research finds that Trump’s political rise and messaging corresponded with measurable rises in prejudice, dehumanization, and localized spikes in hate crimes in pro‑Trump areas [1] [3] [2].
1. Rhetoric as signal: political elites normalize prejudice
Scholars conclude that when a high‑profile political leader uses racially charged language, it signals acceptability and can increase followers’ expressed prejudice; converging experimental and longitudinal studies argue Trump’s rise led supporters to report greater bias against racial and religious minorities [1]. Laboratory experiments cited by Brookings find that exposure to Trump’s words increased derogatory expressions toward multiple groups, which researchers interpret as causal evidence that elite rhetoric can reshape intergroup attitudes [2].
2. Prejudice grows above and beyond economic explanations
Analysts who test competing hypotheses report that while economic anxiety is often invoked, measures of anti‑immigrant sentiment and racial resentment better predict Trump support than purely economic indicators; several reviews argue racism and xenophobia were stronger drivers of alignment than economic grievance alone [2] [1]. The Nature Human Behavior synthesis cited in news coverage states that “Trump support remained a robust predictor of increases in prejudice” even after many controls [4].
3. Social contagion and a permissive environment for violence
Research links Trump events and victories with localized increases in hate crimes and with higher acceptance of political violence among some supporters; FBI data show anomalous spikes in hate crimes concentrated in counties where Trump won by larger margins, and studies find racial animus and anti‑foreigner attitudes partially explain elevated tolerance for political violence [2] [5]. Academics describe a “trickle‑down” effect in which elite messaging engenders more dehumanizing attitudes among followers, and survey waves found white respondents who supported Trump rated Black people as less “evolved” post‑election [3].
4. Institutional shifts and policies reinforce perceptions of threat
Observers note that policy moves and administrative messaging—such as efforts to roll back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives or to redefine civil‑rights enforcement—feed narratives among supporters that racial change is a threat to their status; critics argue these institutional signals both reflect and reinforce a worldview in which minority gains are framed as losses for others [6] [7]. Reporting on contemporary policy debates shows an organized conservative push (Project 2025, legislative proposals) against DEI and similar efforts that dovetail with rhetoric casting such programs as harmful [7].
5. International and cross‑national ripple effects of a U.S. signal
Researchers report that Trump’s election sent an international cue about the acceptability of anti‑immigrant and racialized views; a quasi‑experimental comparison found higher bias shortly after his election in some European surveys, suggesting the political signal transcended U.S. borders [1]. Authors interpret this as evidence that elite behavior in one democracy can embolden prejudice elsewhere.
6. Internal critiques and alternative readings
Some scholars and commentators caution against monocausal accounts: critics argue that increases in reported prejudice could partly reflect changing willingness to express views under partisan attack, and that antipathy toward Trump also shaped survey responses [4]. These voices emphasize methodological care and note that prejudice rose among both left and right in some measures, complicating a simple one‑directional story [4].
7. What the available sources do not mention
Available sources do not mention detailed individual psychological profiles that definitively predict who among Trump supporters becomes prejudiced, nor do they provide comprehensive causal models that exclude all other societal influences. Also not found in current reporting here are granular, nationally representative time‑series that isolate economic shocks from cultural signaling for every subgroup [1] [2].
8. Bottom line: multiple, reinforcing drivers
The reporting and peer‑reviewed work assembled by Brookings and cognitive‑science reviews present a coherent picture: elite rhetoric, preexisting racial resentment and xenophobia, permissive institutional signals, and social contagion together drove measurable increases in prejudice among many Trump supporters; economic concerns matter but appear secondary in these analyses [2] [1]. Policymakers and scholars who want to reduce such prejudice must address both the public rhetoric and the institutional incentives that normalize it [6] [7].