Fact check: Which income groups were most likely to support Trump in 2024?

Executive summary — Quick answer up front

The available analyses show Trump’s 2024 support was broadly distributed across income groups, with exit-poll style figures indicating roughly half of voters in lower and middle income brackets backed him and slightly less among the highest earners ^[1]. At the same time, multiple reports emphasize poorer voters disproportionately flocked to Trump, while separate commentary points to slippage among the wealthiest Americans, revealing a mixed picture with important data gaps and methodological caveats ^{[2] [3] [4]}. Below I extract the key claims, compare them, flag inconsistencies, and note what the evidence does and does not establish.

1. What the sources claim — a compact inventory of the headline findings

Across the materials provided, the dominant claims are: exit-poll figures show 50% support from under $50k, 52% from $50k–$99,999, and 47% from $100k+ for Trump ^[1]; reporting argues poorer voters were more likely to back Trump and that this was a notable 2024 dynamic ^[2]; a visualization source maps vote share by income bracket for Trump and Harris ^[4]; and separate pieces emphasize commentary or lack of specific income data in some reports ^{[5] [6]}. One article notes Trump losing ground with wealthiest Americans as reflected in a net approval tilt among $100k+ voters ^[3]. These are the core claims that drive the competing narratives.

2. The exit-poll numbers that suggest an even distribution

The single explicit numeric account presented reports roughly equal support across three income bands: under $50k (50%), $50k–$99,999 (52%), and $100k+ (47%) ^[1]. If taken at face value, these figures indicate no dramatic skew toward a single income class, with Trump’s strengths present among both lower- and middle-income voters and only a modest decline among the top bracket. The analysis provides no margin-of-error, sample-size detail, or wording about whether these are shares of all voters or of voters within each bracket, which limits the degree to which these percentages can be treated as definitive.

3. Reporting that poorer voters “flocked” to Trump — what that means

A second narrative stresses that poorer voters were especially likely to support Trump ^[2]. That characterization can reflect either higher vote share within low-income groups relative to others or a larger absolute number of low-income Trump voters due to turnout patterns. The source is dated November 9, 2024 ^[2], which places it close to the election and suggests it was reporting early post-election analyses. The phrasing “flocked” implies a distinct shift or concentration, but without the underlying numbers (turnout, party ID, geographic distribution) the claim remains descriptive rather than rigorously quantified.

4. Visualizations and comparative vote-share tools add context but need caution

A visualization of vote share by income bracket for Trump and Harris (p2_s2, Feb 6, 2025) supplements the numeric claims by showing relative strengths across brackets. Visual tools can clarify patterns hidden in summaries, but they require labeling, axis scales, and sample details to be interpretable. The provided materials do not include the graphic itself or methodological notes, so while the visualization source corroborates that income-based breakdowns were produced and examined, it does not by itself resolve whether any observed differences are statistically meaningful or reflect sampling artifacts.

5. Signals of weakening support among the wealthiest Americans

One later analysis (Sept 21, 2025) reports Donald Trump losing ground with the richest Americans, citing a net approval around -4 points among $100k+ voters ^[3]. This is not a direct 2024 vote share figure but an approval snapshot that suggests post-election erosion of support among high-income voters. Comparing that to the earlier exit-poll percentages ^[1] points to a plausible narrative: in 2024 Trump maintained sizable support across incomes, but subsequent approval trends show relative weakness among the wealthiest, aligning with commentary that his coalition included substantial lower- and middle-income backing even if elite support was less stable.

6. Contradictions, omissions, and why inference must be cautious

Key gaps limit firm conclusions: several sources explicitly lack specific income-group vote data and instead discuss broader trends ^{[5] [6]}. The numerical snapshot ^[1] lacks sampling details, timing, and margins of error. The “poorer voters flocked” characterization ^[2] could reflect turnout or persuasion effects rather than vote share differences. The approval shift among wealthy voters ^[3] is temporally later and measures approval, not vote choice. Taken together, the evidence supports a broad-based Trump coalition with notable strength among lower- and middle-income voters and relatively less durable support from the highest earners, but not an airtight causal claim.

7. Bottom line for readers wanting a succinct takeaway

Synthesis of the available analyses shows Trump’s 2024 support was widespread across income groups, with exit-poll–style numbers indicating roughly even backing across low- and mid-income brackets and modestly lower support among the highest earners ^[1]. Supplementary reporting highlights a pronounced presence of poorer voters in Trump’s coalition ^[2] and later signals of slippage among the wealthy ^[3]. The overall conclusion is that income mattered but not in a simple binary way: Trump drew substantial support from lower- and middle-income Americans while his standing with the richest showed relative weakness, and significant methodological gaps in the available materials prevent a more definitive ranking.