In the first week of February 2026, President Donald Trump of the USA faced backlash as he posted a racist video on his social media platform Truth Social depicting former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama as apes. Evoking outrage among both Democrats and Republicans alike, the video was deleted 12 hours after it was posted. Incidents like these show how race in politics continues to evoke strong emotions. Why is this the case? And what are the implications for democracy?

Politics is not governed by reason alone; emotions also play a central role. In academic literature, emotions are not considered irrational deviations from reason, but evaluative responses to certain internal or external situations. In other words, emotions such as fear or anger can signal what is perceived as threatening, unjust, or worth defending. Politicians are well aware of this and often create messages to evoke certain emotional responses among the public. For example, political elites can frame certain issues to evoke negative emotions such as anger or disgust, in order to moralize political attitudes and facilitate polarization. 

Within this emotional context, race occupies a particularly powerful role. As a social category tied to identity and historical hierarchies, race is rarely neutral. Political communities are built around implicit boundaries: who counts as ‘us’ and who does not. When race is invoked, these boundaries are activated. When racial groups are framed as dangerous, undeserving, or incompatible with the nation, emotions are not incidental reactions but predictable outcomes. These emotions are also referred to as ‘racialized emotions’. Research has shown that racial framings usually inspire anger in (white) people, leading to higher levels of political participation and the activation of other racial beliefs.

To illustrate the role of racialized emotions in politics, let’s return to the example of President Trump mentioned at the beginning. In this case, the video posted by President Trump evoked strong feelings of anger and outrage, not only among racial minorities but also among some of President Trump’s allies. This outpouring of emotions was likely expected to some extent by the President and the White House, especially considering that the video was posted during Black History Month. In a time when President Trump is already facing a lot of scrutiny regarding other issues, why would he choose to still post this video? In TIME, Sonnenfeld and Tian argue that the posting of the video can be seen as a political strategy to redirect public attention away from these other issues by layering controversy upon controversy. While we cannot look into President Trump’s head, if this is true, then the President made use of the role race plays in evoking emotions to distract people from issues he deems as threatening to his status as President.

The strategic use of racialized emotions in politics has significant implications for democracy. First, emotionalized racial discourse can intensify polarization. When emotions become attached to political disagreement, compromise becomes more difficult. Opponents are no longer seen merely as fellow citizens with different preferences, but as threats to the nation’s integrity. Second, repeatedly using racialized emotions in political discourse may normalize dehumanizing language. Democratic systems rely on the recognition of equal political standing among citizens. When racial minorities are depicted as inferior, criminal, or less deserving, this foundational principle is weakened. Finally, the strategic use of racial controversy to redirect attention, as suggested in the analysis of President Trump’s video, raises concerns about accountability. If political leaders can manipulate emotional reactions to shift public focus, then debates about the issues that really matter risk being replaced by cycles of outrage.