The Blog

Why Gen Z Voted Trump in 2024: A Generation Torn Between Wallet and Conscience

By Joseph Vambe, Gen Z Education Ambassador

The 2024 US Presidential Election saw Donald Trump reclaim the White House, but perhaps more surprising was the substantial support he garnered among Gen Z voters, particularly young men. This marked a shift for a generation commonly perceived as progressive. For many young people, their vote represented a complicated choice: a tension between economic pragmatism and moral consciousness. Trump’s success with Gen Z signals a deeper transformation within this cohort, reshaping assumptions about young voters’ priorities and underscoring the economic anxieties and disillusionments that drove many to cross ideological lines.

At the forefront of Gen Z’s concerns this election was the economy. Young people in America face an unprecedented set of economic challenges, many of which began well before their time. Now, as they navigate university or early career stages, the financial strain is palpable. Many of today’s young people carry substantial student debt, and they’ve witnessed record levels of inflation and skyrocketing housing costs. Even basics like groceries and petrol have become more expensive, leaving many Gen Z voters feeling they may never reach financial milestones their parents once took for granted. For some, Trump’s economic promises, such as proposals to reduce taxes on tips and overtime, appealed directly to their daily struggles. Although he’s historically a polarising figure, to many young voters, Trump symbolised a disruption to a system they feel has ignored their needs.

In today’s digital age, Gen Z has more access to financial information than previous generations, which has catalysed a new wave of retail investors among young people. A culture of self-education around finance has taken hold on social media platforms like TikTok and Twitter, creating what some call a ‘retail investing revolution.’ For many young investors, financial literacy and growth are crucial, not just as a means of survival but as a form of empowerment and independence. Trump, who has long been associated with business and wealth—even if his track record is contested—struck a chord with these young retail investors. His pro-business stance and promises of a market-friendly economy aligned with the hopes of those seeking to grow their wealth through stocks, crypto, and other investments.

Furthermore, Trump’s alignment with the cryptocurrency community resonated with a segment of Gen Z investors interested in alternative finance. With promises to lower regulatory scrutiny on crypto and even his support for Bitcoin, Trump appealed to Gen Z’s desire for economic opportunities outside traditional structures. For many young investors, the Biden administration’s regulatory stance on cryptocurrency had been a point of frustration, stifling an avenue of growth they see as vital to their financial future. Trump’s support signalled to them a possible “bull run” for crypto, especially as Bitcoin reached new highs amid his re-election. The appeal of financial freedom, coupled with Trump’s anti-establishment rhetoric, proved compelling for young voters prioritising personal economic interests.

The generational shift toward financial self-determination reflects a divergence from past voting patterns. While millennials and older Gen Zers have historically leaned progressive, many of today’s younger voters are sceptical of what they see as the Democratic Party’s focus on social issues over pressing economic concerns. Trump’s messaging, amplified through appearances on platforms popular with young men—such as Joe Rogan’s podcast and interviews with figures like Theo Von and Adin Ross—allowed him to connect with a demographic that often feels dismissed by mainstream political discourse. By focusing on economic issues, Trump tapped into their disillusionment with traditional politics and positioned himself as a “different kind” of leader, one who speaks directly to their realities.

The role of alternative media in shaping young men’s views is critical in understanding this election. Many young men feel a lack of representation in today’s political landscape, particularly in discussions about masculinity, responsibility, and economic opportunity. Trump’s interactions with influential podcasters and YouTubers were not policy-driven; rather, they highlighted his persona as an outsider. For instance, his interview with Rogan, the most popular podcast in the US, presented Trump as a humorous and relatable figure. Such platforms gave Trump access to young audiences in a context that feels unfiltered and authentic. Many young male voters, who perceive Rogan and similar figures as ‘real’ voices, were receptive to Trump’s message, seeing him as someone who, despite his flaws, “gets” them.

Gen Z men’s gravitation toward Trump reflects a deeper cultural phenomenon: the so-called “masculinity crisis.” The cultural discourse around masculinity has intensified in recent years, with some young men feeling alienated by narratives that, in their view, either demean or misunderstand their experiences. For these men, Trump’s brashness and defiance of political correctness were appealing, as they symbolise a rejection of societal expectations that they feel constrain them. This resonates with the cultural currents in many countries where young men are turning to more conservative views. In Germany and South Korea, for instance, young men are also displaying a trend toward conservatism, partly in response to gender politics that they feel disadvantage them.

Yet, the vote for Trump was not solely about cultural identity; it was also a pragmatic decision driven by economic self-interest. Many young voters see their financial situation as increasingly precarious, with stagnant wages and an unstable job market. Trump, for all his flaws, was perceived as the candidate who could “shake things up.” He tapped into the economic anxieties that define much of Gen Z’s experience, offering them a narrative of hope for a better financial future. Many young men feel that the Biden-Harris administration failed to address their needs, as rising costs have eroded their purchasing power and stymied their ability to save. In a generation facing a high likelihood of being worse off than its parents, Trump’s promises of economic empowerment had undeniable appeal.

By contrast, Harris’s campaign, despite its comprehensive economic agenda, struggled to connect with these voters. Her proposals, which included down payment assistance and expanded tax credits for startups, were largely overshadowed by a campaign style focused on social media trends, celebrity endorsements, and cultural relevance. This approach, while engaging to some, felt superficial to others who wanted substantive answers to their economic concerns. For many young male voters, Harris’s campaign lacked the authenticity they crave, leaving them sceptical of whether she truly understood their struggles.

The divergent priorities of Gen Z women and men reflect the growing political gender divide within this generation. Young women remained largely supportive of Harris, valuing her stance on reproductive rights and social issues, while young men were drawn to Trump’s promises of economic relief and his alignment with “anti-woke” figures who challenge progressive norms. This polarisation within Gen Z signifies a broader trend in American politics where men and women, even within the same generation, have increasingly distinct political identities. Harris’s campaign drew upon popular platforms aimed at women, like Alex Cooper’s “Call Her Daddy” podcast, while Trump’s appearances targeted young men’s platforms. These separate outreach strategies highlight the gendered split within Gen Z’s political landscape.

The gender divide among Gen Z voters has implications beyond this election. It points to a future in which political parties may have to engage with young men and women differently, acknowledging their unique concerns and motivations. If Gen Z men continue to prioritise economic concerns and financial self-determination over cultural progressivism, we could see a sustained trend of male support for candidates who adopt a pro-business stance. For Gen Z women, social issues like reproductive rights and gender equality may continue to drive them toward progressive candidates. This divide could shape American politics for years to come, as Gen Z becomes an increasingly influential voting bloc.

While this trend of economic-driven voting was most visible among young men, it was not exclusive to them. Many young women within Gen Z also cited the economy as a top issue, although they were less likely to vote for Trump. This underscores the broader economic anxiety that permeates the entire generation. The difference lies in the candidates’ perceived approach to solving these problems: Trump’s direct, unpolished style was appealing to young men who feel overlooked, while Harris’s campaign resonated more with young women who value social stability and progressive policies.

The presence of crypto and retail investment as factors in Trump’s appeal to Gen Z reflects a new frontier in political engagement. Today’s young people are not just voters; they are active participants in financial markets, and they view economic policies through the lens of their investments. The rise of cryptocurrency has made financial independence more accessible, but it has also exposed Gen Z to the volatility and risks of emerging markets. Trump’s promises to loosen crypto regulations aligned with the interests of young investors who see digital assets as essential to their financial future. For a generation accustomed to DIY financial strategies, Trump’s laissez-faire approach to crypto regulation felt liberating compared to the Biden administration’s cautious stance.

This election has illuminated an evolving set of priorities within Gen Z, particularly around economic empowerment, financial independence, and the role of traditional institutions. As the first generation to grow up with the internet, Gen Z’s relationship with information, media, and influencers is distinct. Many view financial success as the ultimate form of freedom and empowerment, and they are keenly aware of how government policies impact their wallets. This perspective is driving them to vote based on their immediate economic needs rather than long-term ideological commitments.

For corporate leaders, understanding these shifts is crucial. Today’s young voters want actionable advice and tangible support in achieving their financial goals. Initiatives that focus on financial literacy, investment education, and economic opportunity are likely to resonate with this group. Gen Z’s interest in retail investing, alternative assets, and wealth-building strategies shows that they are pragmatic, often willing to support policies or candidates who prioritise economic opportunity, even if they disagree on social issues.

Trump’s appeal to Gen Z men in the 2024 election may appear as a one-time phenomenon, but it reflects a broader shift that organisations should pay attention to. For many in Gen Z, economic empowerment and financial literacy are not just goals; they are essential components of independence in a world that feels increasingly unstable. To truly engage this generation, both politicians and businesses must offer solutions that address these anxieties directly.

Watching from across the Atlantic as a Gen Z writer, it’s striking to see how the Democrats focused so heavily on framing Trump as a threat to democracy, while he was busy addressing issues that, to many young people, felt immediate and personal. Trump’s messaging zeroed in on tangible changes he would make—deregulation, tax cuts, mass deportations, and embracing crypto—a policy blend that directly spoke to the frustrations of those feeling overlooked or financially insecure.

Elections aren’t won by candidates who only champion noble causes; they’re won by those who recognise where the system isn’t working and promise to shake it up. When voters feel disconnected from the current reality, they’re drawn to leaders who speak directly to their concerns and offer practical changes, however disruptive or divisive those changes may be. This election wasn’t about abstract ideals; it was about candidates meeting people where they are. The lesson here is clear: in politics, ideals rarely win the day on their own; it’s the promise of action that gets people to the polls.

Join TEA! Let's shape the financial inclusion agenda together by facilitating inclusive investor engagement. Sign up now for FREE!

Sign up to our newsletter to stay up to date