African Americans have long held varied political beliefs. Before the mid-20th century realignment, Black citizens could be found in both major political parties. Over time, however, the ideological split between liberal and conservative positions has mapped closely onto party identity. Under the Trump movement, the Republican Party has advanced policies that actively undermine African American civic standing: attacks on diversity and inclusion, suppression of truthful historical education, racialized immigration enforcement, and an increasingly militarized response to dissent. These are not simply conservative positions; they are elements of an authoritarian project aimed at weakening multiracial democracy.

Yet even under such conditions, some African Americans openly collaborate with the movement. Their numbers are small, but their presence is politically useful. Authoritarian projects seek internal validators from the very groups they target, using them to create the appearance of consent or ideological diversity. These collaborators may claim independence or pragmatism, yet they help legitimize policies that threaten the broader community.

This dynamic is not unique to African Americans. Throughout history, authoritarian movements have recruited supporters from within communities under pressure—whether for personal gain, fear, ambition, or the hope that proximity to power will provide safety. During and after World War II, Jewish communities in parts of Europe confronted the issue of collaboration directly, holding public inquiries not to punish dissenting opinion but to acknowledge how authoritarian systems coerce, entice, and divide vulnerable populations. The lesson is that collaboration is a social phenomenon, not an individual curiosity.

In the United States today, multiple racial, ethnic, and cultural groups face similar pressures. Immigrant communities may be encouraged to support exclusionary immigration policy. Religious minorities may be drawn into movements hostile to pluralism. Working-class groups may be persuaded to align with wealth and authority rather than with one another. In each case, collaboration serves the same purpose: to fracture solidarity and weaken democratic resistance.

Recognizing this pattern is essential. Collaboration is not merely a private choice; it has collective consequences. In an era when democratic rights, educational freedom, and inclusive citizenship are under strain, communities must be clear-eyed about the forces seeking to enlist them. Naming collaboration is part of defending the integrity and future of a multiracial democracy.