The November 5 presidential election saw President-elect Donald Trump coast back into the Oval Office, alongside J.D. Vance as Vice President-elect, marking a historic re-election victory. As the dust settled on election night, the Fox News panel took a sharp turn into a heated debate, as veteran analyst Juan Williams voiced his incredulity at the election outcome.

As the segment unfolded, Williams grappled with the implications of Trump’s victory, particularly for the Democratic Party, which had fielded Kamala Harris as its candidate. “The size of this mandate as you call it… I think that there is even recriminations now among Democrats as to Biden and whether Biden should have dropped out earlier or Biden should have stayed … Would a white male have done better? Obviously, Trump has defeated two women and now a black woman. So there’s all of these questions.”

Williams’s words hinted at an ideological chasm, suggesting Democrats are wrestling with whether Harris’s defeat was a setback for diversity or a larger referendum on party strategy. But the heart of his frustration surfaced when Williams grappled with the idea that Trump, whom he described as leading an “insurrection,” could once again occupy the White House. “It seems to me incredible that a guy who led a resurrection… insurrection, against the United States government, is going, potentially now… like a phoenix going back into the Oval Office. It’s unbelievable.”

Brit Hume quickly countered, reflecting a viewpoint shared by a significant portion of Trump’s supporters. “Well, you have to consider the fact, Juan, that a lot of people didn’t think that was an insurrection. They thought it was a riot, but not an insurrection. And had they thought there was an insurrection, I don’t think he could have won.”

WATCH:

As the conversation continued, Williams pointed out the racial undertones he believed impacted the election, claiming that “white grievance politics” played a pivotal role in Trump’s victory. He argued that Trump’s “bro strategy” seemed to appeal to white male voters, along with some segments of Latino and Black male voters. “I’m not sold on this idea that ‘Oh, it was the cost of eggs.’ I worry that it was, well, ‘I’m not voting for this woman. Or I’m not voting for this Black woman,’” he claimed.

But Karl Rove took issue with Williams’s claims, suggesting that Trump’s appeal to Black and Latino men was more nuanced. “I just think it is extremely odd to suggest that black men are somehow prejudiced because they vote for a white candidate who says ‘I want to make certain that everybody has an opportunity to succeed in our great economy. I want you to be more prosperous, and I will do things that will make it possible for you to make a better life,’” Rove explained.

Ultimately, Williams’s comments captured one side of a conversation America is still grappling with, as voters wrestle with the implications of Trump’s return to office and the broader meaning behind his lasting appeal.