Stephen King told The Sunday Times that he expects a cultural backlash to President Donald Trump that will prompt some of the president's supporters to deny ever voting for him.
The prolific author and frequent critic of Mr. Trump defended his outspoken commentary on social media and said he felt a duty to speak out. "It's a question, like the song says, 'Which side are you on?'" King said, arguing that future history books would portray Trump negatively and that many who supported him would seek to distance themselves from that legacy.
King used an anecdote about the Bobby Thomson home run — a frequently cited example of collective memory and exaggeration — to illustrate how public recollection can diverge from fact. "There are… tens of thousands of people who will say, 'I saw [the baseball player Bobby Thomson] hit that home run,' and there were only, like, 5,000 people in the stands that day," he told the newspaper, saying that the opposite could be true when people recount political choices decades later.
The remarks are the latest in a long series of public comments from King criticizing Mr. Trump. Over recent years, King has used social media and opinion pieces to offer sharp assessments of the president's policies and conduct, drawing attention from both supporters and critics.
King framed his statements as part of a broader cultural debate over political responsibility and historical memory. He acknowledged that some of his own fans may support Mr. Trump but said that awareness did not dissuade him from speaking out.
Observers outside the interview framed the exchange in the context of ongoing national discussion about how contemporary political figures will be judged by historians and the public. Debates about President Trump's legacy have intensified as he remains a central figure in Republican politics and public discourse.
King's prediction that some supporters will later disavow their votes echoes broader concerns among historians and commentators about how memory, political identity and later reassessment shape collective narratives. The author did not provide a specific timeframe for when he expected such denial to occur.
The Sunday Times interview, and subsequent coverage, underline the continued clash between cultural figures who publicly condemn or defend political leaders and the audiences that consume their work. King's comments add to a stream of commentary in which artists and writers assess the political moment and its potential long-term consequences.
King's remarks will likely contribute to public debate about accountability and historical reckoning, but how broadly his prediction will resonate with voters remains to be seen.