The situation in America illustrates the most significant flaw with democracy, or at least a paradox. Any democracy worthy of the name must allow for itself to be dismantled and replaced. It must allow voters to choose candidates who will destroy it. A democracy that doesn't allow voters to replace it with another form of government isn't really a democracy. (North Korea has democracy but few would describe it as true democracy because although technically someone could oppose the current ruler it wouldn't end very well for them.)
If we look at human history, democracy is an unusual way of running things. Most of the time, in most places, a small elite has held power, power based on military strength.
Generally the form of government a society has runs through a cycle. People get increasingly angry, they revolt and overthrow the existing hierarchy, install a different one they are more happy with, get complacent, get disillusioned, get increasingly angry and the cycle starts again. Our current style of democracy has been around for long enough for people to have become disillusioned and are getting increasingly angry. It signifies change is coming.
People voted for Trump for the same reason people voted for Brexit and for the same reason they voted for Starmer. They were sick of the way things had been run for years and wanted change. They didn't really think about what that change would be, perhaps they didn't even care - the logic went "it's shit now, if we vote for the same we'll get more shit, if we vote for something different it might be better and it might be worse, but at least we've tried."
I deliberately included Starmer in that list because it may help people understand why people voted for Trump or Brexit. Lots of Starmer-voters hate Trump and hated Brexit but the point is the thinking pattern among the electorate was the same: it's shit now, let's vote for something different.