Do democrats hate President Trump more than they love America?

A Fox News opinion piece has triggered controversy after citing remarks attributed to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, suggesting that opposition to President Donald Trump may be influencing attitudes towards US military action against Iran.

The column claims Friedman expressed concern that he “really don’t want to see Bibi Netanyahu or Donald Trump politically strengthened by this war because they are two awful human beings,” a statement the article uses to argue that political animosity is shaping debate over the conflict, Fox News reports.

It further alleges that some Democrats are questioning the legitimacy of the campaign against Iran, which Washington has long said aims to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The piece argues that critics are downplaying the objectives of the operation and undermining public support for US military efforts.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is quoted in the article criticising Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, saying: “This guy can’t organize a two-car funeral… no wonder things are turning out so horrifically.” Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is cited as calling President Donald Trump a “military moron” in a post on X, reflecting the escalating partisan rhetoric surrounding the conflict.

The opinion piece argues that such remarks risk weakening domestic unity during wartime and claims media coverage has contributed to declining public confidence in the campaign. It cites reports describing the war as lacking strategy or political coherence, while accusing sections of the press of amplifying Iranian narratives.

The article also references polling data it says shows “Big and bipartisan majorities” support key US objectives, including securing the Strait of Hormuz and preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. However, it acknowledges that respondents do not believe these goals have yet been achieved.

According to the column, this gap between public support for objectives and dissatisfaction with progress has created political pressure on the administration, which it says Tehran may be attempting to exploit.

The piece concludes that Iran remains hostile to US interests and argues that political divisions in Washington could shape the outcome of the conflict as much as military developments on the ground.

The commentary reflects ongoing tensions in US politics over the conduct and purpose of the Iran campaign, highlighting sharp divisions between Republicans and Democrats over strategy, rhetoric and long-term objectives.

By Aghakazim Guliyev