Donald Trump’s dismissive sentiment towards Benjamin Netanyahu’s “politics,” coupled with a desire for his popularity, resurfaces as a chilling reminder of a transactional foreign policy that prioritizes perceived utility over democratic values. In July 2026, as both leaders face escalating domestic and international pressures, this posture has evolved into a deeply fraught and often contradictory relationship, exposing the perils of alliances built on personal whim rather than shared principles.

The Current Reality

The political landscape for both figures in mid-2026 is turbulent. Benjamin Netanyahu remains Israel’s Prime Minister, leading what is widely considered the most right-wing government in the nation’s history, formed in December 2022. He is mired in a protracted criminal corruption trial involving charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. After 98 hearings, Netanyahu concluded his testimony in June 2026, with the trial now moving to additional witness examinations. Judges have even suggested dropping the bribery charge due to difficulties in proving it, a development that further politicizes an already contentious legal battle. Ahead of anticipated Israeli elections by the end of October 2026, Netanyahu’s government is aggressively pushing through divisive legislation, including bills allowing gender segregation in higher education and measures to weaken the Attorney General’s powers, a strategy seen as consolidating his right-wing base despite widespread public opposition.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump, in his second year of a second presidency, is deeply embroiled in a renewed conflict with Iran. The United States, which launched a major attack on Iran in February 2026 with the stated goal of regime change, has seen a ceasefire collapse. On July 8, 2026, President Trump declared the truce “over” during a NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, publicly branding Iranian leaders as “scum,” “sick people,” and “cuckoo,” and threatening further military strikes.

This broader regional instability has severely strained the personal ties between Trump and Netanyahu, a relationship once characterized by overt mutual admiration. Sources indicate their bond has reached an “all-time low” since the commencement of the Iran war, with Trump reportedly calling Netanyahu “f***ing crazy” for jeopardizing a US-Iran deal through continued military actions in Lebanon. Yet, in a testament to the transactional nature of their engagement, Trump recently stated that Netanyahu had requested a White House meeting, adding that the Israeli Prime Minister “knows who the boss” is, a clear assertion of dominance despite the ongoing tensions. This complexity is further highlighted by the July 1, 2026, agreement between the US and Israel to establish a permanent US Embassy compound in Jerusalem, a continuity of a policy initiated by Trump, suggesting that some foundational elements of US-Israel relations persist independently of the personal friction.

A Progressive Critique

Trump’s past remark, “I don’t know anything about his politics, but I think he should be popular,” encapsulates a deeply concerning trend in conservative leadership: a blatant disregard for policy substance and democratic principles in favor of superficial appeal or perceived political advantage. From a progressive viewpoint, this attitude is not merely naive; it’s a dangerous erosion of accountability and a tacit endorsement of authoritarian tendencies.

To declare ignorance of a leader’s “politics” while advocating for their “popularity” is to prioritize personality cults over governance, charm over competence, and loyalty over justice. In Netanyahu’s case, this translates into overlooking a Prime Minister currently on trial for corruption, whose government is actively dismantling judicial independence and pushing through highly controversial legislation that undermines pluralism and human rights. Such a stance from a US President sends a clear signal: that the internal democratic health of an allied nation is secondary to whatever immediate strategic or personal gains might be extracted from the relationship.

The current tensions between Trump and Netanyahu over the Iran war further expose this transactional model’s flaws. The perceived “fraying of ties” and Trump’s reported frustration stem not from a principled disagreement with Netanyahu’s policies towards Palestinians or the broader human rights implications of his government, but rather from Netanyahu’s actions potentially undermining Trump’s own foreign policy objectives in the region. This is not a shift towards a progressive foreign policy; it is merely a clash of self-interests. As progressive columnist Kenneth Roth noted in July 2026, “unconditional US support for Israel has allowed the combative approach of Netanyahu and his ilk to prevail,” leading to “relentless military escalation”.

The criticism from a potential Democratic presidential candidate, Rahm Emanuel, who in July 2026 warned that Israel has become a “pariah” under Netanyahu and that the US alliance “cannot survive as it has been,” highlights a growing progressive consensus that unconditional support for Israel’s current trajectory is unsustainable. The fact that “support for Israel is plummeting around the world” and among younger American voters underscores the ethical bankruptcy of propping up a leader whose “politics” are ignored while his popularity is desired.

The Path Forward

For a genuinely progressive path forward, the United States must move decisively beyond the transactional, personality-driven foreign policy exemplified by Trump’s approach to leaders like Netanyahu. This requires a fundamental reorientation towards a values-based diplomacy grounded in international law, human rights, and the promotion of democratic institutions.

  1. Conditional Aid and Accountability: The US should condition aid and support on adherence to human rights, democratic principles, and efforts towards a just and lasting peace, particularly in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ending “unconditional US support” would force a crucial reckoning with reality for all parties involved and challenge the notion that “anything goes in the name of ‘self-defense’”.
  2. Support for Democratic Movements: Instead of implicitly or explicitly endorsing leaders facing corruption charges or undermining their own judiciaries, the US should actively support civil society and democratic movements within allied nations. This means speaking out against judicial overhauls, advocating for press freedom, and challenging legislative efforts that erode minority rights.
  3. Principled Diplomacy: US foreign policy must be driven by a clear articulation of democratic ideals rather than narrow, short-term strategic gains or personal loyalties. This means engaging with complex geopolitical issues like the US-Iran conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian situation with a commitment to de-escalation, multilateralism, and comprehensive, equitable solutions that benefit all peoples, not just powerful elites.
  4. Community Action and Education: Progressive activists and community organizers must continue to highlight the interconnectedness of global justice struggles. By educating the public on the true costs of transactional foreign policy—including its impact on human lives, democratic norms, and regional stability—we can build broader support for policies that reflect our shared values rather than the whims of individual leaders.

The current moment, defined by escalating conflicts and political instability, demands a foreign policy that doesn’t just wish for popularity but actively champions justice, accountability, and the inherent dignity of all people. Any less is a dereliction of moral duty and a perpetuation of cycles of conflict.