President Trump and his domestic and foreign policies have become sustained targets of criticism from the Left, Liberal circles, and the Democratic Party (collectively, progressives), as well as from much of the mainstream media such as The New York Times. At the same time, many Western European leaders have positioned themselves either in open opposition to, or conspicuous distance from, his foreign‑policy approach, including Iran, even when his policies align with their own long‑term strategic interests. Notably, these same circles frequently advance biased positions against Israel along with muted responses to antisemitism within their own Jewish communities. In this blog, I argue that these patterns are not isolated but reflect a deeper, intertwined analytical failure, one that ultimately can undermine the political and social stability of the very societies in which these attitudes take hold.

The sweeping hostility towards Trump often reflects not substantive policy debate, but a form of wilful avoidance, an “ostrich in the sand” posture reinforced by pretentious claims to moral superiority that collapse under scrutiny. Democratic leaders appear unable or unwilling to confront internal and geopolitical realities they failed to address while in power. A familiar pattern has emerged: progressives evade acknowledging serious problems, then attack Trump when he moves to address them. The cycle is consistent, downplay an issue, refuse to confront it, and then criticize Trump despite knowing that serious problems rarely lend themselves to smooth solutions. The examples that follow – illegal immigration, government waste, antisemitism, and Iran illustrate this dynamic clearly.

Immigration: For years, the U.S. has faced sustained illegal immigration, now estimated at 10–14 million undocumented residents, an enormous number. The issue is not immigration itself; immigrants have always helped shape the country. The problem is both the sheer scale and the fact that these immigrants are unregistered. Uncontrolled and unregistered immigration strains communities. It leads to overcrowded schools, overwhelmed healthcare systems, rising housing costs, and local governments forced to absorb major unplanned fiscal burdens. The Obama and Biden administrations avoided acknowledging its full impact and failed to implement effective policies. When Trump moved to confront the crisis, he faced loud criticism from the same voices that had spent years downplaying or ignoring this underlying issue.

Muslim Immigration to Western Europe: Western Europe is also grappling with a large and poorly managed immigration challenge. Muslim immigration over recent decades is estimated at more than 45 million people. Yet many host countries have failed to match this scale of immigration with effective integration policies. A further complication is that many immigrants, despite leaving countries marked by instability and failed leadership, often insist on retaining those religious, social, and political values they grew up with that contributed to the very conditions they escaped from. This behavior stands in contrast to earlier waves of immigration to North America in the early twentieth century, when diverse groups largely embraced the “melting pot” ideal and sought to adopt prevailing Western norms such as a strong work ethic, respect for the rule of law, and a tolerant belief in pluralism.

Within this immigration flow are also small numbers of dangerous ideological extremists who reject Western norms outright and view violence as a legitimate tool for advancing their fundamentalist Islamic aims which Western governments find difficult to identify and counter.

Waste: For decades, the federal government has tolerated enormous levels of waste. Even before 2017, Washington reported more than $100 billion annually in “improper payments,” ranging from funds sent to the wrong recipients to payments made without documentation. There was a pattern of systemic mismanagement across multiple agencies, non‑competitive contracting, cost overruns, duplicative programs, and dubious procurement processes, all against the backdrop of a national debt nearing $39 trillion. The creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in 2025 marked a long‑overdue effort to confront entrenched federal waste. Elon Musk’s line‑by‑line audit revealed how deeply inefficiencies were embedded. Yet instead of helping refine an initiative aimed at reducing waste, critics dismissed it as reckless and unethical, pointing to a handful of worthwhile programs caught up in the process. Democratic leaders could have acknowledged that any serious efficiency campaign would inevitably touch legitimate expenses, while still recognizing the need to eliminate waste, including waste that accumulated during their own tenure. Had they supported the broader goal rather than opposing it outright, their bipartisan backing would have increased the likelihood of a durable solution achieved with less extreme measures.

Antisemitism: Antisemitism has once again surfaced with disturbing intensity in North America and beyond, more so after October 7, 2023. Its resurgence was particularly pronounced, not just among students but within college administration and faculty of most of the Ivey league universities. Reported examples include faculty‑driven harassment, smear campaigns, boycotts, doxxing of Jewish professors, hostile academic environments in certain departments, such as those at Columbia toward Jewish or pro‑Israel students and faculty, failures to act on formal complaints and the routine issuance of unenforced policy statements condemning antisemitism while allowing antisemitic events to proceed without consequence.

This trend is especially troubling because it took hold within institutions that shape cultural norms and train future leaders. While there are undoubtedly many factors, one element that warrants scrutiny is the role of external funding by Qatar, who has provided more than $6.5 billion to U.S. universities while at the same time, bankrolling Hamas, an anti‑Western terrorist organization and providing its leaders with a safe haven along with luxury accommodations. The potential connection between donations from a state aligned with a terrorist group committed to the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews, along with the emergence of pervasive hostility toward Jews on these campuses is difficult to dismiss. That Qatar continued its support for Hamas even after the atrocities it committed on Oct. 7, 2023, only heightens this suspicion.

During their years in power, Democratic leaders did not take meaningful steps to address antisemitism. To make matters worse, their response to the Trump administration’s decision to withhold federal funding from Harvard and Columbia, was to condemn the move as unprecedented overreach, political weaponizing of funding, and a threat to academic freedom. Yet it was only after funding was made contingent on reforms, that these universities implemented effective measures to reduce antisemitism. Once again, the contrast is stark: a policy that produced substantial results versus a tepid and ineffective Democratic response.

Trump’s Middle Eastern policy: Despite the ingrained extremism, polarity and inflexibility of Middle East geopolitics, Trump has scored several significant successes. 1. The Abraham Accords: He spearheaded the Abraham Accords signed in 2020 that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, the first time in decades that Arab nations other than Egypt and Jordan formally recognized Israel.

The Hezbollah Israeli ceasefire: In November 2024 he brokered a ceasefire with Hezbollah ending the rocket attacks on northern Israel, the withdrawal of Hezbollah forces from the south of Lebanon, and the gradual withdrawal of Israeli troops. Part of the agreement was that Hezbollah was to disarm but they have refused to do so.

The Israeli – Hamas ceasefire: In 2025, he accomplished what most pundits had deemed impossible: a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel that ended most fighting, opened humanitarian aid into Gaza, led to the withdrawal of most Israeli forces, halted rocket fire on Israeli communities, and secured the release of all living and deceased Israeli hostages. While not every provision has been fully implemented – an outcome unlikely as long as Hamas refuses to disarm, the situation for both Israelis and Gazans, have nonetheless improved dramatically.

Iran: Like Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Biden, U.S. policy has long viewed Iran’s ideology, pursuit of nuclear and advanced military capabilities, and support for terrorist proxies as unacceptable. But unlike previous administrations, Trump made clear that while diplomacy was his preferred path, he was prepared to escalate pressure, including militarily, if it failed. When diplomatic outreach and sanctions produced no change, the administration adopted progressively stronger measures to constrain Iran’s military infrastructure, deter further aggression, and reduce the threat it posed. Yet Iran has remained committed to its confrontational fundamentalist ideology, even as its economy deteriorates and its political system edges toward collapse.

This is especially tragic given how straightforward the path to stability could be: Iran could end its aggressive foreign policy, stop arming its terrorist proxies, and focus on improving the lives of its own citizens. Neither the United States nor Israel seeks to control Iran’s internal affairs. The demand has always been simple, that the Iranian government abandon policies that threaten regional and even global security.

Western Europe’s overall stance: Despite the long‑term benefits they would gain from a restrained Iranian regime, many Western leaders have chosen either to stand aside or to oppose the administration’s approach. This stance helps explain why several Western European governments now find themselves politically adrift, floundering, and struggling to meet contemporary challenges. Their reluctance to support Trump on Iran has weakened the collective Western response at a moment when unity could have been decisive, fostering and security for those very nations that hesitate to act.

Trump has consistently identified and addressed serious national and international challenges including illegal immigration, government waste, rising antisemitism, and the Iranian threat. Had he received meaningful support from American progressives and Western leaders, the United States’ internal problems could have been addressed far more effectively, and Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah might well have been disarmed, opening the door to a more stable prosperous Middle East and a safer world.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)