Sen. Cory Booker is now claiming that President Trump hates Americans. He says: “You can’t lead the people if you don’t love the people.”

In a bold and confrontational stance, Senator Cory Booker has accused former President Donald J. Trump of harboring animosity toward the very citizens he once governed. Booker’s remarks have struck a nerve in political circles, sparking debate over the nature of leadership, patriotism, and the responsibilities of elected officials.

Booker’s criticism centers on a fundamental principle of leadership: that to genuinely govern, a leader must “love the people.” Implicit in this assertion is the accusation that Trump’s policies and rhetoric reflect a deep-seated disregard for the welfare of ordinary Americans. “You can’t lead the people if you don’t love the people,” Booker declared, framing his message in moral and emotional terms rather than purely political ones.

Over time, Booker has articulated concerns about the direction of the Republican Party under Trump, particularly in regard to issues like social justice, inequality, and institutional norms. He has often cast his own political identity as one grounded in empathy, inclusion, and public service. By contrast, his attack on Trump suggests that the former president’s approach is devoid of the humility and compassion he believes are prerequisites for genuine leadership.

Trump’s time in office was marked by fierce divisions, inflammatory rhetoric, and sweeping policy changes. Critics often contend that many of those moves—on immigration, health care, climate, and social safety nets—lied in tension with the idea of governing for the broad public good. Booker’s statement today draws a direct line from those policies to a deeper personal indictment: that Trump’s valor in the public eye is disconnected from love or care for ordinary Americans.

Supporters of Booker’s view argue that leadership should be measured not only by ambition or success, but by how decisions impact the lives of everyday citizens—the working families, the marginalized communities, the forgotten towns. When policies reduce access to health care, raise costs for struggling households, or threaten civil liberties, some believe that the true test of leadership is whether the leader stands with or against those people.

On the other hand, critics of Booker say this kind of rhetoric is overly personal and partisan. They argue that political disagreement is not the same as hatred, and that calling someone out for policy failures is very different from accusing them of despising the people they govern. From that view, Booker’s words may play well to his base, but do little to bridge divides or advance cooperation.

Nevertheless, Booker’s charge has already reverberated across media outlets and social platforms. Some commentators view it as another escalation in the polarized climate of American politics—where personal integrity and moral character are invoked as political weapons. Others see it as part of a calculated strategy by Democratic leaders to reclaim the moral narrative of leadership and contrast themselves sharply with Trump’s style.

The broader public reaction is mixed. Some Americans resonate with the sentiment, particularly those who feel marginalized or unheard in recent years. For them, Booker’s words capture a frustration that has long gone unexpressed. Others see the accusation as extreme, even unbecoming of a senator, arguing that such stark moral language diminishes the political norms they wish to preserve.

What happens next may depend on how Trump or his allies respond. Will they refute the charge, double down on their own rhetoric, or pivot to issue-by-issue defenses? Meanwhile, Booker and other Democratic figures are likely to continue casting the 2026 and 2028 elections as a moral and ideological referendum, not merely a contest over policies.

In the end, Cory Booker’s claim is more than just a provocative soundbite. It represents a deeper struggle over what leadership means in America today—whether it is about raw power and winning or about empathy, accountability, and love for the people one leads. As the debate unfolds, one thing is clear: the battle over moral authority in politics is already underway.