A newly published book is claiming Donald Trump privately lashed out at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a tense 2025 phone call over Gaza peace negotiations, offering a rare look at how strained the relationship reportedly became behind closed doors.
According to the book by New York Times journalists Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, Trump was on a call with Netanyahu, Jared Kushner and U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff when frustration grew over Israel’s conduct during one of the most sensitive stages of the Gaza peace push.
The reported exchange did not happen this week. It is being newly reported through the book and is said to have taken place during private negotiations in September 2025, as Trump was pushing a 20-point plan aimed at ending the war in Gaza.
That distinction matters.
This is not a fresh public comment from Trump. It is a claim from a newly published book about what was allegedly said during private talks months earlier. Because of that, the key wording is “reportedly” and “the book claims.”
But if accurate, the exchange is politically explosive.
The book claims Trump told Netanyahu that people were tired of him, using unusually blunt language toward one of America’s closest allies. Trump reportedly told Netanyahu: “Everybody’s sick of you, Bibi. All the Jews are sick of you.” He then reportedly added: “Even the two Jews on this call are sick of you,” referring to Kushner and Witkoff.
The language is shocking not only because of how personal it sounds, but because it cuts against the public image Trump has long tried to present.
In public, Trump has repeatedly positioned himself as one of Israel’s strongest defenders. He has described himself as a powerful ally of Israel, leaned heavily into pro-Israel politics, and often treated his support for Netanyahu and Israel as a major part of his foreign policy identity.
But this book account suggests something very different was happening behind the scenes.
According to the reporting, Trump’s frustration grew during the Gaza negotiations after Israel’s strike in Qatar and Netanyahu’s handling of the proposed peace plan. The Doha strike had already caused major regional anger because Qatar was playing a central role as a mediator in negotiations involving Hamas, Israel and the United States.
That is what makes the timing so important.
Trump was trying to sell a Gaza peace framework while Israel’s actions were reportedly making that diplomacy harder. If the book’s account is accurate, Trump saw Netanyahu not only as a partner in the process, but as an obstacle who risked derailing the deal.
That is a major claim.
The book also reportedly says Kushner later told an ally he was “out,” describing the Israelis as “crazy,” while Trump allegedly warned Netanyahu not to walk away from the deal.
Again, these are claims from a book account. They should be treated carefully and attributed clearly. But they still matter because they help explain the tension that may have existed beneath the public show of unity.
For years, Trump and Netanyahu have been seen as politically aligned. Both men have used hardline messaging, both have attacked critics aggressively, and both have built political identities around strength, loyalty and confrontation. Trump’s supporters often frame him as the American president who gave Israel more than almost anyone else, from recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital to taking a harder line against Iran.
That is why this reported phone call cuts so sharply.
It suggests that even Trump, despite his public support for Israel, became privately furious with Netanyahu when he believed the Israeli leader was risking a deal Trump wanted to claim as a major foreign policy victory.
For Trump, the Gaza plan was not only about diplomacy. It was also about image. He wanted to be seen as the dealmaker who could end a war, bring hostages home, pressure both sides and present himself as the leader who succeeded where others had failed.
Netanyahu, however, had his own political pressures.
Inside Israel, Netanyahu was under pressure from far-right coalition partners, security hardliners and a public deeply divided over the war, the hostages, Gaza and Israel’s future. Any peace plan that required concessions, a withdrawal path, limits on military operations or a post-war structure for Gaza would have been politically sensitive for him.
That created a clash.
Trump wanted a deal.
Netanyahu needed to protect his political survival.
And Gaza civilians, Israeli hostages and the wider region were caught inside the consequences of that power struggle.
That is the deeper story here.
The reported comments are dramatic, but the bigger issue is what they reveal about the politics behind ceasefire negotiations. Publicly, leaders speak in polished statements about peace, security and partnership. Privately, according to this account, the talks may have involved anger, pressure, threats and deep frustration between allies who were supposed to be working together.
That should not surprise anyone who follows Middle East diplomacy closely.
The U.S.-Israel relationship is often presented as unbreakable, but it is not always smooth. American presidents have privately clashed with Israeli leaders before, especially when Israeli military actions or settlement policies complicated U.S. regional goals. The difference here is Trump’s language, which is unusually personal and blunt if reported accurately.
It also raises a difficult question about Netanyahu’s standing.
If even Trump, one of Israel’s most loyal public defenders, was privately telling Netanyahu that people were sick of him, then the frustration around Netanyahu’s leadership may have been much deeper than public statements suggested.
That does not mean Trump turned against Israel.
It does not mean U.S. support for Israel suddenly disappeared.
It does not mean Netanyahu lost all American backing.
But it does suggest that there were limits to Trump’s patience when Netanyahu’s decisions clashed with Trump’s own political and diplomatic goals.
The Gaza war placed enormous pressure on the United States. Images of devastation, mass civilian death, displacement and hunger created growing anger across the world. Arab and Muslim leaders were under pressure from their populations. European governments were under pressure. American Democrats were increasingly divided. Even some Republican-aligned voices began asking how long the war could continue without damaging U.S. interests.
In that environment, Trump had an incentive to push for a deal.
A Gaza agreement could give him a major diplomatic win. It could reduce pressure from Arab partners. It could help stabilise the region. It could allow him to claim that he ended a war that others could not stop.
But Netanyahu’s calculations were not identical.
For Netanyahu, ending the war or accepting a deal may have carried risks inside his own coalition. Far-right ministers had repeatedly pushed for harder positions, and Netanyahu’s political survival often depended on keeping them onside. That made every negotiation more complicated.
This is why the reported call matters.
It shows the difference between alliance and obedience.
Trump may support Israel publicly, but according to the book, he was still willing to pressure Netanyahu when Netanyahu’s position threatened Trump’s desired outcome. That does not make Trump a neutral peace broker. It does not erase U.S. support for Israel. But it does show that personal frustration can break through even the strongest political alignment when interests collide.
The reported wording also carries another layer of controversy because Trump allegedly referred to Jewish frustration with Netanyahu while speaking in front of Kushner and Witkoff. That kind of language is likely to draw heavy reaction, both because of the bluntness of the comment and because of how sensitive Jewish identity is inside U.S.-Israel politics.
It is also why the story needs careful handling.
Criticism of Netanyahu is not criticism of Jewish people.
Criticism of the Israeli government is not antisemitism.
And the reported frustration of Trump, Kushner or Witkoff with Netanyahu should not be twisted into a claim about Jewish communities more broadly.
The issue here is political leadership, not religion or identity.
Netanyahu is a prime minister. He is a political figure. He can be criticised like any other leader. The reported anger was aimed at his decisions, his conduct and his handling of the negotiations, according to the book account.
That distinction matters.
The most important part of this story is not the insult. It is the pressure behind it.
If the book is accurate, Trump believed Netanyahu was endangering a Gaza peace push at a critical moment. Kushner and Witkoff were reportedly frustrated as well. The U.S. side was trying to build a deal in a region already shaken by Gaza, Qatar, Iran, Lebanon and wider fears of escalation.
A single Israeli strike in Qatar had already changed the diplomatic atmosphere. It angered Arab mediators, raised questions about Israel’s willingness to respect negotiation channels, and forced the U.S. to manage the fallout while still trying to move a Gaza plan forward.
That is why Trump’s anger, if accurately reported, appears to have been about more than one phone call.
It was about control.
Who controlled the direction of the war?
Who controlled the peace process?
Who controlled the timing of a deal?
And who would pay the political price if the negotiations collapsed?
Trump wanted a victory. Netanyahu wanted room to manoeuvre. Arab mediators wanted the war stopped. Palestinians in Gaza wanted survival. Israeli hostage families wanted their loved ones home. And the wider region wanted to avoid another escalation.
That is the pressure cooker this reported exchange came from.
The book’s claims also remind the public that diplomatic relationships are often very different behind closed doors. Leaders smile at press conferences, praise each other in public and claim unity for the cameras. But private conversations can be far more aggressive, especially when war, hostages, civilian deaths and political survival are all on the table.
For Netanyahu, the reported call is damaging because it suggests he was being pressured hard by Trump at a moment when he was publicly presenting himself as a leader standing firm. For Trump, the account is also revealing because it shows how quickly his loyalty to an ally can turn into anger when that ally gets in the way of his own dealmaking narrative.
That is the real political lesson.
Trump’s support for Israel has always been tied to Trump’s own interests. If backing Netanyahu helps Trump look strong, he will do it. If pressuring Netanyahu helps Trump claim a peace deal, he may do that too. The relationship is not only ideological. It is transactional.
And Netanyahu knows that better than anyone.
The Gaza war exposed the limits of public slogans. “Standing with Israel” sounds simple at a rally. Ending a war is not simple. Negotiating hostages is not simple. Managing Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, Hamas, Israel, Arab states and U.S. domestic politics is not simple. The moment those pressures collided, even Trump and Netanyahu reportedly clashed.
That is why this story deserves attention.
It is not just gossip from a private phone call.
It is a glimpse into how fragile the Gaza negotiations may have been, how angry the U.S. side reportedly became, and how strained the Trump-Netanyahu relationship may have been beneath the public performance of loyalty.
Because if the book’s account is accurate, the message behind closed doors was very different from the one shown in public.
Trump was not simply praising Netanyahu.
He was reportedly warning him.
He was reportedly furious with him.
And he was reportedly telling him that even some of his strongest supporters had run out of patience.
That is a major claim.
And it adds another layer to the story of how the Gaza peace push unfolded: not as a smooth alliance between Washington and Tel Aviv, but as a tense, pressured and volatile negotiation where even close allies were turning on each other behind closed doors.