‘The Five’ Calls Out Democrats for ‘Smearing’ Trump Supporters – Why This Debate Still Rages

It’s a scene familiar to millions of Americans: Five co-hosts gather around a table on Fox News’ “The Five,” hashing out the topics dividing the nation. But this week’s episode struck a particular chord, as the panel turned its attention to what they say is a growing and dangerous trend—Democrats painting all Trump supporters with the same, ugly brush.

Are critics right that the rhetoric about “MAGA extremists” and “threats to democracy” has gone too far? Is the Democratic Party alienating Americans with broad labels and overheated accusations? Or is this backlash simply partisan noise, drowning out genuine concern about political violence and extremism? Here’s why this controversy matters—and why the debate continues to rage.

The Accusation: Are Democrats ‘Smearing’ Trump Supporters?

In the aftermath of the 2016 election—and especially after the January 6th, 2021, Capitol riot—many Democratic leaders have frequently referenced the dangers of so-called “MAGA Republicans.” In campaign speeches and interviews, President Biden and other Democrats have warned about “threats to democracy” and linked Donald Trump’s most fervent supporters to those who disregard election results or endorse political violence.

But on “The Five,” co-hosts like Greg Gutfeld, Jesse Watters, and Judge Jeanine Pirro say this rhetoric goes too far. They argue Democrats aren’t just criticizing Trump, but unfairly smearing all of his voters—labeling 74 million Americans as extremists, racists, or “enemies within.”

Watters put it bluntly: “You’ve got people who are just voting their conscience, frustrated with the system, and suddenly they’re being told they’re dangerous to America simply because they support Trump.”

Rhetoric and Real Consequences

“The Five” panelists warn that the widespread use of charged language has consequences well beyond cable news. They cite examples like Hillary Clinton’s infamous “basket of deplorables” comment—a phrase that, years later, still stings for many Trump voters. To them, it wasn’t just a political jab; it was a sign that elites disdain regular Americans.

Dana Perino notes, “When political leaders double down on this kind of talk, it tells half the country they’re not worth engaging—that their perspectives don’t matter. That’s not how you win hearts and minds, or bring people to your side.”

The panel also points out that such smears can backfire, creating a cycle of resentment and further polarization. Nina Turner, a Democrat and frequent guest on political shows, has said that painting with too broad a brush only strengthens the resolve of supporters on the other side—turning political opponents into lifelong enemies.

Rebuttal: Fears of Extremism Are Not Imaginary

Of course, there’s another side to the debate. Many Democrats and left-leaning commentators insist that the Republican Party has changed dramatically under Trump, and that concerns about extremism, conspiracy theories, and threats to democratic norms are justified by real events—like the attack on the Capitol and threats to election workers.

They argue that stating “not all Trump supporters are extremists” is true, but there’s a genuine problem with how some voices in the GOP have enabled, tolerated, or amplified dangerous rhetoric. They insist that holding leaders and movements accountable isn’t smearing ordinary voters—it’s a necessary defense of democracy.

Yet, as Juan Williams (the lone liberal on “The Five”) sometimes points out, there’s a risk in painting with too broad a brush. Nuance is lost amid the outrage, and legitimate debates about policy or values are drowned out by accusations and mistrust.

Why the Labeling Hurts Democracy

The debate over political labels isn’t just about feelings; it has real-world impacts. “The Five’s” panel points to polling showing that trust in government and each other is at historic lows. When huge groups of Americans are written off as hopeless or hateful, it erodes any hope for future consensus.

It also provides cover for extremists on all sides. If people believe they’re despised or have nothing in common with their fellow citizens, they’re less likely to engage in good-faith debate—and more likely to embrace echo chambers or conspiracy theories.

Greg Gutfeld summed up the sentiment: “When you label everyone who disagrees with you as a villain, you’ve left no room for persuasion. That’s toxic to any democracy.”

Is There a Better Way Forward?

Despite the sound and fury, some voices—on “The Five” and beyond—see a path out of this mess. Co-host Jessica Tarlov, for example, often stresses the importance of separating genuine concerns about extremism from blanket condemnation of an entire group. That means calling out dangerous rhetoric or violence wherever it appears, but also recognizing that most voters, left or right, simply want a better future for their families.

Others suggest more face-to-face dialogue, less reliance on social media outrage, and a renewed respect for the complexity of American communities.

The Bottom Line

In the end, the charges of “smearing” Trump supporters may never go away—not as long as national politics remain a winner-take-all clash of identities and grievances. But as “The Five” demonstrates, it’s possible—and necessary—to keep calling out toxic rhetoric, from both sides.

The show reminds us that beneath the labels, there are real people, with real hopes, worries, and reasons for voting the way they do. If American democracy is going to survive, that’s the truth we can’t afford to forget—even amid the noisiest controversies.

So, as the debate continues, maybe the best advice is simple: Less smearing, more listening. In a country as divided as ours, that’s not just good manners—it’s the only way back from the brink.