""DON'T FEED THE BEAST": Jessica Tarlov Reveals How She Handles Trump's Attacks On Fox News!"
Jessica Tarlov Says Fox Backing and a 'Don’t Feed the Beast' Approach Help Her Handle Trump’s Attacks
The liberal Fox News commentator says she does not expect President Donald Trump’s repeated public criticism to cost her job, arguing that network leadership understands her role on The Five and that escalating every confrontation would only give the dispute more attention.
Jessica Tarlov has become one of the most visible liberal commentators on Fox News, a position that regularly places her in direct disagreement with both her conservative co-hosts and President Donald Trump. In a new interview, Tarlov said she does not believe Trump’s repeated public attacks threaten her position at the network — and described a deliberate preference for not amplifying every confrontation.
Tarlov, a former Democratic pollster and strategist, serves as one of the rotating liberal co-hosts on Fox News’ afternoon panel show The Five. The role puts her opposite conservative personalities including Jesse Watters, Greg Gutfeld, Dana Perino and, beginning in September, Emily Compagno.
Her place on the program has made her a recurring target of Trump’s social-media criticism. On April 6, Trump publicly urged Fox executives to take Tarlov off the air, attacking her commentary and telling the network that viewers did not want to watch her. He renewed his criticism later that month after she discussed his polling numbers on The Five.
Those attacks were not isolated. Trump has repeatedly criticized Tarlov’s voice, appearance, political analysis and presence on the show. But Fox has continued to feature her, and Tarlov said in a September interview with The Guardian that she had recently signed a new deal with the network.
That contract renewal is an important piece of context. It does not mean the network agrees with Tarlov’s political views, nor does it establish how Fox would respond to every future controversy. But it does show that, after repeated public demands from Trump that she be removed, Fox chose to keep Tarlov as part of its on-air lineup.
Fox News has separately continued to identify Tarlov as one of the rotating liberal co-hosts of The Five. In an August announcement naming Emily Compagno as a permanent co-host, the network said Compagno would join Watters, Gutfeld and Perino alongside rotating liberal hosts Tarlov and Harold Ford Jr.
Asked whether Trump’s attacks make her worry about her standing at Fox, Tarlov said no. She said Fox News chief executive Suzanne Scott and other senior leaders know what she does on the program and want her to continue doing it. Her view is that Trump’s criticism does not automatically translate into a personnel decision by the network.
Tarlov also said she has never personally spoken with Trump. That makes her interpretation of his motives just that — her interpretation — but she said she does not believe a Truth Social post demanding her removal necessarily means Trump expects Fox to fire her.
Instead, she described a low-escalation response. When asked whether colleagues who have relationships with Trump should intervene on her behalf, Tarlov said the general feeling is that “if you feed the beast, it gets worse.” In other words, answering every attack can turn a passing dispute into a larger and more durable media story.
That phrase has become the most memorable shorthand for her approach, but it should not be overstated. Tarlov was describing how she and colleagues think about reacting to Trump’s criticism; she was not announcing a formal Fox News policy for dealing with the president.
Tarlov said she does not need co-workers to publicly defend her every time Trump attacks. She emphasized that she understands her own relationship with the network’s leadership and the separate relationships some Fox personalities have with Trump. Her conclusion was that she could absorb the criticism without turning it into a larger confrontation.
She summed up that attitude by saying her skin is “thick enough” for the position she has been given. That reflects the unusual structure of her job: she is expected to defend liberal or Democratic arguments on a program whose other regular voices are predominantly conservative.
One former colleague has apparently defended her directly. Tarlov said former The Five co-host Jeanine Pirro had told Trump something roughly to the effect that Tarlov was “great.” Pirro left the program after becoming U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.
Tarlov’s broader point was that such interventions are not necessary for her to remain confident in her role. She said she knows who she is, understands her relationship with Fox management and does not want colleagues turning every presidential attack into a personal campaign on her behalf.
The dynamic is complicated by the fact that disagreement is not an accidental feature of The Five — it is one of the program’s central formats. Fox structures the show around political and cultural debate, with a rotating liberal voice placed alongside conservative co-hosts.
Tarlov argues that viewers respond not only to the disagreements but also to the personal relationships among the panelists. She has described her on-air relationship with Jesse Watters as having a sibling-like quality and said audiences often tell her they enjoy the pointed exchanges among hosts who plainly disagree.
Fox’s own audience data helps explain why that formula matters to the network. In its August announcement about The Five, Fox said the program remained the highest-rated show in cable news during the second quarter of 2026 and also attracted Democratic and independent viewers. That makes ideological contrast part of the program’s commercial identity, not merely an internal political dispute.
Tarlov has said she sees value in speaking to an audience that may not agree with her. Rather than appearing only in a media environment dominated by like-minded commentators, she has argued that being outnumbered forces her to sharpen her arguments and exposes viewers to a perspective they may not otherwise seek out.
That idea is also central to her new book, I Disagree: Winning Arguments Without Losing Friends, released by Random House on September 15. The publisher describes the book as a guide to staying committed to one’s values while communicating across political and social divisions.
The book draws heavily on Tarlov’s experience debating people with whom she disagrees. Its core premise is not that political conflict can be eliminated, but that disagreement can be handled without automatically ending relationships or treating the other side as beyond conversation.
Tarlov reinforced that theme in a Fox News essay published the day before the book’s release. In the piece, she wrote about occasions when she changed her mind after previously defending a position, including aspects of pandemic-era policy and the early reporting around actor Jussie Smollett.
Her stated lesson was that admitting error is a prerequisite for more productive debate. She connected that argument to research on motivated reasoning — the tendency to screen out information that threatens beliefs people already hold — and used the idea to explain why political arguments so often become personal.
That philosophy aligns closely with the way she describes her working relationships on The Five. Tarlov does not claim that she and her co-hosts agree more than viewers realize. Rather, she argues that they can have genuine ideological conflict while still maintaining working and personal relationships.
The same logic helps explain why she says she does not want Trump’s attacks to define her job. From her perspective, responding to every insult would allow the president’s criticism to become the organizing fact of her role at Fox, rather than the arguments she makes on the air.
Trump, for his part, has made clear that he strongly objects to Tarlov’s commentary and has repeatedly urged Fox to remove her. His statements are public and documented. What is equally documented is that Fox has continued to employ her and has publicly listed her as part of The Five’s rotating liberal seat.
That does not make the relationship between Trump and Fox simple. The president frequently praises some Fox personalities while attacking others, and his criticism of coverage by media outlets — including outlets whose audiences are politically sympathetic to him — has been a recurring feature of his public communications.
Tarlov’s case is therefore less a story about whether the criticism exists than about what happens after it. So far, Trump’s demands have not resulted in her removal from Fox, and her recent contract renewal indicates the network expects her to remain part of its programming.
Her comments also offer a more precise version of the “don’t feed the beast” idea than the slogan alone suggests. She is not saying criticism should never be answered. She is saying that some attacks can become more powerful when the target, colleagues and network repeatedly amplify them.
For Tarlov, the response is to rely on her relationship with Fox management, continue arguing her position on the air and avoid treating every social-media broadside as a career emergency. Her strategy is essentially institutional confidence combined with selective engagement.
That approach is consistent with the message behind I Disagree: political conflict does not have to disappear before people can continue working, talking or maintaining relationships. On The Five, that principle is tested on national television almost every weekday.
For now, the clearest facts are straightforward. Trump has repeatedly criticized Tarlov and has publicly called for Fox to take her off the air. Fox has kept her on the network, Tarlov says she has signed a new deal, and she does not believe escalating every attack would improve her situation.
Whether viewers see her as an effective counterweight, an aggravating presence or simply part of the show’s format is a matter of opinion. But Tarlov’s own explanation of how she handles the pressure is less dramatic than the conflict around her: know where you stand, trust the people who employ you, and do not give every provocation more attention than it already has.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
