Tag: Trump Derangement Syndrome

The Dangers of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)

The phenomenon known as Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) has established a pattern of behavior and language applied by the political opposition of President Donald Trump.  That outrage arises from ignoring facts or context, leveling unfair criticism, and engaging in melodramatic emotion, wherein calm reasoning is abandoned.

Introduction:  Extreme Rhetoric

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) has fostered an atmosphere in which contemporary political rhetoric and public discourse operate as fallacious argumentation, in which every statement or action becomes distorted and weaponized. 

Political disagreement does not employ discussion, analysis, and explanation regarding policy differences but instead, it operates on disgust and indignation that the opponent even holds differing views.

TDS is often manifested in Trump’s opponents through ad hominem attacks, in which personal slander takes the place of logical argument—substituting name-calling and character assassination for substantive argument.  

Trump has been called a Russian puppet, sexual predator, dictator, threat to democracy, racist, white supremacist, convicted felon, traitor, insurrectionist, clown, idiot, nazi, fascist, and the pièce de résistance—Hitler.  

Even obvious joking sarcasm when spouted by Trump becomes fodder for re-interpretation and bad-faith reporting. For example, during the presidential election campaign of 2016, when Trump facetiously called on Russia/Putin to find Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 deleted emails, the following exemplary headline appeared on PBSNews :“Trump asked Russia to find Clinton’s emails. On or around the same day, Russians targeted her accounts,” suggesting that Trump was asking a foreign government to interfere in the election campaign.

In addition to ad hominem attacks, immediate condemnation of any policy issuing out of the Trump administration results in reasoning and careful inquiry being abandoned [1], resulting in the use of the most extreme, heated language.

However, Trump himself is not the only target of this invective; all of those terms and others are applied to his supporters:  during the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton called them “deplorables,” and during the 2024 campaign, Joe Biden called them “garbage.”  Those who oppose Trump, his administration, and his supporters are not simply critical of them; they are obsessed them.

A dangerous mixture of outrage, exaggeration, and hypocrisy involved in attacking Trump has caused TDS sufferers to lack the ability to think clearly about issues.  Any idea suggested by Trump is immediately railed against simply because it was suggested by Trump.

The Origin of Trump Derangement Syndrome

The phrase “Trump Derangement Syndrome” did not originate as a clinical diagnosis, although its predecessor “Bush Derangement Syndrome” was coined by the psychiatrist and political analyst Charles Krauthammer, who observed that extreme, irrational reactions to President George W. Bush often went far beyond substantive policy disagreement.

Krauthammer used the term to highlight how emotional fixation and hostility replaced reasoned analysis and proportional criticism. The revival of this concept during Donald Trump’s presidency reflects the same phenomenon, magnified by social media, a 24-hour news cycle, and an increasingly polarized political culture [2].

The Dangers 

However much words do matter, Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is more than rhetorical excess; it has real consequences that harm individuals, families, public institutions, and the broader political environment. The following examples illustrate how hyper-emotional fixation on Donald Trump—when divorced from clear reasoning and grounded fact—creates verifiable and dangerous effects on American society:

Escalation to Political Violence

The starkest danger of TDS is that it fuels political violence rather than dissent through words. During the 2024 campaign, Donald Trump survived at least two assassination attempts motivated by political hatred and extremism.

The first happened at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, [3] when a gunman shot at Trump, wounding him on his right ear.  The gunman killed Corey Comperatore, a rally attendee and former fire chief, who took a bullet protecting his family.   The gunman also wounded several other people before being killed by Secret Service.

A second assassination attempt was thwarted by authorities at Trump’s golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida [4].  This perpetrator was arrested, stood trial, and was found guilty of the assassination attempt; he awaits sentencing on February 4, 2026.

Another unmistakable instance of politically motivated violence occurred on September 10, 2025, when Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was fatally shot during a public event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. While speaking at an outdoor gathering, Kirk was struck in the neck by a single bullet fired from a distance, an attack that Utah officials and others characterized as a political assassination [5].

These incidents demonstrate how obsessive political animus can translate into lethal intent, transforming rhetoric into action and endangering not only public figures but bystanders, law enforcement, and the democratic process itself.

Political Polarization Breaking Family Bonds

TDS has also deeply strained familial relationships. In too many households across the country, deep political disagreements have resulted in personal and familial estrangement.  A Time magazine feature documented families [6] who stopped speaking entirely during the Trump years, including one case in which a woman was uninvited from Thanksgiving and later cut off from close relatives solely because of her political views related to Donald Trump. 

What had once remained ordinary disagreement has hardened into moral condemnation, with ideological choice being prioritized over blood relations. This dynamic tarnishes one of our most cherished and fundamental social units—the family—leaving emotional scars that persist long after the election cycle has passed.

Exploitation of Tragedy for Political Weaponization

Another disturbing example of how TDS has distorted reactions to violent events is evident in public opinion data following the July 2024 assassination attempt on Donald Trump. 

In a snap poll conducted shortly after the attack, roughly one‑third of Democrat voters agreed with the statement “I wish Trump’s assassin hadn’t missed”[7]. That such a large proportion of the opposition political party actively wished that an opponent had been killed should place a huge red flag on the issue. 

Such sentiments reflect a deeply disturbing willingness to engage in the ultimate violence in addressing political differences. This response illustrates how TDS can override basic empathy and moral restraint, further polarizing discourse and normalizing violent attitudes toward political opponents.

Rejection of Policy on Source Alone

TDS sufferers without thinking oppose any policy regardless of merit simply because it comes from Trump. During his presidency, Trump championed criminal justice reform through the First Step Act, a bipartisan measure that reduced sentences for nonviolent offenders and earned praise from figures like Van Jones [8]. Yet many on of his top opponents dismissed it outright, calling it a sham despite its tangible results in releasing thousands from prison.

Even as they voted for the bill, these congressional member expressed negative criticism of it as too limited, exclusionary, narrow: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

This knee-jerk rejection ignores benefits to real people—mostly minorities—and poisons the well for future bipartisan efforts. The danger lies in discarding proven solutions, leaving societal problems festering while politics trumps progress.

Lawfare Weaponization against Citizens

Mainstream media outlets and Democrat officials, gripped by TDS, have pursued “lawfare” against ordinary Trump supporters, turning legal processes into political retribution.   

After the January 6 riot, Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Justice Department charged hundreds of nonviolent participants—parents, grandparents, workers, small business owners, some individuals who were not even present at the capitol—with felonies carrying decades in prison, while ignoring similar or worse rioting by groups such as Antifa and BLM [9] .

This selective prosecution creates two tiers of justice: one for Trump opponents who face lenient treatment, another for his supporters treated as domestic terrorists. The danger lies in weaponizing the rule of law itself, eroding equal protection under the Constitution and fostering a climate where citizens fear political expression. 

Families lose breadwinners to draconian sentences, communities fracture, and trust in impartial justice evaporates—leaving Americans vulnerable to future authoritarian overreach from any side that may promise a return to fairness under the law [10].

Economic Self-Sabotage through Hysteria

TDS has led opponents to sabotage policies that later prove beneficial [11], harming the economy they claim to champion. Tariffs on China, derided as reckless by TDS critics, pressured Beijing into trade concessions that revitalized American manufacturing jobs in key states. Critics who railed against them without nuance prolonged economic pain for workers.

By prioritizing anti-Trump animus over pragmatic assessment, this mind-set risks national prosperity. It endangers livelihoods when ideology blinds leaders to data-driven gains.

Suppression of Free Speech on Campuses

Universities, which formerly boasted their positions as bastions of open inquiry, have seen TDS manifest as censorship of Trump-related views [12]. Professors and students expressing support for Trump’s policies face shouting-downs, doxxing, low grades, or job threats, as seen in cases at Yale and NYU ,where conservative speakers were mobbed or disinvited.

This kind of unfair discrimination chills intellectual diversity, turning campuses into echo chambers. The danger is profound: it trains a generation to equate disagreement with moral failing, undermining the reasoned debate essential for maintaining a free society.

Foreign Policy Paralysis

TDS hampers coherent foreign policy by fixating on Trump over real threats facing the United States and other nations.  While Trump brokered the Abraham Accords [13] normalizing Israel-Arab ties—hailed as historic by many—his opposition fixated on and imaginary “divisiveness,” denigrating and downplaying the breakthrough.

One might recall that the phrase “Abraham Accords” ran noticeably missing during the Biden administration’s four years.   Instead of trying to build on the success of those Accords, the Biden administration essentially ignored them, and instead proceeded to cozy up to Iran just as President Barack Obama had done.

So it remains obvious that “The reason for the administration’s hostility to the Abraham Accords goes beyond jealousy or the desire to deny credit to a hated predecessor” [14]. The Biden administration’s reaction to the Abraham Accords demonstrates another blatant example of TDS causing its sufferer to bite off its nose to spite its face.   World peace be damned, if Donald Trump has anything to do with it! (my emphasis added)

Such tunnel vision weakens America’s global stance. It allows adversaries like Iran to exploit divisions, endangering allies and U.S. interests when personal hatred eclipses strategic thinking.

Workplace Discrimination against Supporters

TDS has infiltrated some workplaces, where Trump voters have faced bias in hiring or promotions. Recent surveys indicate some hiring managers admit to bias against Trump supporters in hiring and promotions. Reports highlight concerns over social media scrutiny for political views, especially in tech sectors after the 2024 election.

A ResumeBuilder.com poll of over 750 U.S. managers found 1 in 6 less likely to hire Trump supporters, citing poor judgment (76%), lack of empathy (67%), or workplace tension risks (59%) [15].  One in 8 managers are less likely to promote such employees, with similar rationales; some even encourage quits.

Managers often check social media indirectly, as direct bias questions are avoided, amplifying unaddressed discrimination [16].  Post-2024 election, tech firms like Google and Meta tightened internal policies to curb activism, removing political posts and limiting discussions on elections or related symbols.

While no widespread firings for Trump support are documented in these sources, the surveys flag a “concerning trend” of political bias akin to other protected categories, urging HR to enforce objective evaluations.  Broader DEI rollbacks under Trump policies (e.g., executive orders in 2025) shifted focus to merit, but hiring biases persist in certain areas.

Cultural Institutions Alienating Half the Nation

Hollywood and elite culture, steeped in TDS, produce content that vilifies Trump supporters as rubes or villains, deepening cultural rifts [17].  Films and shows routinely caricature “MAGA” hats as symbols for bigotry, alienating millions of viewers.   This breeds mutual contempt, fracturing national cohesion. When culture wars replace dialogue, shared identity unravels, leaving society brittle and weakened against common challenges.

Tom Hanks played a Trump supporter named Doug on SNL’s “Black Jeopardy” during the 50th anniversary special in February 2025. The character wore a MAGA hat and an American flag shirt, hesitating to shake a black host’s hand, while speaking with a Southern drawl. Critics called it a racist caricature amid Trump’s growing support with black Americans.

In Bong Joon-ho’s “Mickey 17” (2025), a Trump-like politician rallies crowds with “First we survive! Then we thrive!” slogans. Supporters wear red hats, and the figure obsesses over image in a gaudy setup, reducing women to breeders. Even some Reddit users [18] noted it as Hollywood propaganda tying MAGA visuals to bigotry.

These depictions use MAGA hats as symbolic icons for backwardness or hate, alienating everyday Americans. Commentary points to “Trump Derangement Syndrome” in elite content driving rifts between supporters of Trump and his opposition.

Hypocrisy and TDS

One of the clearest markers of Trump Derangement Syndrome is not merely excess emotion, but selective memory—an amnesia that conveniently erases facts that negate the preferred narrative. This hypocrisy is especially evident when examining Donald Trump’s public reputation prior to his decision to run for president as a Republican.  That distinction matters:  does anyone really believe that if Trump had run for president as a Democrat, he would have received the same level of sustained media hostility and moral outrage, or would his celebrity excesses have been reframed as colorful flaws rather than disqualifying sins?

Before entering politics, Trump was not widely regarded as a pariah or an existential threat to democracy. On the contrary, he was a mainstream celebrity, a frequent guest on talk shows, a fixture in popular culture, and a recognizable brand associated with success and entertainment. 

His television program The Apprentice was a major hit [19], running for fourteen seasons and drawing millions of viewers weekly. Trump was welcomed in elite social circles, praised by entertainers, courted by politicians, and treated as a cultural icon rather than a moral monster.

That history poses an uncomfortable question for TDS sufferers: if Trump was allegedly a racist, fascist, authoritarian, or “Hitler” all along, why was he celebrated so enthusiastically for decades [20]? The answer is obvious but rarely admitted—Trump became unacceptable only after he challenged the status quo of entrenched political power.

This hypocrisy is further illustrated by the now‑forgotten fact that Oprah Winfrey [21], one of the most influential cultural figures in America, once raised the prospect of a Trump presidential run on her nationally syndicated show. In a 1988 interview, Winfrey openly entertained the idea by asking Trump whether he would run for president, a notion that drew no negative response from the audience.

At the time, such a notion was not treated as dangerous or absurd, but as intriguing. No cries of impending dictatorship followed. No accusations of fascism emerged. The man has not changed; the political context has.

Similarly revealing is the selective outrage surrounding immigration enforcement. Tom Homan, who later became a senior immigration official under Trump, previously served in the Obama administration [22], where he oversaw large-scale deportations of illegal immigrants. 

Under President Obama, deportations reached record levels, earning Obama the nickname “Deporter in Chief” among immigration activists. Yet Homan’s actions under Obama attracted no media hysteria and no moral condemnation.

Once those same policies—and in many cases, the same personnel—were associated with Donald Trump, they were suddenly recast as evidence of cruelty, racism, and authoritarianism [23]. The policy substance remained largely unchanged; only the political association shifted. This double standard exposes the core of TDS: opposition not to ideas or actions, but to the individual himself.

Such contradictions reveal that Trump Derangement Syndrome is propagated not by principle but by animosity. It is not driven by consistent moral reasoning, but by prejudicial hostility that rewrites history to justify present outrage. 

When yesterday’s admired celebrity becomes today’s Hitlerian villain, yesterday’s lawful deportations become today’s unconstitutional atrocities, and yesterday’s encouragement becomes today’s horror, the problem is not Trump—it is the inability of his critics to apply standards with balance and proportion.

In this way, hypocrisy is not a side effect of TDS; it is one of its defining features.

Toward Official Recognition of TDS

Taken together, these examples demonstrate that Trump Derangement Syndrome is not a harmless turn of phrase or a bit of political snark; it is a corrosive mind-set with real-world, measurable consequences. 

When outrage replaces analysis, disagreement hardens into dehumanization, and fixation eclipses fact, the result is not merely bad manners but real harm—to families torn apart, to public trust in institutions, to free expression, and even to human life. 

The pattern remains consistent: an inability or refusal to separate Donald Trump the individual from objective evaluation of policies, principles, and people associated with him. In that environment, reason is not merely sidelined; it is treated with suspicion.

The growing recognition of this phenomenon has moved beyond commentary and into the realm of formal inquiry. The introduction of the Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) Research Act of 2025 by Representative Warren Davidson reflects an acknowledgment that the effects described here warrant serious examination rather than reflexive dismissal [24]. 

Whether one supports Trump or opposes him, a healthy republic depends on the ability to argue without hysteria, to criticize without hatred, and to reject violence, censorship, and collective punishment as political tools.

Ultimately, the danger of TDS lies in what it does to the culture of self-government. A nation cannot remain free if its citizens are trained to see political opponents as enemies to be destroyed rather than fellow Americans to be debated. Reclaiming proportion, restraint, and reason is not a concession to Donald Trump; it is a necessity for the survival of civil society itself.

Sources

[1] Jonathan Alpert. “I asked if Trump Derangement Syndrome is real: I got the death threats in reply proving it is.” New York Post.  December 2, 2025.

[2] Jennifer Graham.  “‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ has a back story worth remembering.” DeseretNews. November 19, 2025.

[3] Julia Terruso, et al. “Donald Trump ‘fine’ after gunfire erupts at Western Pa. rally; authorities say two, including apparent shooter, dead.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. July 13, 2024. 

[4] Alanna Durkin Richer, et al. “Trump was the subject of an apparent assassination attempt at his Florida golf club, the FBI says.” Associated Press. September 16, 2024.

[5] Filip Timotija. “What we know about the Charlie Kirk shooting.” The Hill. September 11, 2025.

[6] Joshua Coleman and Will Johnson. “How Estrangement Has Become an Epidemic in America.” Time.  Accessed January 26, 2026.

[7 Eric Kaufmann.  “Third of Democrats wish Donald Trump had been killed.”  Unheard.  July 21, 2024.

[8]  Justin George.  “Van Jones Answers His Critics”  The Marshall Project.  June 18, 2018.

[9] Jonathan Turley. “Congress’s Jan. 6 Investigation Looks Less and Less Credible.” Red Ipsa Loquitur. November 25, 2024 

[10]Editors. “Combatting a Dangerous Trend – “Lawfare.” Constitutional Coalition. September 8, 2024.

[11]  Jeff Ferry.  “Tariffs Have Strengthened the U.S. Economy.” Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA).  February 14, 2024.

[12] Greg Lukianoff. “Greg Lukianoff criticizes violence against campus speakers, cancel culture at Free Speech Week event.” OU Daily. Oct 23, 2024 Updated Oct 25, 2024

[13]  Curators. “Abraham Accords Peace Agreement.” U.S. Department of State.  Accessed January 27, 2026..

[14] Tony Badran.  “Biden Trashes the Abraham Accords.” Tablet. November 21, 2022.

[15]  Curators. “1 in 6 Managers Avoid Hiring Candidates Who Support Trump, Cite Poor Decision-Making Skills and Lack of Empathy.” Resume Builders. November 19, 2024.

[16] Tom Starner.  “Some hiring managers aren’t considering Trump supporters. What HR should do.”  HR Executive.  November 22, 2024.

[17] Christian Toto. “Which Star Has Worst Case of Trump Derangement Syndrome?” Hollywood in Toto (HiT). January 3, 2025.

[18] r/Film. “Was Mickey 17 supposed to be an obvious Trump parody?”  Reddit.  April 2025.

[19] Bill Carter. “‘The Apprentice’ Scores Ratings Near Top for the Season.” The New York Times. April 17, 2004.

[20] Glenn Greenwald [@ggreenwald]. “Maybe the ‘Trump-is-Hitler’ thing could work if Trump were unknown. But…. He’s been famous for 5 decades…” X, 24 Oct. 2024.

[21] Oprah Winfrey Interviews Donald Trump.. YouTube.

[22] Matt Margolis. “Barack Obama Doesn’t Want You To Know This About Trump’s Border Czar.” PJ Media. January 18, 2026.

[23] James Goodman.  “‘Sheer Cruelty, Racism, and Disregard’: Trump’s immigration policy is all about sowing fear and division.” National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR).  October 12, 2020

[24] Curators.  “Rep. Warren Davidson Introduces the Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) Research Act of 2025.”  Warren Davidson:  Serving Ohio’s 8th District.  May 15, 2025.