Minnesota Republicans Propose Bill to Recognize ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ as a Mental Illness
Definition and Context
Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) refers to a pejorative term used to describe extreme reactions, particularly negative ones, towards president Donald Trump. Critics argue that these reactions lack rationality and do not align with Trump’s actual policy positions. The term has been predominantly employed by Trump’s supporters to delegitimize opposition, suggesting that critics are incapable of perceiving reality accurately. Some studies, however, indicate that TDS may not be a recognized phenomenon among Trump detractors, instead pointing to biases among his supporters.
Origin of the Term
The term was coined by Charles Krauthammer, who initially used “Bush derangement syndrome” to describe extreme reactions to President George W. Bush’s policies. The first documented use of TDS appeared in an op-ed by Esther Goldberg in 2015, where she applied it to critics of Trump.
Recent Legislative Actions
In March 2025, Minnesota Senate Republicans proposed a bill to classify TDS as a mental illness. The bill defines TDS as “acute onset of paranoia” regarding Trump’s presidency and policies, suggesting symptoms include verbal hostility and aggressive behaviors towards Trump and his supporters. This proposal has sparked significant debate regarding the politicization of mental health diagnoses and the implications for political discourse.
Image courtesy of Newsweek
Implications for Mental Health
The proposed classification of TDS raises concerns among mental health professionals and civil rights groups. Experts argue that political opinions and emotional reactions should not be categorized as mental health disorders. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warns that such legislation could lead to the suppression of dissent and the misapplication of mental health terminology for political ends.
Public and Political Responses
Reactions to the TDS bill have varied widely. Some view it as a political stunt, while others see it as an attempt to silence opposition. Prominent figures, including psychologists, have criticized the bill as unscientific and detrimental to genuine mental health discussions. The bill’s proponents argue that it addresses a real phenomenon affecting political discourse.
The ongoing discussions and proposed legislation surrounding Trump derangement syndrome reflect the increasing polarization of American politics. This situation underscores the necessity for clear distinctions between political discourse and mental health diagnoses.
