This week, a user on social media voiced a growing frustration with a single tweet: “@CollinRugg Why do they keep putting this irrational politician in my feed???” This outburst highlights a wider problem in American politics—an increasing tendency to label public figures as mentally unfit rather than just misguided. The phrase “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS) has become a popular tool to dismiss critics of former President Donald Trump as irrational.
TDS emerged in 2017, echoing a similar term, “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” which criticized opponents of George W. Bush. This type of rhetorical jab isn’t new; it has surfaced in various forms throughout political history. However, TDS gained traction particularly because it encapsulates the current polarization of political discourse and how social media amplifies this divide.
Supporters of Trump often use TDS to assert that his critics are so consumed by their dislike for him that they lose touch with reality. “Supporters of Donald Trump coined it as a rhetorical jab, claiming critics are so blinded by dislike that they can’t perceive reality,” states The Therapy Group of DC, a clinic that addresses issues related to political stress. This phrase serves as a quick dismissal, diverting attention from important issues of policy and governance.
Mental health experts warn against the dangers of using psychiatric language in politics. “Branding someone ‘deranged’ shifts the conversation from policy to sanity, shutting down dialogue instead of engaging it,” said a therapist who contributed to discussions on this topic. These labels do more than hinder meaningful debate; they also affect real individuals grappling with mental health challenges exacerbated by political strife.
Research illustrates the extent of political stress in modern America. According to the American Psychological Association (APA), over 60% of Americans identified the nation’s future as a significant source of stress, citing political division as a top concern. Chronic stress manifests in sleepless nights, heightened irritability, and strained relationships. In this context, the use of TDS adds layers of misunderstanding and stigma around legitimate mental health issues.
Some therapists address this new form of anxiety using established psychological concepts, such as social identity fusion and confirmation bias. These terms describe how individuals can conflate their political beliefs with their personal identities, leading to emotional distress when faced with opposing views. Such blending converts political discourse from a rational exchange of ideas into an emotional battleground.
The fallout from this kind of intense political engagement is significant. Reports of families severing ties, friendships ending, and even individuals resigning due to political tensions are increasingly common, especially regarding Trump’s name. This pattern, however, is not exclusive to one political faction; similar emotional reactions occurred during the presidencies of Obama and Bush, albeit with less intensity than that observed under Trump.
A notable example occurred in Minnesota, where some legislators sought to classify TDS as a legitimate mental disorder. Their attempt met skepticism from medical professionals who argued that the term lacks scientific grounding and could perpetuate stigma against those living with genuine psychological challenges.
As political stress becomes more recognized, mental health facilities like The Therapy Group in D.C. have begun to offer programs specifically aimed at helping individuals cope. Using techniques such as cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness exercises, these practices provide outlets for managing political anxiety. Strikingly, political topics accounted for nearly 30% of therapeutic casework from 2020 to 2024, highlighting the seriousness of this emerging issue.
Media exposure remains a crucial factor amplifying emotional responses to politics. The relentless flow of news and opinion pieces, exacerbated by the algorithms of social media, keeps political figures constantly in the public eye, often nudging individuals toward extreme emotional reactions. The very tweet expressing bewilderment over seeing “this irrational politician” repeatedly emphasizes the frustrations rooted in this perpetual media cycle.
This environment prioritizes outrage rather than reasoning. Social media algorithms, which assess engagement rather than truthfulness, ensure that once someone interacts with a political post, additional content follows, reinforcing emotional responses and biases. This mechanism operates across the political spectrum, showcasing the dual nature of polarization.
While the term “TDS” may appear humorous or clever, its consequences extend far beyond banter. Psychologists warn, “When politics becomes personal religion, insults cut like sacrilege.” In this sense, argumentation transforms from mere disagreement to a personal affront. The perpetual outrage perpetuated by social media exacerbates this cultural divide, impacting emotional health and public discourse alike.
Further compounding the problem are younger generations, who are building their political identities amid this tumultuous climate. Evidence shows Gen Z and younger millennials endure higher levels of political stress than older cohorts, despite their consumption of political content. This demographic is particularly vulnerable to the ramifications of heightened political discourse, prompting discussions in academic circles about integrating “political literacy” into the curriculum.
Ultimately, the phrase “Trump Derangement Syndrome” reflects less about Trump himself and more about the fissures within American society. It acts as a mirror that reveals how deeply divided the nation has become. Whether wielded to deride opponents or silence critics, using TDS serves to undermine trust and escalate political anxiety. It may elicit laughter on cable news, but its effects—fewer friends, increased anxiety, and a diminished capacity for honest debate—are far from trivial.
That social media user asking why “this irrational politician” keeps popping up isn’t isolated in their sentiment. Their tweet encapsulates a broader national exhaustion, caught up in emotional skirmishes over political allegiance, often without an escape route. Experts suggest taking breaks from heated discussions and focusing on fostering understanding rather than conflict. A simpler approach could aid in preserving mental health amidst an increasingly charged political landscape.
"*" indicates required fields
