'Trump Derangement Syndrome' Jabs Keep Going Left — And It Shows A Specific Weakness
The concept of a so-called 'derangement syndrome' isn't new. The term had previously been used to label some opponents of former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama when they served in office. It's also been applied to critics of other prominent people. And Trump touted the so-called 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' phrase to attack his naysayers during his first term as president.
Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R), who served as the White House press secretary during Trump's first term, once said in 2018: 'Trump Derangement Syndrome is becoming a major epidemic among Democrats.'
In recent months, conservatives have often used the made-up condition as a line of attack against anyone who opposes the actions of the current administration, such as Trump's flurry of executive orders, the president's foreign policy approach and his sweeping tariffs, among other issues. During a Friday appearance on Fox News' 'Hannity,' Lara Trump, the president's daughter-in-law, said that several Democratic elected officials who were criticizing Trump's tariffs were living with 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.'
But her remarks went awry after a clip of her interview was shared on X, formerly Twitter. People pointed out that criticizing a president's policies is — and should be — considered a standard aspect of a healthy democracy, not a 'syndrome.'
'Not hard to oppose worldwide tariffs that are going to raise the prices on [goods] in the U.S.,' one X user wrote.
'Trump derangement syndrome is actually believing what he says, not being suspicious of it,' wrote another.
Similarly, several GOP Minnesota state senators were slammed for wasting taxpayer resources last month when they introduced a bill to have 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' recognized as an official form of mental illness in the state.
Minnesota state senate majority leader Erin Murphy, a Democrat, said at the time, per CBS Minnesota, that if the bill was 'meant as a joke, it is a waste of staff time and taxpayer resources that trivializes serious mental health issues.'
'If the authors are serious, it is an affront to free speech and an expression of a dangerous level of loyalty to an authoritarian president,' she said.
New York City psychiatrist Leon Hoffman warned in a letter published in The Guardian at the time that such a bill would infringe 'on our constitutional right to freely criticize our elected leaders and can serve as a stepping stone towards labeling and punishing political opponents under the guise of utilizing a variety of compulsory psychiatric interventions.'
The same day the bill was introduced, GOP Minnesota state senator Justin Eichorn — one of the bill's co-authors — was charged with soliciting a minor for prostitution. He has since resigned.
The bill had described the faux 'syndrome' as an 'acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal persons that is in reaction to the policies and presidencies of President Donald J. Trump.' Trump adviser Elon Musk — who was not elected to office by American voters but has proposed sweeping cuts to the federal government — publicly promoted this 'syndrome' during a sit-down interview with Fox News in February. The billionaire said he experienced this so-called condition while at a dinner party, where he said people around him were being 'irrational' with their concerns about Trump.
So, why do so many right-wingers level 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' attacks at the president's critics?
Jacob Neiheisel, associate professor of political science at the University at Buffalo College of Arts and Sciences, told HuffPost that he thinks the charges of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' are 'as much, if not more, about the person or persons leveling them than they are the intended targets of such rhetoric.'
'Labeling concerns about Trump or his policies 'TDS' provides individuals with a way to deal with disagreement such that they don't actually have to encounter or consider different points of view,' he said. 'Instead, they can simply write off others as having some form of mental illness.'
Neiheisel explained that saying someone who criticizes Trump's policies has 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' is a 'rhetorical tack' meant to 'shut down debate or discussion about the president.'
'But it could also be about protecting one's own worldview as much as it is about minimizing or attacking different perspectives,' he said.
Neiheisel, whose expertise includes political communication, campaigns and the U.S. presidency, said that while he doesn't exactly think the 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' label will be effective in silencing the concerns of Trump critics, he believes 'any orientation that is geared toward shutting down debate and minimizing the extent to which we see other sides as having a legitimate point of view is a negative from the perspective of the overall health of a democratic system.'
He said he's concerned that such labels could further push people supporting different political parties to 'give up entirely on the prospect of communicating across lines of difference.'
Neiheisel said that people who oppose the actions of the Trump administration should 'of course' speak out and reject the 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' label, since the way we use different labels in society is crucial.
He referenced debates about the labeling of the word 'liberal,' and how it had been disparaged by conservative politicians for decades.
'There is some speculation that Democrats' refusal to defend the word 'liberal' gave Republicans the opportunity to make it something of a dirty word,' he said. 'As a result, perhaps, 'liberal' is a lot less popular as a label in the general public than we might think it should be given the comparative popularity of liberal policies.'
He added: 'This narrative does suggest that political language is important and that political actors fight (or should fight) about the use of different labels.'
J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Has Grim Warning About Trump's Tariffs
Trump Threatens More Tariffs On China As Global Markets Plunge
How Republicans Could Stop Donald Trump's Tariffs
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
GOP senator on DC carjacking fears: ‘I don't buckle up'
Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) on Wednesday expressed his fear of being carjacked in the nation's capital, as the Trump administration ramps up its federal takeover of local law enforcement. 'And by the way, I'm not joking when I say this, I drive around in Washington, D.C., in my Jeep, and yes, I do drive myself, and I don't buckle up. And the reason why I don't buckle up, and people can say whatever they want to, they can raise their eyebrows at me again, is because of carjacking,' Mullin said during an appearance on Fox News's 'The Ingraham Angle.' 'I don't want to be stuck in my vehicle when I need to exit in a hurry, because I got a seatbelt around me and that — and I wear my seatbelt all the time,' he told host Brian Kilmeade, in a clip highlighted by Mediaite. 'But in Washington, D.C., I do not, because it is so prevalent of carjacking,' the Oklahoma Republican continued. 'And I don't want the same thing [to] happen to me what's happened to a lot of people that work on the hill.' President Trump announced earlier this week that his administration was taking control of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and deployed hundreds of National Guard soldiers to the area to combat crime and violence in the city. The move, sparked after a former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staffer was attacked by teenagers during a carjacking — has received heavy blowback from Democrats and local officials. A provision in Washington's ' Home Rule Act ' allows the president to federalize the police force for up to 30 days — but any additional time requires Congressional approval. During a speech Wednesday from the Kennedy Center, Trump said he will seek a 'long-term' extension. 'Well, if it's a national emergency, we can do it without Congress,' Trump said, when asked about whether he's talked to lawmakers about extending the takeover. He added that he expects meet with Congress 'very quickly' and snag GOP support. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) signaled in a post online Wednesday that he and fellow Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) were working with the Trump administration on a safety package for the district. 'Together, we will try to shepherd the DC Security Fund through Congress to give President Trump the resources he will need to improve the safety and quality of life in our nation's capital,' he wrote on social platform X. 'Every American should be behind this effort to make Washington, DC clean and safe so that it can truly become the shining city on the hill.' For such a move to advance, however, it would likely need support from some Senate Democrats. Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) made clear that his caucus would not back the measure. 'No f‑‑‑ing way,' he told podcast host Aaron Parnas. 'We'll fight him tooth and nail. … He needs to get Congress to approve it, and not only are we not going to approve it, but there are some Republicans who don't like either.' D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has also pushed back on Trump's moves, calling them an 'authoritarian push' as data shows the crime rate declining in the nation's capital. The mayor has also used the national attention as a platform to reup the district's quest to gain statehood.

USA Today
a few seconds ago
- USA Today
South Sudan denies talks with Israel to resettle Palestinians from Gaza
The Associated Press, citing six sources, reported Israel was holding discussions with South Sudan to resettle Palestinians from Gaza. NAIROBI − South Sudan is not in talks with Israel to resettle Palestinians from war-torn Gaza, South Sudan's foreign ministry said on August 13. The Associated Press, citing six people with knowledge of the matter, reported that Israel was holding discussions with South Sudan to resettle Palestinians from Gaza in the East African nation. "These claims are baseless and do not reflect the official position or policy of the Government of the Republic of South Sudan," South Sudan's foreign affairs ministry said in a statement. More: Hamas hostage videos silenced Israeli media's talk of Gaza aid crisis Israel's military has pounded Gaza City in recent days prior to its planned takeover of the shattered enclave which is home to more than 2 million Palestinians. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on aUGUST 13 reiterated a view − also enthusiastically floated by President Donald Trump − that Palestinians should simply leave Gaza. Many world leaders are horrified at the idea of displacing the Gaza population, which Palestinians say would be like another "Nakba" (catastrophe), when hundreds of thousands fled or were forced out during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. In March, Somalia and its breakaway region of Somaliland also denied receiving any proposal from the United States or Israel to resettle Palestinians from Gaza, with Mogadishu saying it categorically rejected any such move. South Sudan's Foreign Minister Monday Semaya Kumba visited Israel last month and met with Netanyahu, according to the foreign ministry in Juba. More: Israel approves plan to take control of Gaza City Last month South Sudan's government confirmed that eight migrants deported to the African nation by the Trump administration were currently in the care of the authorities in Juba after they lost a legal battle to halt their transfer. Since achieving independence from Sudan in 2011, South Sudan has spent nearly half its life at war and is currently in the grip of a political crisis, after President Salva Kiir's government ordered the arrest of Vice President Riek Machar in March.

Los Angeles Times
a few seconds ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: Secretary's willingness to tamper with past climate reports is dangerous
To the editor: U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright is intending to review and potentially alter the nation's next climate science report ('Energy secretary says Trump administration may alter past National Climate Assessments,' Aug. 7). He's already removed the climate assessments from the government websites. He has accused the previous reviews (even the ones made during the first Trump administration) as being 'politically biased.' Just wondering if Wright has actually looked outdoors recently or at least kept abreast of the weather reports. Has he not seen the spate of unprecedented tornadoes razing towns and communities? Or witnessed the deadly floods throughout the country? Or the wildfires from hell in the West? Or the unbearable heat waves hitting the Northeast? Or the approaching hurricanes that signal widespread death and destruction on the way? It is clear that Wright is on a leash, eager to do the bidding of his master — old 'Drill, Baby, Drill!' His stated intentions, as well as his removal of the climate assessments from years past from governmental websites, make him complicit in the disaster that is to come. Lanore Pearlman, Claremont ... To the editor: I see that Wright, previously the CEO of a company that did fracking, says that the government climate reports have been politically driven and are not accepted by 'a credible economist or scientist.' I am sure he is right that some economists do not wish to contemplate the possibility of climate change, but I would challenge him as to what the majority scientific opinion might be. Hundreds of scientists have studied the issue. Most published articles note that change is occurring. The evidence is everywhere: shrinking glaciers in every part of the globe, shrinking polar and Greenland ice sheets, the melting of the Russian tundra, bleaching coral reefs, longer, hotter summers, disruption of rain patterns, even the opening of the Northwest Passage. The actual debate appears to be whether human activity is causing it. In other words, conservatives do not believe we can stop the process. Erica Hahn, Monrovia ... To the editor: Wright's changes might misinform some, but if our extreme weather-related events continue at their enhanced pace, eventually the public will demand action. Those events are devastating and deadly to the affected population and the economic damage is astounding. I find it disingenuous and devious that the Energy secretary is considering changes to previous scientific-based reports. Going back to scrub past reports won't change the facts that our climate has changed and fossil fuel emissions are exacerbating this change. Jonathan Light, Laguna Niguel