Which psychiatrists contributed to The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump and what diagnoses or warnings did they each offer?

1. Who put the book together and who wrote for it

The book grew out of a Yale conference organized by Dr. Bandy X. Lee and collected essays from 27 psychiatrists, psychologists and mental‑health experts; Lee is the chief editor named repeatedly in contemporary accounts ^{[1] [2]}. The contributor list mixes clinicians and related figures—reviews and previews mention names such as Gail Sheehy, Lance Dodes, Philip Zimbardo (with Rosemary Sword on a chapter), and several psychiatrists who organized petitions or public statements about Trump’s fitness for office, though publicly available synopses do not list the full 27 names in the supplied reporting excerpts ^{[4] [3] [5]}. The editors and contributors also set up a companion “Duty to Warn” project and expanded the volume in later editions with additional chapters ^{[5] [3]}.

2. What diagnoses, labels and behavioral constructs the contributors advanced

Contributors entertained a range of diagnostic possibilities and behavioral constructs—most frequently citing traits consistent with narcissistic personality disorder and “malignant” narcissism, sociopathy or psychopathic traits, paranoia, and impulsive, present‑hedonistic decision styles; several essays also discuss possible attention‑deficit patterns and cognitive concerns as part of a broader portfolio of worrisome traits ^{[5] [6] [7]}. Specific chapter summaries name standouts: Philip Zimbardo and Rosemary Sword characterize Trump as combining extreme present hedonism, narcissism and bullying that make access to instruments of power especially dangerous; other contributors frame a core problem as a “trust deficit” that dovetails with paranoia and poor impulse control ^[3]. While many chapters use clinical language, the authors frequently emphasize that they are basing assessments on public behavior and statements rather than clinical interviews ^{[5] [6]}.

3. The warnings the book issues and the rationale given

Across essays the central warning is practical rather than narrowly diagnostic: that the combination of personality traits, impulse‑driven behavior, paranoia, and contempt for institutional checks creates outsized national and international risks—examples invoked include rhetoric about nuclear weapons, erosion of democratic norms, and incitement of violence—with contributors urging formal evaluation, public attention and institutional safeguards ^{[3] [6]}. The collection repeatedly frames the issue as a “duty to warn,” arguing that when clinicians judge someone’s behavior dangerous to the public they have an obligation to speak out, invoking Tarasoff‑style ethical reasoning even as they acknowledge professional constraints ^{[1] [6]}.

4. Contested ground: ethics, limits and critical reception

The volume provoked debate inside and outside psychiatry—critics point to the American Psychiatric Association’s Goldwater Rule (which discourages formal diagnosis of public figures without examination) and argue that many chapters blur the line between behavioral warning and clinical diagnosis, while reviewers note both powerful moments and repetitiveness across essays ^{[2] [6] [8]}. Scholarly reviews observed that contributors do not fully agree on a single diagnosis—some stress dangerousness tied to office, others assert mental illness per se—so the book’s consensus is less about a single label than about the claim that observed behaviors create exceptional risk ^{[9] [6]}. The reporting excerpts do not supply a complete named roster of all 27 clinicians or a chapter‑by‑chapter list of specific diagnostic judgments, so a definitive crosswalk of “which psychiatrist said exactly which diagnosis” cannot be compiled from these sources alone ^{[1] [5]}.