Which public figures and media outlets most frequently use the term 'Trump derangement syndrome'?
Executive summary
The phrase “Trump derangement syndrome” (TDS) originated as a political insult and has been used by conservative politicians, commentators and some media to describe critics of Donald Trump; recent examples include Rep. Warren Davidson proposing a federal study (H.R.3432) and Minnesota Republicans trying to codify the term into state law (SF 2589) [1] [2]. Major conservative outlets and figures continue to deploy the term in coverage and statements — reporting shows uses in Republican congressional press releases and conservative media interviews — while many therapists and mainstream commentators treat it as a partisan label rather than a clinical diagnosis [3] [4] [5].
1. The phrase’s origin and how establishment conservatives use it
Charles Krauthammer recycled his own “derangement” framing from the Bush era to describe intense antipathy toward Trump, and that rhetorical lineage underpins much conservative usage; reporting and summaries trace the phrase back to Krauthammer and note it functions as a way to delegitimize critics [6] [7]. Conservative elected officials explicitly use the term in formal political contexts: for example, Rep. Warren Davidson introduced the TDS Research Act of 2025, framing TDS as a phenomenon worthy of NIH study [3] [1].
2. Concrete political actors and legislative uses
Republican state lawmakers in Minnesota introduced SF 2589 to add “Trump Derangement Syndrome” language to legal definitions of mental illness, and that bill’s text and reporting show the term moved from insult to policy proposal in some GOP circles [2] [8]. At the federal level, Davidson’s H.R.3432 explicitly names TDS and directs the NIH to research it, demonstrating that certain Republican members of Congress are among the most visible institutional users of the term [1] [3].
3. Media outlets and individual commentators that amplify the term
Conservative media outlets and personalities amplify the phrase in commentary and interviews: reporting includes Fox News segments where guests and interviewees discuss TDS as a real pathology or pattern [4]. Independent conservative and opinion sites also employ the label rhetorically; entertainment and conservative-leaning outlets have published pieces using the phrase to deride critics [9]. Available sources do not provide a ranked frequency list of specific outlets, so precise counts and a definitive “most frequent” list are not found in current reporting.
4. How clinicians and mainstream media treat the term
Psychology-focused outlets and some therapists treat “TDS” as a derogatory, non-clinical label and caution against pathologizing political disagreement; an article for a therapy group and a Psychology Today column both emphasize it is not an official psychiatric diagnosis [5] [7]. Reporting on a therapist who described TDS as a “real pathology” shows there is internal debate about whether the phrase can describe observable behaviors — but mainstream mental health standards do not recognize TDS as an official disorder [4] [5].
5. Two competing frames: weaponized insult vs. legitimate phenomenon
One frame, advanced by conservatives and some lawmakers, presents TDS as a behavioral or psychological phenomenon that explains intense anti-Trump activism and even violence — language in Republican press releases and bill text directly ties TDS to “national unrest” and extreme acts [3] [2]. The opposing frame, offered by therapists and critical reporting, treats the term as a partisan insult that seeks to dismiss substantive critique and lacks clinical legitimacy [5] [7].
6. Limits of available reporting and what’s missing
Available sources document several high-profile users (Republican members of Congress, Minnesota GOP lawmakers, Fox News segments, conservative opinion outlets) and legislative moves (H.R.3432; SF 2589), but they do not supply comprehensive frequency metrics by outlet or speaker over time; a systematic media-mention count is not present in the current reporting [1] [2] [4]. For a definitive ranking of “most frequent” users, a quantitative media-analysis dataset would be required, which is not found in these sources.
7. How to interpret usage going forward
Use of the phrase appears to be both rhetorical weapon and a mobilizing label: Republican officeholders and some conservative media have institutionalized it through bills and interviews, while mental-health voices and mainstream commentators push back, noting it’s non-clinical [3] [1] [5]. Watch for continued legislative mentions and appearances on conservative media as indicators of where and how often the term is being amplified; current reporting shows that institutional Republican actors and conservative outlets are the most visible users, but exact frequencies are not available in the cited sources [3] [4] [2].