What is the origin and history of the phrase 'Trump derangement syndrome'?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The phrase "Trump derangement syndrome" (TDS) is a partisan, pejorative label used to describe what supporters call irrational, emotionally driven opposition to Donald Trump; it is not a medical diagnosis and traces its rhetorical lineage to earlier “presidential derangement” terms coined by conservative commentators, notably Charles Krauthammer’s 2003 “Bush derangement syndrome” [1] [2]. The label emerged in public discourse during the 2016 campaign and was popularized by conservative media, Trump himself, and allies, even as analysts and mental‑health professionals warn that pathologizing political disagreement conflates rhetoric with psychiatric reality [3] [4] [5].
1. Origin: from “Bush derangement syndrome” to TDS
The immediate rhetorical ancestor of TDS was Charles Krauthammer’s 2003 coinage “Bush derangement syndrome,” which described a perceived paranoid, disproportionate reaction to President George W. Bush’s policies; commentators and later writers explicitly linked that construction to the later “Trump derangement syndrome” label [1] [2]. While Krauthammer did not invent the idea that intense dislike of a president can be framed as pathology, conservative commentators adapted the formula to successive presidents and critics, and the precise phrase “Trump derangement syndrome” began appearing in commentary and op‑eds as early as the 2015–2016 campaign period [3] [6].
2. How TDS entered mainstream political vocabulary
The term gained traction during Trump’s 2016 run and presidency as a shorthand in conservative media and among Republican politicians to dismiss critics’ motives and coverage as irrational; President Trump and his advisers used the phrase publicly, and it became a regular talking point on right‑leaning outlets and social platforms [3] [4]. Fact‑checking and reference sources note that the phrase circulated widely in print and online media and was often invoked to reframe critical reporting as partisan hysteria rather than policy disagreement [6] [3].
3. Competing definitions and uses: insult, rhetorical strategy, or clinical pattern?
Supporters of the coinage treat TDS as a rhetorical diagnosis implying impaired judgment and disproportionate animus [6]. Critics and many journalists argue it is a political reframing device intended to delegitimize dissent; media scholars and commentators warn the invention of such syndromes is “stock‑in‑trade” political argumentation that can backfire by appearing to medicalize normal disagreement [4] [3]. Some therapists and pundits have argued informally that obsessive political fixation exists in clinics, but mainstream psychiatric authorities do not recognize TDS as a medical entity [7] [5].
4. “Not a diagnosis” — legal, clinical and legislative skirmishes
Medical and legal authorities are clear that TDS is not in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and is not a recognized disorder; reporting and commentary repeatedly stress its non‑medical status [1] [5]. Despite that, partisan efforts have tried to formalize the phrase: a 2025 Minnesota legislative proposal by some Republican state senators sought to add TDS to a state list of mental illnesses, a move that drew national notice and underscored how politicized the label has become [8]. Journalistic coverage shows the tension between rhetorical use and attempts to codify the term for political ends [8] [4].
5. Why the phrase persists and why it matters
TDS persists because it simplifies a complex mix of media dynamics, polarization, and emotional politics into a single, memorable epithet that serves as both insult and shield for political actors; commentators observe the pattern repeats across presidencies—“Obama Derangement Syndrome,” “Bush Derangement Syndrome”—reflecting broader polarization and political self‑sorting [3] [9]. The label’s power lies less in diagnostic accuracy than in rhetorical utility: it reframes criticism as pathology, and that framing influences public debate, media strategy, and even legislative theater, making the term an object lesson in how language shapes political conflict [4] [9].