Fact check: Are there peer-reviewed studies measuring partisan anger, disgust, or functional impairment related to Donald Trump supporters or opponents (2000s–2020s)?

1. What claimants asserted and what the literature actually says, in plain terms

Analyses submitted claim that peer‑reviewed work measures partisan anger, disgust, or functional impairment connected to Donald Trump supporters or opponents. The evidence supports measures of disgust and negative affect toward political outgroups: a 2023 study reported consistent self‑reports of disgust when participants evaluated outgroup members, though effect sizes varied by measure ^[1]. Broader scholarship documents rising affective polarization—Americans increasingly dislike and distrust opposing partisans—which is distinct from ideological divergence and driven by identity, media, and campaigns ^[2]. Experimental work shows elite violent rhetoric can increase co‑partisan support for political violence, indicating anger and hostility have measurable behavioral implications ^[4]. Conversely, a 2025 study on identity fusion with Trump documents strong partisan identification and anti‑democratic attitudes but does not include validated anger, disgust, or clinical impairment scales ^[3].

2. Where researchers measure emotions: methods and limits that matter

Empirical work uses several validated and non‑validated instruments to capture emotional responses: self‑report scales for discrete emotions, facial‑expression or sentiment analysis in social media research, and experiments linking rhetoric to attitudinal shifts. One claim about facial expressions detecting a 12% rise in negative sentiment after a conviction and assassination attempt appears in the provided analysis ^[5], but the underlying writeup does not map cleanly onto peer‑reviewed psychometric validation for clinical diagnoses. The 2019 Annual Review synthesizes affective polarization evidence across methods and documents robust trends of emotional antipathy, yet it treats anger and disgust as components of affective polarization rather than clinical syndromes ^[2]. Political‑psychology studies therefore measure affective states reliably, but translating those measures into claims of functional impairment requires clinical instruments—absent in the cited reports ^{[3] [6]}.

3. Experimental evidence tying elite rhetoric to heightened hostility

A 2025 peer‑reviewed experiment found that co‑party elites’ violent or threatening rhetoric increases support for political violence among their supporters, while rhetoric from the opposing party did not have the same effect. This provides causal evidence that partisan leadership shapes reactive hostility and behavioral intentions, implying measurable increases in aggressive attitudes and possibly anger-related dispositions ^[4]. The finding is important because it demonstrates that partisan leaders can trigger affective escalation in followers; however, the study measures attitudinal shifts and support for violence rather than clinically significant impairment, and it does not single out Trump supporters versus opponents as separate clinical populations. The evidence therefore connects elite messaging to measurable anger‑adjacent outcomes without diagnosing functional disability.

4. Direct studies of disgust toward political outgroups: consistent but variable effects

Peer‑reviewed research explicitly testing whether political outgroup members elicit physical disgust finds consistent self‑reported disgust responses across samples, with effect sizes contingent on measurement choice ^[1]. The 2023 study shows that participants report being disgusted by political outgroup members, supporting the claim that partisan disgust is a measurable psychological phenomenon. These findings align with the broader literature on affective polarization, where disgust and contempt are documented as mechanisms of social distance. Nevertheless, the disgust findings are laboratory and survey based; they document emotional reactions rather than long‑term dysfunction or impairment, and they do not provide clinical thresholds for functional impairment among Trump supporters or opponents.

5. What’s missing: clinical impairment and Trump‑specific diagnostic claims

Several peer‑reviewed pieces relevant to Trumpism—identity fusion studies and stereotype analyses—are methodologically robust but do not include clinical measures of impairment ^{[3] [6]}. The identity fusion article in PS: Political Science & Politics examines fusion with Trump and belief in the “big lie,” documenting political consequences but omitting validated anger, disgust, or functional‑impairment instruments ^[3]. Structural topic modeling of partisan stereotypes charts linguistic shifts but does not assess affective states or clinical functioning ^[6]. Therefore, the literature supports measurable partisan anger and disgust but lacks peer‑reviewed clinical studies that diagnose or quantify functional impairment specifically attributable to being a Trump supporter or opponent.

6. Bigger picture, alternative angles, and potential agendas to watch

The scholarly record shows measurable emotional antipathy between partisans and causal links between elite rhetoric and increased support for violence, consistent across methods and reviewed syntheses ^{[4] [1] [2]}. Where analysis claims like facial‑expression increases or assassination‑linked sentiment shifts appear ^[5], they must be interpreted against the broader methodological standard: social‑psychology and political science measure emotions reliably, but clinical impairment claims require psychiatric instruments that are generally absent in the cited works ^[3]. Researchers and commentators may emphasize affective findings to argue for societal risk or, conversely, downplay them to avoid pathologizing political opposition—both positions reflect potential agendas. The peer‑reviewed evidence thus supports the existence and measurability of partisan anger and disgust but does not substantiate clinical impairment tied specifically to Trump partisans within the cited corpus.