Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which psychiatrists have written books analyzing Trump's mental health?
Executive Summary
Multiple psychiatrists have published or contributed to books that analyze Donald Trump’s mental health, most prominently the series edited by forensic psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee, including The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump (various editions) and later expanded collections [1] [2] [3]. Other psychiatrists and mental health professionals—such as Robert Jay Lifton and Lance Dodes—have also contributed essays or authored works that assess Trump’s psychological profile, producing a mix of collective anthologies and individual commentary [3] [4].
1. Who led the charge — a forensic psychiatrist turns editor and organizer
Forensic psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee is the central figure identified across the sources as editor and major organizer of a sustained publishing effort focused on Donald Trump’s mental health. Lee edited the original collection titled The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, which appeared in forms listing 27 contributors and later expanded to editions citing 37 contributors; she also released subsequent volumes billed as updates or expanded warnings, including a 2024-titled work described as The MORE Dangerous Case of Donald Trump [5] [1] [6]. Lee’s role as editor and public organizer frames these books as collective projects rather than single-author psychiatric tomes, and multiple editions reflect ongoing editorial activity and additional contributors over time [2] [3].
2. The anthology approach — many psychiatrists contributing perspectives
The most-cited publications are anthologies composed of essays by dozens of psychiatrists and mental-health experts. Early editions were described as having 27 contributors, later editions and expanded releases referenced 37 and even 40 contributors, indicating an intent to present a plurality of professional assessments rather than a single diagnostic verdict [5] [1] [6]. These collections emphasize descriptive analysis, clinical observations, and public-safety arguments; several contributors frame their assessments as warnings about behavior they deem dangerous for a national leader. The anthology format both amplifies and diversifies professional voices, while also drawing scrutiny over consensus and methodological consistency among contributors [2] [7].
3. Individual psychiatrists and authors who have weighed in
Beyond Lee, sources name psychiatrists and psychologists who have written or contributed analysis, including Robert Jay Lifton and Judith Lewis Herman, alongside commentators like Lance Dodes; some of these figures appear as essayists or chapter authors within the edited volumes [3] [4]. These contributors bring varying professional backgrounds—forensic psychiatry, psychohistory, trauma studies—and their writing ranges from clinical description to historical analogy. The presence of well-known mental-health professionals in the volumes is used by editors to lend disciplinary credibility, but the contributions are heterogeneous in approach, focus, and terminological rigor [3] [4].
4. How the publications treat psychiatric ethics and the Goldwater Rule
A major recurring factual theme in the sources is tension with the American Psychiatric Association’s Goldwater Rule, which discourages public diagnosis of public figures without personal examination. The anthologies and contributors explicitly confront this rule: editors and some authors argue that extraordinary circumstances and perceived public-safety risks justify public commentary, while critics cite professional-ethics constraints and potential politicization [8] [2]. This debate is central to interpreting the books: supporters frame the work as a public-health intervention; opponents emphasize professional standards and the risk of conflating clinical judgment with political advocacy, a contrast repeatedly reported across the material [8] [7].
5. Editions, dates, and evolution — the story updated over time
The collections have gone through at least two waves of editions: an initial 2017–2018 incarnation often described with 27 contributors, a 2019 expanded edition placing the count at 37, and later works or reissues claimed as further expansions, including a title referenced from 2024 that lists 40 contributors [5] [3] [6]. These successive editions indicate both ongoing editorial effort and evolving participation from mental-health professionals, suggesting that the project is framed as a continuing public conversation rather than a single monograph. The timeline also shows how the editors responded to criticism and sought to broaden contributors and material across electoral and governance cycles [5] [6].
6. What this means for readers — multiple voices, contested authority
Readers encounter collective professional commentary rather than a single, universally endorsed psychiatric diagnosis: the writings aggregate clinical impressions, public-safety arguments, and ethical defenses of speaking out. Sources consistently present the books as controversial but substantive interventions—controversial because of Goldwater Rule concerns, substantive because of the number and stature of contributors [2] [3]. The net factual picture is that several psychiatrists have written and contributed to books analyzing Trump’s mental health, best exemplified by the Lee-edited anthologies and augmented by individual psychiatric authors; the publications are influential and disputed, and the debate about professional ethics remains integral to any assessment of their claims [8] [4].