Have any psychiatrists publicly diagnosed Donald J. Trump as a psychopath and when?

1. Who has said “psychopath”? A narrow list with one prominent psychiatrist leading the charge

Public records show Dr. Bandy X. Lee as the most prominent psychiatrist to publicly label or describe Donald Trump in terms consistent with psychopathy, citing tools like the Hare Psychopathy Checklist and her role editing The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump; Lee made public claims beginning in 2017 and reiterated them in later interviews and publications ^{[1] [6]}. Other contributors to the Dangerous Case project include psychiatrists and mental‑health professionals who wrote assessments of Trump’s personality and danger to public safety, but many contributors framed their conclusions as professional judgments about risk and personality traits rather than clinical diagnostic statements based on a private examination ^{[3] [7]}. A wider group—more than 230 clinicians—signed an open letter declaring Trump unfit for office on mental‑health grounds; these statements represent a collective professional judgment rather than individual formal diagnoses arising from in‑person evaluations ^[2].

2. Dates and chronology: when were these claims first and most recently made?

The chronology begins in 2017, when Dr. Lee and other mental‑health professionals published warnings and public statements about Trump’s mental fitness, with Lee citing high scores on the Hare checklist in public interviews and media ^[1]. Collective actions followed: the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump gathered assessments from psychiatrists and mental‑health experts across its editions (first circulated 2019 in compilation form) and public letters by large groups of clinicians appeared in subsequent years, including a notable open letter with over 230 signatories published as late as 2024 ^{[3] [2]}. Commentators and some psychiatrists continued to discuss and update their assessments through 2024–2025, reiterating concerns about psychopathic traits and other personality pathology, while others emphasized ethical limitations on such pronouncements ^{[8] [1]}.

3. What counts as a “diagnosis”? Ethics, the Goldwater Rule, and disputed terminology

Professional psychiatric bodies discourage formal diagnoses of public figures without personal examination under the Goldwater Rule, which has driven many clinicians to couch statements as risk assessments or observations of behavior rather than clinical diagnoses; this distinction is central to why some sources report “psychopath” claims while others say professionals only described “traits” or “personality disorders” ^{[4] [5]}. Some psychiatrists and commentators argue that public‑safety exceptions justify public statements when a leader’s behavior poses imminent risk, while opponents insist that the absence of a direct clinical evaluation makes any label speculative and unethical; this divide explains divergent reporting and why few — if any — peer‑reviewed clinical diagnoses of Trump as a psychopath based on a private exam exist in the public record ^{[4] [3]}.

4. Evidence marshaled: checklists, behavior, and second‑hand assessments

Those asserting psychopathy cite behavioral patterns—persistent lying, lack of empathy, manipulativeness, impulsivity, and alleged cruelty—and sometimes apply structured tools like the Hare Psychopathy Checklist based on public statements and actions rather than clinical interviews ^{[1] [3]}. Critics note that these methods are designed for clinical and forensic contexts and rely on direct assessment for diagnostic validity; applying them to a public figure from afar reduces diagnostic confidence and increases the risk of error, which professional critics and some psychiatrists have emphasized in rebuttals and methodological critiques ^{[4] [5]}. The methodological gap between public‑behavior scoring and formal psychiatric diagnosis is the key factual tension across the sources.

5. How different outlets frame the claims and possible agendas to watch

Media and advocacy organizations tend to emphasize the danger narrative—framing psychiatrists’ statements as urgent warnings about public safety—while academic and professional outlets dwell on ethics and methodology, highlighting the Goldwater Rule and diagnostic standards; partisan outlets selectively quote clinicians to fit their angle, which can amplify perceived unanimity that does not exist in the professional community ^{[1] [2] [6]}. The Dangerous Case project and its contributors present a collective professional concern about risk, whereas individual clinicians like Dr. Lee have been foregrounded by outlets seeking a named expert; both approaches advance public awareness but also carry distinct rhetorical and advocacy agendas that readers should factor into their interpretation ^{[3] [8]}.

6. Bottom line: what the record actually shows and remaining open questions

The public record documents psychiatrists and hundreds of clinicians stating that Donald Trump displays traits consistent with psychopathy and warning of danger, especially from 2017 onward, with the most cited individual being Dr. Bandy X. Lee and collective expressions appearing via The Dangerous Case project and an open letter signed by over 230 clinicians ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The record does not show a widely accepted, formal psychiatric diagnosis made after a personal clinical evaluation published in a peer‑reviewed forum; the contested applicability of the Goldwater Rule, differences in method (public‑behavior scoring versus clinical exam), and divergent professional judgments explain why sources vary in language and certainty ^{[4] [5]}. Remaining questions for readers are empirical: whether any clinician has since performed and published a formal, in‑person clinical assessment, and how professional societies will adjudicate public‑figure commentary going forward.