What is 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' and where did the term originate?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
"Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS) is a pejorative label applied to intense, often dismissive criticism of Donald Trump that his defenders characterize as irrational or pathologically excessive; commentators have variously defined it as hatred so intense it impairs judgment or as an inability to distinguish policy critique from psychic pathology [1] [2]. The phrase builds on an older rhetorical pattern—most notably Charles Krauthammer’s "Bush Derangement Syndrome"—and has been used by supporters, opponents, media figures and even politicians to reframe disputes about Trump’s conduct and policies [3] [2].
1. Origin: a family of "derangement" labels, not a single coinage
The rhetorical lineage of TDS traces back to Charles Krauthammer’s 2003 coinage "Bush Derangement Syndrome," which described what he saw as paranoid reactions to President George W. Bush; commentators and reference sites link Krauthammer to the template for later presidential "derangement" labels [1] [4]. The specific phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" appears in public circulation by at least 2015—Esther Goldberg used it in an August 2015 American Spectator piece—and the term accelerated into common usage as critics and supporters deployed it across outlets [2]. Multiple sources note that the label was popularized by Trump’s defenders and by Trump himself in tweets and remarks, further cementing it in political discourse [2] [3].
2. What people mean when they say "TDS"
Definitions vary but converge on a common thrust: TDS is used to describe criticism of Trump that is portrayed as disproportionate, emotionally driven, or detached from facts—Fareed Zakaria called it “hatred of President Trump so intense that it impairs people’s judgment,” while Krauthammer framed the pattern as “general hysteria” that blurs policy disagreement and pathology [1] [2]. Popular, crowd-sourced glosses, such as Urban Dictionary entries, emphasize both extremes—depicting the phrase as used for obsessive critics and, inversely, to mock uncritical supporters—illustrating its rhetorical slipperiness [5].
3. Who uses the term and to what effect
TDS functions as a political weapon: Trump, allies, and conservative columnists have used it to delegitimize opponents’ critiques, recasting substantive allegations or policy objections as mere emotional contagion rather than reasoned argument [3] [6]. Media commentators observe that the label also reflects wider polarization and "self-sorting," serving both to rally base audiences and to short-circuit debate by medicalizing dissent, a move some critics say reframes disagreement as pathology [2] [4].
4. Pushback: it is not a medical diagnosis and critics warn about pathologizing politics
Professional and independent commentators uniformly note that "Derangement Syndrome" is a rhetorical insult, not a clinical diagnosis: the American Psychiatric Association’s manuals do not recognize TDS as a mental disorder, and clinicians and mental-health writers warn that using psychiatric language to dismiss political opponents undermines meaningful discourse [4] [7]. Therapy-oriented commentary explicitly rejects the term as stigmatizing, and multiple sources document attempts—political and satirical—to treat the phrase as if it were a real illness, which clinicians and observers mark as problematic [7] [8].
5. Institutional echoes and recent politicization
The phrase has migrated from op-eds and tweets into formal and semi-formal arenas: media coverage records Trump’s repeated invocations of TDS in public statements, and even a 2025 congressional bill titled the "TDS Research Act of 2025" used the term in statutory language to authorize study—an escalation that highlights how rhetoric can become institutionalized while still lacking clinical standing [3] [9]. News outlets also documented contemporary uses of the phrase in high-profile controversies and social-media posts, signaling its staying power as a political framing device [10].
6. Conclusion: a political label with more rhetorical than empirical weight
"Trump Derangement Syndrome" is best understood not as a psychiatric finding but as a rhetorical tool born of an earlier "derangement" vocabulary, redeployed to recast opposition to Trump as pathological; it is variably defined by commentators, weaponized by political actors, and critiqued by mental-health professionals and journalists for collapsing political disagreement into insult [1] [4] [7]. Reporting from encyclopedic and mainstream outlets shows where the term came from, how it’s used, and why its clinical legitimacy is rejected—readers should treat it as partisan shorthand rather than as an objective diagnosis [2] [4].