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.
Who coined the term Trump derangement syndrome?
Executive summary
Debate over who “coined” the phrase Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is muddled because commentators trace its lineage to earlier “derangement” labels while others credit specific 2015 uses; most reporting and commentary link TDS back to Charles Krauthammer’s coinage of “Bush derangement syndrome,” and note contemporaneous first uses applying it to Trump in 2015 [1] [2]. Available sources do not identify a single definitive first utterance that everyone accepts as the moment “Trump Derangement Syndrome” was coined, and journalists point to multiple near-simultaneous appearances and later popularization through commentators and some lawmakers [1] [3].
1. A phrase with pedigree: Krauthammer’s “derangement syndrome” and the Bush origin
The clearest and most consistent thread in the sources is that the “derangement syndrome” template originates with columnist and psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer’s phrase “Bush derangement syndrome” in 2003; several outlets and commentators explicitly trace the TDS label back to Krauthammer’s coining of the Bush variant [1] [2] [4]. This matters because it frames TDS not as a novel clinical term but as a rhetorical device repurposed across presidencies: journalists and therapists repeatedly describe the family of labels—Bush, Obama, Trump—as partisan shorthand used more to delegitimize opponents than to offer a psychiatric diagnosis [1] [5].
2. Earliest attributions to Trump-era commentators and op-eds
When it comes to the exact moment “Trump Derangement Syndrome” entered public circulation, reporting points to multiple early examples rather than a single indisputable coinage. Wikipedia and some commentators say an August 2015 American Spectator op-ed by Esther Goldberg may represent the first use explicitly applying the “derangement” construction to Trump supporters’ critics, while other media and opinion pieces popularized the shorthand around the 2016 campaign and afterward [1]. The sources therefore present August 2015 as a plausible early public usage but stop short of declaring it the definitive origin [1].
3. Popularization—media, politicians, and lawmaking pushed the term into wider use
Beyond who first used the words, the sources show how TDS spread: political commentators re-circulated the term, news outlets documented it, and by 2025 elected officials were even trying to legislate about it. For example, Republican lawmakers proposed bills in Minnesota and in Congress that treated TDS as a social phenomenon worthy of study or, controversially, as a potential mental-health classification, a move that amplified the term’s visibility and politicized its meaning [3] [6] [7]. These legislative episodes underscore how a rhetorical insult had migrated into policy debates, with supporters framing it as a social problem and critics warning about pathologizing dissent [3] [5].
4. What the phrase actually means in practice—and why origin matters
Reporting and expert commentary stress that “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is a pejorative label, not a medical diagnosis; multiple sources explicitly note that it is not recognized by psychiatric manuals and functions primarily as partisan rhetoric [1] [5]. The origin question becomes consequential because attributing the label to one person can either legitimize or defang it: tracing TDS to Krauthammer’s earlier “Bush” formulation frames it as rhetorical continuity, whereas attributing a single 2015 op-ed as the coinage suggests a more grassroots, contemporaneous invention by Trump-era commentators [1] [2].
5. Competing narratives and limitations in the record
Sources disagree or leave gaps: while many cite Krauthammer as the originator of the “derangement” formulation, others point to Esther Goldberg’s 2015 op-ed as an early use specifically naming Trump, and a range of commentators thereafter popularized the term [1]. Available sources do not provide a single incontrovertible primary-source timestamp that all scholars or journalists accept as the moment TDS was coined—reporting shows multiple early uses and a later political and legislative surge that made the phrase commonplace [1] [3] [6].
6. Why readers should care: rhetoric, power, and consequences
The contested origin matters because the label’s rhetorical power affects public discourse: when commentators or lawmakers deploy TDS, they shape how political disagreement is perceived—either as irrational pathology or as legitimate critique. Coverage of the Minnesota bill and congressional proposals shows that what began as a rhetorical jab evolved into legislative attention, raising questions about the boundary between insult and institutional response [3] [6]. Readers should note that existing sources frame TDS as politically loaded language with roots in Krauthammer’s earlier phrase and a complicated, multi-source emergence in the Trump era rather than a single, unanimously agreed-upon coinage [1] [2] [3].