A new bill introduced in the Minnesota Senate on March 15, 2025, has ignited passionate controversy with the proposal that “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS) be recognized as an official mental illness. Introduced as a draft revision of the Minnesota mental health legislation, the bill has drawn scathing criticism from legislators, mental health professionals, and the public at large as well, with most of them labeling it as a political stunt rather than as a serious mental health bill.
The act defines TDS as “sudden onset of paranoia in normally functioning individuals that is in response to President Donald J. Trump’s presidencies and policies.” It also lists such symptoms as “Trump-induced general hysteria,” inability to separate legitimate disagreement about policy from unreasonable fear of Trump’s actions, verbal aggression against Trump, and hostile acts against his supporters or symbols of him.
The bill would expand the definition of mental illness for case management and supportive services in the state of Minnesota to include TDS so that individuals with the condition would be treated for their mental health. TDS is not officially recognized as a diagnosis by mainstream medical and psychology organizations, and the proposal has raised alarms about politicization of mental health.
The term “Trump Derangement Syndrome” was first coined in 2015 by right-wing commentator Charles Krauthammer as an offshoot of “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” which had been used to depict irrational reactions to President George W. Bush. TDS has been used predominantly by Trump allies to delegitimize opposition to his agenda as irrational or emotional.
The same language has been applied in past political contexts. Conservatives during President Barack Obama’s administration called “Obama Derangement Syndrome” the extreme hostility towards him from some on the right. While such language has been widely used informally, attempts to have it become part of legal or medical parlance are recent.
Public and Expert Responses
The bill’s introduction has unleashed a wave of reaction across the political spectrum.
Mental Health Professionals: America’s top psychologists and psychiatrists have opposed the bill as unscientific, once again claiming that political opinions and emotional reactions to leaders cannot be termed as a diagnosable condition. “This is misapplication of psychiatric terms for political purposes,” declared Dr. Lisa Campbell, clinical psychologist based in Minneapolis.
Civil Rights Groups: Civil rights organizations such as the ACLU have been concerned about the risk of the bill being used as a weapon against political dissenters. “This creates a dangerous precedent where political disagreement can become something that is ‘pathologized’ and employed as a tool of oppression,” said an ACLU spokesperson.
Lawmakers: Democratic legislators have dismissed the bill as being diversionary from more substantive legislation. “This is simply a stunt to silence opposition and shift the conversation away from meaningful policy debates,” declared Minnesota State Senator Jessica Brown (D). A few moderate Republicans have also been uneasy with the bill, with one Republican senator personally declaring that the bill “goes too far in making a mockery of mental health.”
Social media was filled with heated debates with users posting anything from amusement to outrage. A Twitter user tweeted
“Now to find a treatment!” Another tweeted, “Hahaha, they made it a real thing!” Others have been worried about the potential impact on mental health discussion and politicization of psychiatric diagnoses.
The bill is in its early stages and would be up for debate in future sessions of the legislature. It would not pass with the Democratic majority in the state legislature but filing it is part of a broader trend of heightened political rhetoric in the United States.
The bill would set the stage for other attempts to politicize political opposition as a psychiatric condition. Critics also fear that such legislation would erode public trust in mental health centers and prevent individuals from seeking treatment for genuine mental health problems for fear of being politically labeled.
The proposal is symptomatic of the increasing polarization of American politics in which partisan rhetoric is increasingly defining the terms of the debates around policy. It has been mirrored globally with the Russian government’s earlier efforts at suppressing critics through psychiatric diagnoses and China’s past practices of viewing political opposition as a mental illness.
Around the world, the bill’s introduction is being seen as one more sign of the degree to which partisanship in America is influencing government. “This is the kind of legislation that makes people around the world question the health of American democracy,” declared British political analyst Dr. Emily Richards.
I never heard Obama derangement syndrome. Not saying it was never said but you can’t spend an hour on social media without someone saying it