In the age of Trump, American politics has become a theater of emotional extremes. Loyalty is lionized, facts are fungible, and grievance is gospel. For many observers, the MAGA movement is not just a political faction—it’s a psychological phenomenon. But as mental health professionals increasingly weigh in on the emotional tenor of President Donald Trump’s base, we must ask: when does diagnosis become dismissal? And what are the consequences of pathologizing political identity?
As Trump’s political resurgence continues to galvanize his base, a growing chorus of mental health and political theorists raises alarms about what they describe as the psychological dynamics underpinning the MAGA movement. While critics warn against pathologizing political dissent, others argue that the emotional intensity and conspiratorial thinking among some Trump loyalists reflect deeper psychological patterns.
“For many Trump supporters, their embrace of the convicted felon, despite his observable falsehoods and incendiary rhetoric, is not rooted in traditional conservatism but in a belief that he alone articulates their alienation,” writes the Milwaukee Independent, describing the movement as “a subculture marked by deep emotional identification with Trump, rejection of institutional legitimacy, and a worldview shaped less by shared policy preferences than by a shared sense of grievance and defiance”.
Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a forensic psychiatrist and former Yale faculty member, has been one of the most vocal experts on the subject. In an interview with Scientific American, she described the phenomenon as a “shared psychosis,” explaining that “narcissistic symbiosis” between Trump and his followers creates a magnetically attractive leader-follower bond. “Truth is subordinate to loyalty,” Lee said, emphasizing how emotional drives override rational analysis.
This framing has sparked controversy. Critics argue that diagnosing political behavior risks echoing authoritarian tactics. In Chronicles Magazine, commentator Carl F. Horowitz warns of a “New Therapeutic Regime” where dissent is medicalized. He quotes psychologist John Gartner, who has claimed Trump suffers from “malignant narcissistic personality disorder, hyper manic temperament, and dementia,” and cautions that such diagnoses—especially from afar—blur the line between clinical insight and political weaponization.
The debate is not merely academic. It addresses fundamental questions about democracy, civic discourse, and the ethics of mental health advocacy. As Trump rallies continue to draw fervent crowds and his legal battles intensify, the psychological framing of his movement remains a flashpoint in American political culture.
Whether viewed as a populist uprising, a cult of personality, or a manifestation of collective trauma, the MAGA movement continues to challenge conventional political analysis—and, increasingly, the boundaries of psychological interpretation.
Let’s be clear: emotional intensity is not a diagnosis. Distrust in government is not a disorder. And political passion—however misinformed or misdirected—is not proof of psychosis. To label millions of Americans as mentally ill because they support a controversial figure is to abandon the hard work of civic engagement in favor of clinical shorthand.
This is not a defense of Trumpism. It is a defense of nuance. The MAGA movement is fueled by economic anxiety, cultural displacement, and a profound sense of betrayal. These are real emotions, not symptoms. They deserve analysis, not ridicule.
If we want to heal the nation, we must resist the temptation to medicalize our political opponents. Instead, we should invest in dialogue, education, and structural reform. The mind of America is fractured—but not beyond repair. Let’s treat it with care, not contempt.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
An Independent Voter's Perspective on Current Political Divides
In the column, "Is Donald Trump Right?", Fulcrum Executive Editor, Hugo Balta, wrote:
For millions of Americans, President Trump’s second term isn’t a threat to democracy—it’s the fulfillment of a promise they believe was long overdue.
Is Donald Trump right?
Should the presidency serve as a force for disruption or a safeguard of preservation?
Balta invited readers to share their thoughts at newsroom@fulcrum.us.
David Levine from Portland, Oregon, shared these thoughts...
I am an independent voter who voted for Kamala Harris in the last election.
I pay very close attention to the events going on, and I try and avoid taking other people's opinions as fact, so the following writing should be looked at with that in mind:
Is Trump right? On some things, absolutely.
As to DEI, there is a strong feeling that you cannot fight racism with more racism or sexism with more sexism. Standards have to be the same across the board, and the idea that only white people can be racist is one that I think a lot of us find delusional on its face. The question is not whether we want equality in the workplace, but whether these systems are the mechanism to achieve it, despite their claims to virtue, and many of us feel they are not.
I think if the Democrats want to take back immigration as an issue then every single illegal alien no matter how they are discovered needs to be processed and sanctuary cities need to end, every single illegal alien needs to be found at that point Democrats could argue for an amnesty for those who have shown they have been Good actors for a period of time but the dynamic of simply ignoring those who break the law by coming here illegally is I think a losing issue for the Democrats, they need to bend the knee and make a deal.
I think you have to quit calling the man Hitler or a fascist because an actual fascist would simply shoot the protesters, the journalists, and anyone else who challenges him. And while he definitely has authoritarian tendencies, the Democrats are overplaying their hand using those words, and it makes them look foolish.
Most of us understand that the tariffs are a game of economic chicken, and whether it is successful or not depends on who blinks before the midterms. Still, the Democrats' continuous attacks on the man make them look disloyal to the country, not to Trump.
Referring to any group of people as marginalized is to many of us the same as referring to them as lesser, and it seems racist and insulting.
We invite you to read the opinions of other Fulrum Readers:
Trump's Policies: A Threat to Farmers and American Values
The Trump Era: A Bitter Pill for American Renewal
Federal Hill's Warning: A Baltimorean's Reflection on Leadership
Also, check out "Is Donald Trump Right?" and consider accepting Hugo's invitation to share your thoughts at newsroom@fulcrum.us.
The Fulcrum will select a range of submissions to share with readers as part of our ongoing civic dialogue.
We offer this platform for discussion and debate.