Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act

News

Donald Trump
How liberals' worst-case readings of Trump actually help Trump
James Devaney/GC Images

Trump himself has diagnosed Trump Derangement Syndrome upon Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Liz Cheney, Chris Christie, Robert De Niro, Jimmy Kimmel, and Bill Maher.

Context


In 2015, during President Donald Trump’s first campaign, his supporters began using the phrase “Trump Derangement Syndrome” or “TDS” to describe his opponents, as a way of claiming their fears about him were highly exaggerated.

The term is also used about people who change a public policy stance with the apparent sole intention of opposing Trump. For example, surveys show Democrats were split 50/50 about a U.S.-Mexico border wall as recently as the early 2010s, but their opposition surged after Trump endorsed the concept.

The term was coined by columnist Esther Goldberg in an August 2015 column for the American Spectator, only two months after Trump declared his candidacy. Trump himself has used the phrase at least 90 times on Truth Social.

What the bill does

The Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act would conduct an NIH (National Institutes of Health) study on the supposed mental disorder. The bill would fund the research through the existing NIH budget, rather than appropriating additional taxpayer money.

It was introduced in May by Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH8).

What supporters say

Supporters argue that Trump Derangement Syndrome merits studying by the government, the way the government studies mental health conditions including autism, eating disorders, schizophrenia, and OCD.

“TDS has divided families, the country, and led to nationwide violence — including two assassination attempts on President Trump,” Rep. Davidson said in a press release. “Instead of funding ludicrous studies such as giving methamphetamine to cats or teaching monkeys to gamble for their drinking water, the NIH should use that funding to research issues that are relevant to the real world.”

Fact check: the NIH website does indeed include studies about giving meth to cats and teaching monkeys to gamble for their drinking water. (Though such examples represent an extremely small percentage of the agency’s total budget.)

What opponents say

Opponents counter that the same Republicans behind this bill hypocritically restrict NIH funding for “actual” public health issues that violate their policy beliefs, such as studies on gun violence or funding for pandemic preparedness.

Opponents also counter that the derangement actually runs in the opposite direction: namely, they say Trump’s opponents accurately reflect his dangers, but Trump himself exaggerates those of his opponents.

For example, amid Trump’s recent verbal attacks and legal fights against Harvard University, the college’s psychology professor Steven Pinker wrote a New York Times opinion column claiming Trump has “Harvard Derangement Syndrome.”

An attempted countermovement among Trump opponents attempts to reappropriate the phrase “Trump Derangement Syndrome” in reference to unsubstantiated political beliefs by Trump supporters, though this hasn’t caught on nearly as much as the original definition.

Minnesota’s similar state-level bill

In March, several state-level Minnesota Senate Republicans introduced a similar bill to officially classify Trump Derangement Syndrome as a mental illness.

“It’s a real thing,” state Sen. Eric Lucero (R) said on Minnesota’s right-wing show Northern Alliance Radio with Jack Tomczak. “There is a phenomenon out there of people that just go crazy at the invoking of Trump. It is a thing that I think we need to take seriously.”

Minnesota’s state Senate Democratic Leader Erin Murphy countered that the legislation “trivializes serious mental health issues” and declared it “possibly the worst bill in Minnesota history."

With the Minnesota state senate and governorship both controlled by Democrats, odds of passage are nil.

Odds of passage

So far, the congressional bill has attracted one Republican cosponsor: Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL1).

It awaits a potential vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, controlled by Republicans.

Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his report, Congress Bill Spotlight, on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.

SUGGESTIONS:

Congress Bill Spotlight: Congress Meeting in Philadelphia on Declaration of Independence 250th Anniversary

Congress Bill Spotlight: National Garden of American Heroes, As Trump Proposed

Congress Bill Spotlight: Preventing Presidential Inaugurations on MLK Day, Like Trump’s

Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act

Read More

Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

President Donald Trump speaks at a White House press briefing on Jan. 30, 2025.

Credit: Jonah Elkowitz/Medill News Service

Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

WASHINGTON — Paul Ingrassia withdrew his nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel on Tuesday night after facing Republican pushback over past controversial statements.

While Ingrassia joins a growing list of President Donald Trump’s nominees who have withdrawn from consideration, many who have aired controversial beliefs or lack requisite qualifications have still been appointed or are still in the nomination process.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making
low light photography of armchairs in front of desk

A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making

The dysfunction of today’s federal government is not simply the product of political division or individual leaders; it is rooted in the internal rules of Congress itself. The Founders, in one of their few major oversights, granted Congress the authority to make its own procedural rules (Article I, Section 5) without establishing any framework for how it should operate. Over time, this blank check has produced a legislative process built to serve partisan power, not public representation.

The result is a Congress that often rewards obstruction and gridlock over compromise and action. The Founders imagined representatives closely tied to their constituents—one member for every 30,000 to 50,000 citizens. Today, that ratio has ballooned to one for every 765,000 in the House, and in the Senate, each member can represent tens of millions (e.g., California). As the population has grown, representation has become distant and impersonal, while procedural rules have tightened the grip of party leadership. Major issues can no longer reach the floor unless the majority party permits it. The link between citizens and decisions has nearly vanished.

Keep ReadingShow less
Lasting peace requires accepting Israel’s right to exist

US President Donald Trump hailed a "tremendous day for the Middle East" as he and regional leaders signed a declaration on Oct. 13, 2025, meant to cement a ceasefire in Gaza, hours after Israel and Hamas exchanged hostages and prisoners. (TNS)

Lasting peace requires accepting Israel’s right to exist

President Trump took a rhetorical victory lap in front of the Israeli parliament Monday. Ignoring his patented departures from the teleprompter, which violated all sorts of valuable norms, it was a speech Trump deserved to give. The ending of the war — even if it’s just a ceasefire — and the release of Israel’s last living hostages is, by itself, a monumental diplomatic accomplishment, and Trump deserves to take a bow.

Much of Trump’s prepared text was forward-looking, calling for a new “golden age” for the Middle East to mirror the one allegedly unfolding here in America. I’m generally skeptical about “golden ages,” here or abroad, and especially leery about any talk about “everlasting peace” in a region that has known “peace” for only a handful of years since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Keep ReadingShow less
A child looks into an empty fridge-freezer in a domestic kitchen.

The Trump administration’s suspension of the USDA’s Household Food Security Report halts decades of hunger data tracking.

Getty Images, Catherine Falls Commercial

Trump Gives Up the Fight Against Hunger

A Vanishing Measure of Hunger

Consider a hunger policy director at a state Department of Social Services studying food insecurity data across the state. For years, she has relied on the USDA’s annual Household Food Security Report to identify where hunger is rising, how many families are skipping meals, and how many children go to bed hungry. Those numbers help her target resources and advocate for stronger programs.

Now there is no new data. The survey has been “suspended for review,” officially to allow for a “methodological reassessment” and cost analysis. Critics say the timing and language suggest political motives. It is one of many federal data programs quietly dropped under a Trump executive order on so-called “nonessential statistics,” a phrase that almost parodies itself. Labeling hunger data “nonessential” is like turning off a fire alarm because it makes too much noise; it implies that acknowledging food insecurity is optional and reveals more about the administration’s priorities than reality.

Keep ReadingShow less