Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act

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

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals
Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker/ProPublica

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals

Veterans hospitals are struggling to replace hundreds of doctors and nurses who have left the health care system this year as the Trump administration pursues its pledge to simultaneously slash Department of Veterans Affairs staff and improve care.

Many job applicants are turning down offers, worried that the positions are not stable and uneasy with the overall direction of the agency, according to internal documents examined by ProPublica. The records show nearly 4 in 10 of the roughly 2,000 doctors offered jobs from January through March of this year turned them down. That is quadruple the rate of doctors rejecting offers during the same time period last year.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression (PRESS) Act aims to fill the national shield law gap by providing two protections for journalists.

Getty Images, Manu Vega

Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The First Amendment protects journalists during the news-gathering and publication processes. For example, under the First Amendment, reporters cannot be forced to report on an issue. However, the press is not entitled to different legal protections compared to a general member of the public under the First Amendment.

In the United States, there are protections for journalists beyond the First Amendment, including shield laws that protect journalists from pressure to reveal sources or information during news-gathering. 48 states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, but protections vary widely. There is currently no federal shield law. As of 2019, at least 22 journalists have been jailed in the U.S. for refusing to comply with requests to reveal sources of information. Seven other journalists have been jailed and fined for the same reason.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrat Donkey is winning arm wrestling match against Republican elephant

AI generated image

Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrats are quietly building momentum in the 2025 election cycle, notching two key legislative flips in special elections and gaining ground in early polling ahead of the 2026 midterms. While the victories are modest in number, they signal a potential shift in voter sentiment — and a brewing backlash against Republican-led redistricting efforts.

Out of 40 special elections held across the United States so far in 2025, only two seats have changed party control — both flipping from Republican to Democrat.

Keep ReadingShow less
Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

A DC Metropolitan Police Department car is parked near a rally against the Trump Administration's federal takeover of the District of Columbia, outside of the AFL-CIO on August 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

President Trump announced the activation of hundreds of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., along with the deployment of federal agents—including more than 100 from the FBI. This comes despite Justice Department data showing that violent crime in D.C. fell 35% from 2023 to 2024, reaching its lowest point in over three decades. These aren’t abstract numbers—they paint a picture of a city safer than it has been in a generation, with fewer homicides, assaults, and robberies than at any point since the early 1990s.

The contradiction could not be more glaring: the same president who, on January 6, 2021, stalled for hours as a violent uprising engulfed the Capitol is now rushing to “liberate” a city that—based on federal data—hasn’t been this safe in more than thirty years. Then, when democracy itself was under siege, urgency gave way to dithering; today, with no comparable emergency—only vague claims of lawlessness—he mobilizes troops for a mission that looks less like public safety and more like political theater. The disparity between those two moments is more than irony; it is a blueprint for how power can be selectively applied, depending on whose power is threatened.

Keep ReadingShow less