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

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Harvard's Guy-Uriel Charles (left) listens to David Walker, Chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation. Fellow panelists (L-R) are Michael Farris, Convention of States Project; Samuel Fieldman, Wolf Pack; and Jim Rubens, FFSA and American Promise.

Photo by Martha Stewart

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Voting is the anchor of democracy, as we are reminded every two years. But this anchor rests on unstable ground today, signaling that our political roots need examining too.

In the United States, the Constitution itself becomes the focus when serious problems prompt such foundational civic dives. Our current challenges may not be as severe as the Civil War or the excesses of the Gilded Age, which produced waves of amendments, but today’s erosion of our system of checks and balances requires us to revisit our constitutional underpinnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less