Working alongside leftists is challenging. Informal conversations tend to be limited to the weather, sports, and entertainment, as political issues are inflammatory. It’s never been easier to counter leftist arguments, but doing so often results in fireworks. For leftists, whatever a Republican says or does is to be condemned while any failure of a Democrat is ignored or deflected, often with a sentence that starts with, "But Trump..." Even saying the word "Trump" causes my colleagues to visibly react, sometimes alarmingly so.

During Trump's first term we were introduced to the term "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS). Conservatives used it to describe what we view as irrational, exaggerated, or obsessive criticism of him by leftists. It reveals that leftists are driven by an emotional fixation that clouds their judgment, leading to overreactions or unfounded accusations. Leftists argue it’s a rhetorical tool to dismiss what they consider to be legitimate concerns about Trump’s policies or actions, such as his immigration bans from countries that support terrorism. They say it frames opposition as unhinged rather than reasoned. Conservatives reply that we've yet to see reasoned opposition from the Left. 

The term’s origins trace to "Bush Derangement Syndrome," coined in 2003 by Charles Krauthammer to describe irrational opposition to George W. Bush. Krauthammer later described TDS as a "Trump-induced hysteria" that blurs policy disagreements with perceived psychological issues. TDS is not a recognized medical or psychological condition; it’s a cultural and political label. 

TDS gained traction during Trump’s 2016 campaign and presidency, fueled by his polarizing style. Admittedly, his rhetoric is sometimes combative and he often breaks norms. On the other hand, it's not unusual to respond assertively or even aggressively when one is routinely accused of fabricated crimes, or with an action that was engaged in by those who are bringing the charges. Additionally, some norms may need to be broken. For example, we've been negotiating with Iran for 45 years with little good to show for it. Breaking that norm may be what's called for. 

Examples cited by Trump supporters as TDS include media coverage of trivial incidents, like the frenzy over his "covfefe" tweet typo, spun as evidence of mental decline. Kathy Griffin’s 2017 photo with a fake, bloodied Trump head was labeled deranged by Trump supporters. Trump’s impeachments (2019-2021) over Ukraine and January 6 were also cited as driven by obsessive hatred rather than legal grounds.

Interestingly, Joe Biden's involvement with China, Kazakhstan, Romania, and Ukraine presented a much more compelling case of 'quid pro quo'. Where are the investigations into those relationships?

Last Saturday’s strike against Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities has drawn mixed reactions. The usual suspects condemned the strike, while others supported it. Missing from the critics is any acknowledgement of similar strikes conducted by Clinton, Obama and Biden. There are numerous examples of Presidents ordering strikes against hostile forces. Even Joe Biden, or whoever was running the country during his term, conducted such strikes.  

Of course, Obama and Biden both went the other way as well. Obama famously gifted Iran with billions of dollars in cash and released some financial assets, and Biden gave $7 billion dollars’ worth of state-of-the-art military aircraft, ground vehicles, weapons and other equipment to the Taliban. Paying off Islamic terrorists is reminiscent of the ransoms and extortion monies paid to the Barbary pirates.

On social media, the term resurges amid Trump’s political reemergence, with pro-Trump users citing ongoing lawsuits as TDS relics, while opponents mock it as an excuse to dodge accountability. Web searches show a split: conservative outlets like Breitbart amplify TDS narratives, while progressive sites like Salon call it a distraction from Trump’s record.

TDS reflects deeper issues in U.S. political discourse: confirmation bias, tribalism, and the challenge of distinguishing critique from hyperbole. A 2025 Minnesota proposal to classify TDS as a mental illness, defining it as paranoia over Trump’s policies, sparked controversy for pathologizing disagreement but failed to pass.

Whether seen as a real phenomenon or a rhetorical trap, TDS endures as a symbol of America’s polarized political landscape.

Image: Pixabay