Congress is pursuing a scientific investigation into the psychological phenomenon known as “Trump Derangement Syndrome” that some believe has led to violence and division across America.
At a Glance
- Representative Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) has introduced the Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act of 2025 directing the NIH to study the condition
- The bill defines TDS as a spectrum disorder causing irrational hostility toward former President Trump
- Davidson links TDS to family divisions, nationwide unrest, and two assassination attempts on Trump
- The proposed research would examine media influence and potential interventions without additional taxpayer costs
- Critics note that TDS is not a recognized medical condition but a political term used primarily by Trump supporters
Congressional Investigation Proposed
Ohio Congressman Warren Davidson has introduced legislation that would task the National Institutes of Health with investigating what Trump supporters have long referred to as “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS). The Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act of 2025, introduced on May 15, directs federal health researchers to examine the psychological and social foundations of extreme negative reactions to former President Donald Trump. Representative Barry Moore of Alabama has signed on as a co-sponsor of the legislation.
“TDS has divided families, the country, and led to nationwide violence—including two assassination attempts on President Trump,” said Rep. Warren Davidson. “The TDS Research Act would require the NIH to study this toxic state of mind, so we can understand the root cause and identify solutions.”
Defining the Phenomenon
The legislation describes Trump Derangement Syndrome as a spectrum disorder characterized by intense, irrational hostility or obsession with Donald Trump. While the term has no formal medical or psychological recognition, it has been widely used in conservative circles to describe opposition to Trump that seems disproportionate or excessive. The bill aims to study TDS symptoms, origins, effects, and possible intervention methods, with annual reports to Congress on the findings.
Proponents of the study point to the polarizing nature of Trump’s presidency, during which critics frequently compared him to historical dictators. The investigation would specifically examine media influence and propaganda as potential contributing factors to the development of TDS. Davidson’s bill suggests reallocating existing NIH resources rather than requesting additional funding, arguing that the money would be better spent on this than on what he characterizes as frivolous studies.
Political Context and Historical Precedent
The bill’s introduction comes at a time of heightened political tension in the United States. Similar “derangement syndrome” terminology has been applied to previous presidents, including “Bush Derangement Syndrome” for George W. Bush and “Obama Derangement Syndrome” for Barack Obama. Davidson represents Ohio’s 8th Congressional District, which covers several counties in the southwestern part of the state, including portions of the Cincinnati area.
“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,” commented Rep. Warren Davidson.
Safety Concerns and Skepticism
Davidson has explicitly linked TDS to two assassination attempts on former President Trump, highlighting safety concerns that he believes justify the research. The legislation comes amid ongoing debate about political violence and extremism in the United States. While the bill’s prospects in the House remain uncertain, a similar proposal in Minnesota sought to classify TDS as an official disorder, indicating growing interest in addressing political polarization through formal channels.
Critics argue that the term is merely a pejorative used to dismiss legitimate criticism of Trump and his policies. They note that there is no scientific basis for considering intense disapproval of a political figure as a medical or psychological condition. The proposal has drawn mixed reactions, with some viewing it as a serious attempt to address division and others seeing it as a political stunt that unnecessarily medicalizes political disagreement.
