“There is Trump Derangement Syndrome, I believe that in many respects and I think it’s valid”

Governor Gavin Newsom, The Rest is Politics: Leading, 13:26, March 2 2026 

Recently, a diagnosis has spread through American political commentary. Critics of the administration find themselves accused of suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS): an inability to identify or critically think about the actions of Donald Trump or his administration objectively. To talk of the administration as undermining democracy, the rule of law, or the public realm is a mere symptom of TDS, not a diagnosis of the current state of US politics. Some individuals have even begun to self-diagnose with TDS.

TDS is not the first term invented to pathologise the fear of tyranny. Tyrannophobia, the foolish fear of tyranny, has a longer history. Like all phobias, it is an exaggerated sense of fear that is debilitating, making the holder unable to act rationally towards the object. But it is an invention. And like TDS, it is both a form of ridicule but also similarly internalised. The aim is to silence those who raise concerns about emerging authoritarianism by making them figures of fun.

This blog post looks at the emergence of tyrannophobia and the role it plays in constitutionalism and authoritarianism. It then moves to TDS, how it has evolved, and how it is now moving into a new phase of self-diagnosis, in which those who raise legitimate concerns about the direction of the current US administration are couching their language in the possibility of their own ridiculousness.

As I outlined in my book On Tyranny and the Global Legal Order, naming tyranny is one of the first steps in either preventing or dismantling it. When that act of naming is made to seem ridiculous, bad actors are inoculated against both constitutional and political bulwarks that stand in the way of their consolidation of power.

Tyrannophobia

Thomas Hobbes first coined tyrannophobia in his Leviathan.

“So when a Monarchy is once bitten to the quick, by those Democraticall writers, that continually snarle at that estate; it wanteth nothing more than a strong Monarch which neverthelesse out of a certain Tyrannophobia, or feare of being strongly governed, when they have him, they abhorre.”

Hobbes says a lot in this quote. First, the use of phobia suggests an exaggerated fear. Those who suffer from it are silly and not to be taken seriously. Second, their concerns are misdirected because they confuse strong government with tyranny. They are either insufficiently wise or suffer from a debilitating fear that makes their judgement unsound when there is a strong government in place.

According to Hobbes, tyrannophobia leads to divisions, civil war, and a return to a brutish state of nature. Hobbes’ state of nature is, as Montesquieu described, a form of “blind fatality”. For Hobbes, strong government requires tough choices. And it is a binary choice: strong government or chaos. But where is the line between a “foolish” fear and a “real” fear? Hobbes writes that

“because the name of Tyranny, signifieth nothing more, nor lesse, than the name of Soveraignty, be it in one, or many men, saving that they that use the former word, are understood to be angry with them they call Tyrants; I think the toleration of a professed hatred of Tyranny, is a Toleration of hatred to Common-wealth in generall, and another evill seed, not differing much from the former.”

This suggests that any complaint against the sovereign – the state – in how it governs is an act of hatred, it is irrational, it is foolish. For Hobbes there is no space for a fear of tyranny that would not be foolish. Rather, it is disloyal or insincere.

John Locke argued that we can never be secure from tyranny and that vigilance is an absolute necessity. Arendt argues that totalitarianism is always a possibility. Justified fear of tyranny is part of the rationale for constitutional structures such as checks on power, term limits, separation of power, the rule of law, and processes such as impeachment. Impeachment constitutionalised tyrannicide by providing ways to remove individuals from office in extraordinary circumstances. That fear, combined with democracy, forms the foundation of much of liberal constitutionalism. Though constitutionalism alone is insufficient. An active public realm is also necessary. But both require active engagement with the possibility of the emergence of totalitarianism.

Trump Derangement Syndrome

Fear of tyranny is not misplaced; it is not foolish. But the accusation serves a different function. It is a form of ridicule. It may seem trite to quote a Greek play and say nothing much changes. But Aristophanes’ play Wasps has a speech that could easily come out of the current White House Press room.

“Oh, everything is a “tyranny” or a “conspiracy” for you, no matter whether the accusation is of a big or of a small deed! For the last fifty years I haven’t even heard the word “tyranny”, and now it’s way cheaper than salt fish, and its name is tossed from mouth to mouth in the market!”

Coined by Charles Krauthammer, derangement syndrome dates from the Bush Administration and was also used under the Obama administration to describe those who opposed them or who suggested conspiracy theories about them. However, under the Trump administration, this has gone to a new level. In 2025, five Minnesota legislators sought to have TDS categorised as a mental illness that “seriously limits a person’s capacity to function in primary aspects of daily living such as personal relations, living arrangements, work, and recreation.”

“Trump Derangement Syndrome” means the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal persons that is in reaction to the policies and presidencies of President Donald J. Trump. Symptoms may include Trump-induced general hysteria, which produces an inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and signs of psychic pathology in President Donald J. Trump’s behavior. This may be expressed by:

(1) verbal expressions of intense hostility toward President Donald J. Trump; and

(2) overt acts of aggression and violence against anyone supporting President Donald J. Trump or anything that symbolizes President Donald J. Trump”

In Arizona, a legislator sought to introduce a Bill requiring their health authorities to study TDS. Lawmakers have also proposed a similar bill at the federal level in the US Congress. Neither has been successful. But the mere fact that we have moved into this territory is deeply troubling.

There is a long history of mental health being used as a weapon by authoritarian figures. The pathologisation of tyrannophobia and, thus, of dissent is worrying. The moves to make TDS a legal category of incapacitation fit within that historical practice. TDS embodies the state as a single person so that any criticism of the state is a criticism of the person, here Donald Trump. Being accused of having TDS could then lead to a process that removes those individuals from the public sphere as dangerous to the state. TDS’s embrace by the Trump administration, the self-diagnosis by some, such as California Governor Gavin Newsom, and others, sits alongside a narrative in the media that warns critics of the Trump administration away from any critique that could come within the definition of TDS. This is deeply worrying.

This is for several reasons. First, it distorts the public realm, placing the emphasis on the critics of the administration to censor their own commentary and check it for paranoia, hysteria and the ability to distinguish between so called legitimate policies and what must, in turn, be illegitimate ones. But in this scenario, the definition of legitimacy always lies with the administration. Second, it curtails, delays, and even potentially forestalls acts within the constitutional structure to prevent policies and laws that foreshadow or introduce authoritarian practices. Before any acts can take place, they must prove the person does not have TDS. Third, by self-diagnosing, individuals are acting as if it is reasonable (and not also prejudicial towards those who have a mental illness but have the capacity to engage in political debate) to use an entirely made-up illness within the public realm as if it has bearing on political action. And finally, and most disturbingly, it enables authoritarianism to make its long, slow creep into established practice. Tyranny does not emerge suddenly; it most commonly emerges over a long, slow process.

TDS and Tyrannophobia

Accusations of tyrannophobia/TDS are a way to belittle opponents. If only the feebleminded fear strong government, exercising vigilance becomes foolish. Any actions taken are ridiculous, will make things worse, and may even bring about chaos. TDS can seem like a small issue, part of the public realm of AI memes, social media posts, and a never-ending news cycle where insults and mockery are the norm. However, TDS/tyrannophobia is more than an insult. It is a tool of silencing that paralyses action, including the tools of constitutionalism which were purposefully intended to prevent the advent of tyranny. It is essential that we do not embrace self-diagnosis but also that raising concerns about the dissolution of the public realm and constitutionalism as an essential act of vigilance overtakes the TDS narrative. Naming tyranny is an essential act to prevent its emergence or in starting the process of its removal. TDS is a way to stop that act of naming tyranny from occurring and should be resisted.