In March 2025, New York psychiatrist Dr. Leon Hoffman wrote a letter to The Guardian reporting that the Minnesota legislature had requested the psychiatric community recognize a new condition: Trump derangement syndrome.
According to lawmakers, the syndrome includes:
- “Verbal expressions of intense hostility toward [Donald J. Trump]”; and
- “Overt acts of aggression and violence against anyone supporting [Trump] or anything that symbolizes [Trump].”
This attempt to medicalize political dissent is deeply troubling and eerily familiar.
Authoritarian regimes, from the former Soviet Union to present-day China, have long used psychiatry to silence critics. In such systems, dissent isn’t viewed as legitimate disagreement but as a form of mental illness. If the political order is perfect, then opposition must be irrational.
As Prof. Robert van Voren wrote in his 2010 Schizophrenia Bulletin paper :
“Historically seen, using psychiatry as a means of repression has been a particular favourite of Socialist-oriented regimes. An explanation might be found in the fact that Socialist ideology is focused on the establishment of the ideal society, where all are equal and all will be happy [sic], and thus, those who are against must be mad.”
Van Voren also documents the ongoing use of psychiatry in China to protect state power.
Minnesota’s proposal fits squarely within this authoritarian tradition. Rather than addressing political arguments on their merits, it seeks to stigmatize dissenters as mentally unwell. It’s another sign that the United States under Trump is veering toward authoritarianism.
This “othering” of critics takes many forms. While Minnesota’s move may be the most extreme, Trump supporters regularly denigrate his opponents through smears, intimidation and coordinated media attacks.
A recent case involving The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg illustrates this trend. After Goldberg reported that he had been added to a high-level Signal chat group discussing a planned military strike on Houthi targets, the Trump administration responded with personal attacks rather than accountability.
Trump, now a convicted felon, called Goldberg a “sleazebag.” National security adviser Michael Waltz — who had invited Goldberg to the chat — described him as “scum” on Fox News. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called him “an anti-Trump hater.”
Rather than apologizing for the potential security breach, the administration vilified the journalist for doing his job.
Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene escalated the rhetoric, berating Sky News reporter Martha Kelner for raising questions about the incident.“I don’t give a crap about your opinion or your reporting,” Greene snapped. “Why don’t you go back to your country where you have a major migrant problem?”
The hostility toward Europe wasn’t confined to media comments. In the Signal group chat, U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance and Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth exchanged the following:
- Vance: “If you think we should do it [the Houthi operation] let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.”
- Hegseth: “I fully share your loathing of European freeloading. It’s PATHETIC [sic].”
This rhetoric is historically inaccurate and diplomatically reckless. The defeat of fascism in the Second World War was a collective effort. The U.S. lost 407,300 military personnel, representing 0.32 per cent of its population. Canada lost 42,000 — about 0.38 per cent. Proportionally, Canada’s sacrifice was even greater.
While American officials often claim their country bears the brunt of defending global democracy, the historical record tells a more nuanced story.
These are strange days. Educated and capable individuals — Vance, a Yale Law School graduate, among them — are attacking democratic allies like Canada, France and Britain while aligning themselves with autocratic regimes such as Russia.
The Signal incident also raises troubling questions about the administration’s disregard for data security. Why use a commercial app when secure Pentagon systems are available?
For allies such as Canada, France and Britain, this should be a red flag. Sharing intelligence with an administration that leaks — intentionally or otherwise — could jeopardize lives and national interests.
Dr. Simon Bennett directs the Civil Safety and Security Unit at the University of Leicester. He’s interested in the organizational, social, economic and political origins of risk. He has worked with the Royal Air Force and U.K. National Police Air Service on human factors issues. His latest book, , was published by Libri Publishing Ltd. in 2023.
©
The commentaries offered on Â鶹´«Ã½AV.ca are intended to provide thought-provoking material for our readers. The opinions expressed are those of the authors. Contributors' articles or letters do not necessarily reflect the opinion of any Â鶹´«Ã½AV.ca staff.
