Its spreading!
Arizona lawmakers are drawing national attention after introducing legislation that would direct state health officials to study what supporters of Donald Trump often refer to as Trump Derangement Syndrome, framing the issue as a potential public-health and mental-wellness concern.
State Sen. Janae Shamp announced the proposal this week, which would instruct the Arizona Department of Health Services to conduct a formal review of the psychological, social, and behavioral effects associated with extreme political hostility toward Trump. The legislation does not diagnose individuals but instead seeks to examine broader behavioral trends that may affect civil discourse and public safety.
Under the measure, the department’s director would be authorized to analyze contributing factors such as sustained media exposure, political polarization, and social-media amplification. The proposal also calls for collaboration with licensed mental-health professionals to explore possible responses that could reduce harmful behavior and encourage healthier civic engagement.
Shamp’s office said the effort treats the issue as a serious matter impacting emotional well-being, public dialogue, and political stability within Arizona. The goal, according to the announcement, is to better understand how intense political fixation can influence behavior and contribute to social division.
The phrase gained renewed attention after Trump referenced it in a December social-media post following the death of actor and filmmaker Rob Reiner, describing what he called an “incurable affliction” that clouds judgment and fuels irrational hostility.
Supporters of the Arizona proposal argue that ongoing political animosity directed at Trump and his supporters has contributed to rising tensions nationwide. The legislative release points to recent acts of political violence, including two assassination attempts against Trump in 2024, as evidence that extreme rhetoric can escalate into real-world danger.
Shamp said the legislation is intended to address what she described as an unhealthy political obsession that may harm mental health and threaten public safety, rather than to target individuals or restrict speech.
A related initiative is also taking shape in Washington. Ohio Rep. Warren Davidson has put forward legislation titled the Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act of 2025, which would require the National Institutes of Health to examine intense psychological and social responses tied to opposition toward Trump. Alabama Rep. Barry Moore signed on as an original co-sponsor of the measure.
Davidson said such reactions have divided families, fueled nationwide unrest, and contributed to political violence. He also criticized current federal research spending, arguing that taxpayer resources should focus on issues with direct relevance to American society.
Instead of funding what he described as questionable experiments, Davidson said the NIH should prioritize research that addresses real-world social challenges affecting millions of Americans.
The federal bill has been introduced in the House but has not yet advanced beyond committee referral.
The concept of “derangement syndrome” in politics dates back decades. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer first used the term in a 2003 column to describe what he viewed as irrational hostility toward President George W. Bush. Over time, the phrase evolved into “Trump Derangement Syndrome” as commentators applied the concept to Trump’s critics.
Supporters of both the state and federal proposals argue that studying extreme political behavior could lead to healthier public debate, reduced polarization, and a more stable civic culture in an increasingly divided nation.