Five Republican senators in Minnesota have introduced a bill to classify "Trump derangement syndrome" as a mental illness under state law. The bill, known as SF 2589, was scheduled for introduction on Monday and quickly sparked debate across the state and beyond.
The term "Trump derangement syndrome" has been used for years by supporters of former President Donald Trump. They say it describes what they believe is extreme, irrational opposition to Trump’s presidency and policies.
The proposed bill defines the term as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal persons that is in reaction to the policies and presidencies of Donald Trump." It lists possible symptoms such as strong verbal hostility toward Trump and aggressive behavior toward his supporters or political symbols.
Supporters Say the Bill Highlights Political Bias
The bill was introduced by state Senators Eric Lucero, Steve Drazkowski, Nathan Wesenberg, Justin D. Eichorn, and Glenn H. Gruenhagen. Senator Gruenhagen spoke about the bill in a post on Facebook over the weekend.
"I am proud to be one of the co-authors on this bill which calls attention to the oftentimes outrageous, violent and unreasonable reactions we’ve seen toward a president who loves America and wants us to be prosperous, strong, safe and great again," Gruenhagen wrote.
Origin of the Term and Political Roots
The phrase "Trump derangement syndrome" has become common in political discussions, especially among Trump’s allies. It is often used to push back against criticism directed at Trump.
In early 2024, during the presidential campaign, former President Joe Biden accused Trump of using language similar to that used by extremist regimes. Trump's campaign dismissed the criticism, calling it another case of "Trump derangement syndrome." Trump also used the phrase against other political opponents, including former Vice President Kamala Harris.
The idea behind this term is not new. It comes from an earlier phrase, "Bush derangement syndrome," first used by conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer. He said it described people who couldn’t tell the difference between normal political disagreement and irrational hatred toward President George W. Bush.
In his writings, Krauthammer described the condition as involving not just general hysteria, but also the inability to see the difference between policy debates and emotional overreactions. The Minnesota bill borrows that language almost word-for-word.
One part of the bill states: "Symptoms may include Trump-induced general hysteria, which produces an inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and signs of psychic pathology in Trump’s behavior."
Opposition From State Democrats
The proposal was quickly criticized by Minnesota Democrats. The Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL), which is the state’s affiliate of the national Democratic Party, called the bill a distraction from real issues.
"This is why Minnesota Republicans have lost every statewide election in recent memory," the DFL said in a statement. "Every time they get a chance to work on solutions that help Minnesotans, they focus instead on promoting ideas from their most extreme right-wing activists."
The bill is set to be reviewed by the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. The DFL currently holds a small majority in the Minnesota State Senate, making the future of the bill uncertain.
What Happens Next
It’s not clear whether the bill has enough support to move forward. If it reaches a full vote, it could become a flashpoint in upcoming elections and political campaigns. Critics argue the bill is not about public health, but a political stunt designed to rally Trump’s base and provoke outrage.
Supporters insist that it’s a real problem, saying that some criticism of Trump crosses the line into what they describe as irrational behavior.
Regardless of whether the bill becomes law, it has already generated strong reactions across the country. Political analysts say it could influence future debates about how political language is used and whether it belongs in medical or legal classifications.
The bill may also fuel broader discussions about mental health, especially when used as a political tool. Some mental health experts worry about using official medical classifications to label political disagreements, saying it risks undermining the seriousness of actual mental health conditions.
For now, Minnesota lawmakers are expected to debate the issue further in committee hearings. The public and advocacy groups may also weigh in as the conversation continues.
Keywords: Minnesota politics, Trump derangement syndrome, political news, mental health bill, Republican lawmakers, USA legislation, state senate news