**Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)** is a pejorative political term used to describe extreme and irrational reactions—either positive or negative—toward Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States. The term implies that some individuals exhibit disproportionate emotional responses, impairing their ability to objectively assess Trump’s policies, actions, or behavior.
### **Background and Origin**
1. **Coined in 2015**: The phrase is derived from “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” a term popularized by political commentator Charles Krauthammer in 2003. Krauthammer defined it as an irrational hatred for President George W. Bush, blinding critics from objective thinking.
2. **Early Use in Relation to Trump**: Shortly after Trump announced his candidacy in 2015, conservative commentators and Trump supporters began using “Trump Derangement Syndrome” to describe critics they felt overreacted to his rhetoric, candidacy, or election.
3. **Usage**:
- **Conservatives** and Trump supporters often use TDS to mock individuals they see as obsessively opposed to Trump, suggesting these critics view everything he does through a lens of outrage, regardless of merit.
- **Opponents** of Trump sometimes reclaim the phrase humorously or to highlight what they see as legitimate reasons for concern about his policies, behavior, or impact on democracy.
4. **Expansion of Meaning**: The term now refers not only to hyperbolic negative responses but also to those who defend or idolize Trump to an irrational degree, regardless of factual context.
### **Public and Media Impact**
- The phrase entered broader public discourse during Trump’s presidency (2017–2021) and became a flashpoint in debates about media bias, political polarization, and public discourse.
- As with many political terms, “TDS” is often employed dismissively in online debates to undercut opposing viewpoints without engaging in substantive discussion.
This concept reflects the broader phenomenon of **political tribalism**, where political figures can evoke polarizing reactions that overshadow facts or nuanced debate.