Gaslighting, Political Labels, and Ethical Leadership
As we enter the final days of the 2026 midterm election cycle, voters are being bombarded with warnings that electing a candidate from the opposing party will lead to catastrophic consequences. To be sure, candidates have different views, and elections produce real outcomes. But exaggerating the potential consequences of an election has, unfortunately, become an accepted part of our democratic republic.
This raises an important question: When does political rhetoric cross the line into gaslighting?
What Is Gaslighting?
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which one person attempts to distort another person’s perception of reality, often to gain control. The term originated with the 1938 play Gas Light, which was later adapted into the popular 1944 film Gaslight. In the film, a husband tries to convince his wife that she is mentally ill by manipulating her surroundings, including making the gaslights flicker, and then denying that anything has changed. His actions cause her to question her own perceptions and, ultimately, her sanity.
Over time, the term gaslighting entered common usage. In recent years, however, it has increasingly been applied to political disagreements, misleading statements, and misunderstandings that may not meet its more serious definition.
The term is now part of the political vocabulary of both major parties, which illustrates how readily the term has become part of the political back-and-forth. But using the word does not, by itself, establish that gaslighting has occurred. The more important question is whether someone is deliberately distorting facts or denying reality in an effort to manipulate others.
Is “Trump Derangement Syndrome” a Form of Gaslighting?
Consider another phrase that has become common in American political discourse: “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” often shortened to TDS. At first glance, the phrase might appear to be a form of gaslighting. However, it is more commonly used as a political insult than as a deliberate attempt to make someone question their own perception of reality.
The phrase is generally attributed to supporters of President Donald Trump as a rhetorical jab at his critics. Its implication is that those who strongly oppose Trump are so consumed by their dislike of him that they can no longer think clearly or recognize reality.
The phrase is not a recognized medical diagnosis. Nevertheless, in 2025, two developments illustrated how political rhetoric can move beyond name-calling and into proposed public policy. In Minnesota, a state bill sought to classify “Trump Derangement Syndrome” as an official mental illness.
Separately, U.S. Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio introduced the TDS Research Act (H.R. 3432), which called for the National Institutes of Health to study what he described as “Trump-induced general hysteria.”
These efforts raise questions about the appropriate use of mental-health language in political debate. Disagreeing with a president, criticizing his policies, or strongly disliking his leadership does not, in itself, indicate a mental-health problem. The broader lesson is that political labels can be used to dismiss legitimate criticism without addressing the substance of the criticism itself.
A Political Insult That Crosses Party Lines
Although “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is associated with Donald Trump, the practice of using similar labels to discredit political opponents is not new, nor is it limited to one party.
Over the years, variations of "derangement syndrome" have been directed at critics of several presidents and political leaders. “Bush Derangement Syndrome” was used to describe critics of President George W. Bush. “Obama Derangement Syndrome” was used to characterize opponents of President Barack Obama. And “Clinton Derangement Syndrome” has been used to criticize those who strongly opposed Hillary Clinton.
The targets change, but the rhetorical strategy remains much the same: portray political opponents as irrational rather than engage with their arguments.
What Does This Mean for Ethical Leadership?
Are the terms gaslighting and derangement syndrome inherently harmful? Not necessarily. Both can attract media attention, generate political energy, and appeal to a party’s supporters. However, intent and context matter. Gaslighting involves more than simply making an exaggerated claim or using an insulting label. It involves manipulating another person’s understanding of reality. Likewise, calling political opponents mentally unstable can serve as a convenient way to avoid addressing their concerns.
Voters should be alert to these tactics, regardless of which political party uses them. We should ask whether public statements are grounded in facts, whether competing viewpoints are being addressed honestly, and whether political leaders are helping citizens understand important issues—or simply encouraging distrust and division.
Our democratic republic depends on citizens being able to disagree without automatically questioning one another’s intelligence, sanity, or motives. Political leaders have an opportunity—and a responsibility—to set that example.
Lee Rasch
