In the lead-up to the presidential election, an anti-Trump political group has mobilized over 200 mental health professionals to sign an open letter, which they published in a full-page ad in the New York Times. This letter asserts that Donald Trump is a significant threat to American democracy, labeling him as “grossly unfit for leadership” due to what they describe as symptoms of “malignant narcissism” and other behaviors indicating a severe personality disorder. The initiative was spearheaded by Anti-Psychopath Pac, a political action committee known for its critical portrayal of Trump’s mental fitness for office in various media campaigns. The letter represents a broader concern regarding Trump’s psychological stability, particularly in light of his candidacy’s impact on democracy in the United States.
The mental health professionals who signed the letter cited the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) to assert that Trump displays characteristics consistent with antisocial personality disorder. They pointed out his patterns of deceit, impulsivity, and a general failure to adhere to social norms and ethics. These assertions are complemented by observable patterns of Trump’s behavior over time, bolstering their claims that he is not only unfit for leadership but potentially dangerous in his actions and rhetoric. The signatories expressed concern about Trump’s capacity for empathy and moral responsibility, framing their evaluation as a legitimate professional viewpoint informed by observable behaviors rather than a clinical diagnosis.
However, the initiative runs afoul of the ethical guidelines set forth by the American Psychiatric Association, particularly the Goldwater Rule. This rule, established in the wake of the derogatory psychological evaluations of Barry Goldwater during the 1964 presidential election, discourages mental health professionals from providing diagnoses without a personal examination of the individual in question. Despite this, the letter’s signers argued that their assessments are based on extensive public observation of Trump’s behavior, thus attempting to navigate the limitations imposed by the Goldwater Rule. The communication underscored the professionals’ belief that Trump’s psyche poses a tangible risk to societal norms and public safety.
George Conway, an attorney and prominent figure behind the Anti-Psychopath Pac, has been vocal about his concerns regarding Trump. Conway’s activism against Trump builds upon his involvement in the Lincoln Project, a Republican group that opposed Trump during his presidency. His advocacy against Trump’s candidacy includes references to the long-standing observations of Trump’s public behavior, indicating a consensus among the signatories that the former president’s behavior is not only damaging but also indicative of deeper psychological issues. This vein of thinking positions Trump’s leadership as a constructive matter of public interest and necessity rather than a purely political standpoint.
In tandem with these sentiments, Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for the presidency, has echoed criticisms of Trump by labeling him as “increasingly unstable and unhinged.” Harris’ statements reflect a growing concern among opposition parties regarding Trump’s mental acuity as he seeks another term. This scrutiny has also been heightened by questions surrounding the candidates’ ages, as both Trump and Biden would be the oldest elected presidents in U.S. history should they succeed in their pursuits. Harris has taken a different approach by actively encouraging voters to witness Trump’s speeches firsthand and form their impressions based on his rhetoric, which she describes as eccentric and erratic.
Alongside the professional letter, another full-page ad was published in the New York Times, signed by over 200 survivors of sexual assault, which serves as a stark reminder of Trump’s legal challenges regarding similar allegations. This campaign resonates with the previous civil court ruling against Trump for sexual abuse, reinforcing the narrative of danger and unfitness that the mental health professionals similarly portray in the context of Trump’s behavior. The juxtaposition of these ads underscores the multifaceted criticisms of Trump as he seeks reelection, cultivating a discourse that encompasses both psychological and ethical dimensions relating to his candidacy and leadership—crucial factors as the election looms.
