Mental health professionals are promoting a new psychological framework to explain negative emotional reactions to President Donald Trump’s policies, coining the term “betrayal trauma” to describe feelings some Americans experience when watching political developments unfold.
The Psychological Framework
Sandra Maurer, a licensed professional clinical counselor in Minnesota, told Health that the concept applies when people believe situations should be fair and unlawful actions should face consequences. The framework, originally developed by psychologist Jennifer J. Freyd, describes trauma occurring when someone with a reasonable expectation of trust—such as a partner, doctor, or authority figure—violates that trust. Maurer argues this applies to both Trump’s decisions and leaders tasked with providing checks on executive power.
Manahill Riaz, a Houston psychotherapist, expanded the concept to include “institutional betrayal,” suggesting the Trump administration represents an entire system failing to acknowledge harm or misconduct. This institutional framework mirrors relationship betrayals but operates at a governmental level, according to Riaz. The psychotherapist claims Americans experience a dual harm: the action itself and the loss of ability to judge what constitutes safe or real situations.
Claims of Widespread Impact
Taryn Rothstein, a New York clinical social worker, stated the phenomenon affects both Trump supporters and opponents. She claims those who voted against him feel their rights and public services are disappearing, while vulnerable populations face politicization. Rothstein argues feelings of betrayal directly connect to safety concerns, suggesting Americans no longer share agreement about truth, accountability, or established rules. Maurer noted that while Americans never considered government perfect, many held general faith in institutional systems that now appear compromised.
Constitutional Perspective
The article raises questions about constitutional governance, citing examples like alleged stock purchases before White House events and military action without congressional authorization. These claims warrant scrutiny through constitutional frameworks that establish separation of powers and congressional war-making authority. The mental health professionals interviewed suggest observing policy decisions without accountability challenges Americans’ understanding of governmental checks and balances. Whether these feelings represent clinical trauma or political disagreement remains a subject experts continue debating as the administration progresses through its term.
