Skip to content

Arizona GOP pushes ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ study amid backlash

A GOP senator’s push to investigate opposition to Trump sparks ridicule. Experts call the bill a waste of time—so why is Arizona even considering it?

In this image there is a conference in which there are people sitting in chair and listening to the...
In this image there is a conference in which there are people sitting in chair and listening to the people who are on the stage. It seems like an event in which there is a conversation between the media people and the owners. At the background there is a big hoarding and the wall beside it.

Arizona GOP pushes ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ study amid backlash

A controversial bill has been introduced in Arizona to study what supporters call 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' (TDS). Republican State Senator Janae Shamp filed Senate Bill 1070, which would require the Arizona Department of Health Services to investigate the condition’s origins and long-term effects. The proposal has already drawn criticism from health officials and former state leaders.

The bill, known as SB 1070, was put forward by Shamp, who represents Surprise in the Arizona Senate. If passed, the legislation would mandate a one-year study into TDS, a term used by some to describe intense opposition to former President Donald Trump. The Arizona Department of Health Services would be responsible for conducting the research.

Former director of the agency, Will Humble, dismissed the bill as 'silly' and argued it falls outside the department’s core mission. He warned that the proposal would waste time and resources without producing any useful results. Retired veterinarian Gene Nance also struggled to comment on the measure, saying, 'I don’t recognize that as... I don’t.' Meanwhile, Governor Katie Hobbs’ office reportedly laughed when asked whether she would sign the bill if it reached her desk. Senator Shamp has not responded to requests for further comment.

The bill now faces an uncertain future in the Arizona legislature. If approved, the study would need to be completed within a year of the law’s enactment. Critics, however, argue it diverts attention from more pressing public health concerns.

Read also:

Latest