We should move away from this excessive focus on psychology and instead concentrate on the social structures that made it possible for such an individual to rise to power. This is the perspective that Olivier Fournout explores in his article in The Conversation, published on February 10, 2026. Qualifier Donald Trump de « fou », comme c’est régulièrement le cas ces derniers temps, tend à détourner l’attention de la cohérence de la politique conduite par l’intéressé depuis son retour à la Maison-Blanche et du fait qu’il constitue moins une anomalie individuelle qu’un produit typique d’un système économique, médiatique et culturel qui valorise la domination, la spectacularisation et la marchandisation du monde. Il convient de se détourner de cette psychologisation à outrance pour mieux se concentrer sur les structures sociales qui ont rendu possible l’accession au pouvoir d’un tel individu. We need to move away from this excessive psychologization and focus instead on the social structures that enabled such an individual to rise to power.
In just a few days in January 2026, it became the most talked-about topic in the media: Trump is crazy. On January 19, a Democratic member of the US Congress sounded the alarm on X, claiming that the president was “mentally extremely ill.” Fox News, a media outlet that has long been close to Donald Trump, reported the comments the next day in a factual tone. On January 22, the day after Trump’s speech in Davos, during which he asked for “a piece of ice” (namely Greenland) “in exchange for world peace,” L’Humanité ran a headline with a magnificent play on words: Trump “Fou allié” (Crazy Ally).
On January 23, news outlets relayed what was already widely reported in the press: “Statement by Democratic representatives in the US Congress: Donald Trump’s mental health is impaired; it’s worse than Joe Biden’s, it’s a case of dementia.” On January 24, the cover of The Economist magazine showed a shirtless Donald Trump straddling a polar bear—a message of crazy ramblings mimicking Putin and his bare-chested photos, with the animal of the Far North emphasizing the White House tenant’s claims on Greenland.
Even Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, an ally of the New York billionaire, reportedly deemed him “completely disturbed” after meeting him on January 19 at Mar-a-Lago. The Trump case is now regularly examined through the lens of insanity by elected officials, journalists, and even psychiatrists.
However, there is reason to be skeptical about the accusations of insanity levelled against Trump. Not only have they done little to neutralize him so far, but they have actually contributed to his success and prevented people from thinking about the real problem. The arguments against them deserve to be reviewed.
How legitimate is medicalizing discourse?
It may seem questionable, even when one is a psychiatrist, and even more so when one is not, to declare someone mentally ill without having examined them according to specific protocols.
When, on March 5, 2025, French senator Claude Malhuret, who is a doctor, called Trump a “Nero” and a “buffoon” from the podium of the Luxembourg Palace—a speech that went viral in the United States—the rhetoric was beautifully crafted, but it was not medical.
The senator does not refer to the Academy. At this stage, in the absence of an examination carried out by professionals whose results have been made public, describing Trump as crazy is more of a political than a medical statement.
Ineffective rhetoric
Statements about Trump’s insanity have been made repeatedly over a long period of time without showing any effectiveness in combating it. From the first year of his first term, rumors have been circulating about a possible impeachment on mental grounds, based on expert opinions that have not, however, been based on interviews with the person concerned. No impeachment proceedings will be initiated on these grounds.
In October 2024, a new collective statement by professionals on Trump’s cognitive decline was released, diagnosing him with a “severe and incurable personality disorder.” This did not prevent him from being elected fairly easily the following month against Kamala Harris. As for the 2020 defeat, it came in the midst of the Covid wave and was less the result of claims that the outgoing president was insane than of his disastrous handling of the pandemic: underestimating the scale of contagion and mortality, and ostentatiously refusing to wear a mask.
One day, no doubt, Trump will leave office, but the effects of mental illness diagnoses on his political career—and in particular on his 2024 victory, which occurred when voters were fully aware of his personal profile—have been negligible to date.
Attacks that play into Trump’s hands
Worse still, these attacks are not only ineffective, they actually serve Trump. The core of his technique—which he explained back in the 1980s in The Art of the Deal—consists of stirring up controversy to get people talking about him and his projects. Responding to him on his own turf, calling him a psychopath (or aberrant, monstrous, stupid, or delusional—the latest buzzword), is falling into his trap: he then poses as a victim and reaps the votes. What is surprising is that, for ten years, no lessons have been learned from these repeated failures in the fight against Trump.
« I rage and rave like a madman, and the crazier I get, the higher the ratings climb.”
Trump pitched himself for his reality TV show, The Apprentice (source: Think Big and Kick Ass: In Business and Life, D. Trump and B. Zanker, 2007). Madness? No. A tried-and-tested strategy that attracts attention to his advantage.
But commentators and echo chambers also benefit. And that’s where the problem lies: Trump’s “crazy antics” are actually diversions that the media, the opposition, politicians, and often experts rush to jump on for the buzz.
Trump reflects society
Beyond television, Trump’s methods are typical of life advice that circulates widely in society, emanating from many other sources besides him. Examples include Harvey Mackay’s classic Swim With the Sharks Without Being Eaten Alive (1988), and Robert Greene’s The Concise 33 Strategies of War (2006).
We also think of the war metaphors that creep into more balanced management books; “war room meetings” describe successful team meetings in X-Teams (2007) ; giving more power to managers is recommended so that they do not find themselves “facing ten enemies with only one bullet in their gun», dans Smart simplicity (2014).
From this perspective, Trump is “banal, too banal.” He is typical of a “hypermodern hero worship,” carried along by a “Trumpization of the world” that is beyond his control. The consequence of this sociological observation is that the problem runs much deeper than idiosyncratic madness, however disturbing it may be.
Declaring Trump crazy obscures the extent to which Trump’s modus operandi is, to a significant degree, shared across society. Trump favors power struggles. He has always been unequivocal on this point, which has brought him success in business, television, leadership, and now politics. But this is not achieved in opposition to American society, as if by accident, but rather as a reflection of a broad spectrum of that society.
Negotiating with a gun to your head is the subject of numerous books on personal development, management, and workplace communication. It is the plot device that ensures the popularity of Hollywood films (not only Westerns, but also the “offers you can’t refuse” in The Godfather). There is nothing crazy or absurd about this. It’s just a dominant ethos that has its own rationale and has never been soft.
So it comes as no surprise that only a powerful force can make Trump back down. Again, he has been explicit about this for a long time. When he was close to bankruptcy in the 1990s, he bowed down to the bankers: “When you owe people money, you go to their office […] I wanted to do anything but go to dinners with bankers, but I went to dinner with bankers” (in Think Big, 2007). Strictly instrumental rationality, certainly, but rationality nonetheless. The feature article « Ice and heat » recently published by The Economist on the Greenland affair notes that the European threat to trigger the anti-coercion instrument has, for the moment, played a role in Trump’s retreat.
Reveal the structure to better combat it
To counter Trump’s America, we should first examine the rationality of his guidelines. His actions, whether in diplomacy or domestic policy, economic policy or natural resource management, stem from a clear, consistent, thoughtful, and proactive strategy. This is where the battle to defeat Trump must be fought, rather than through futile gestures that make us feel good about ourselves but are repeated ad nauseam without having any real impact on the bombastic showman.
