Why was Donald Trump chosen by Americans — twice?
This article was written for therapists, psychiatrists and mental health practitioners. Since other readers may also find it helpful it has been slightly modified.
Just as a single spark can ignite (mobilise and energise) a devastating wildfire under the right conditions, such as dry weather and strong winds, a leader’s unaddressed trauma can have a cascading effect, significantly impacting and shaping the psycho-emotional landscape of a nation. This impact is particularly pronounced when it resonates with an already neglected traumatised population. It can manifest within existing anxieties and vulnerabilities among its people, such as social polarisation, economic insecurity, political disillusionment, and even non-compulsory voting. For instance, angry and frustrated citizens would more likely express their discontent by voting for the one who speaks to their untreated trauma-based pain. Meanwhile, those feeling overwhelmed, disillusioned or alienated from a political process are unlikely to vote since they don’t have to. Disengaging from an electoral system would in and of itself automatically render an imbalance at the voting box — even before considering any trauma-informed drivers. (Hence the word “chosen” rather than “voted” in the title).
It’s crucial to remember that this topic represents a complex phenomenon. At a minimum, it requires a multidisciplinary approach that considers the interplay of psychological, social, economic, political factors and associated anxieties. These potent elements can create fertile ground for the emergence of political leaders who exploit such areas of vulnerabilities, potentially exacerbating social divisions and undermining democratic institutions. By connecting the metaphor of a wildfire to the impact of unaddressed trauma within the US, a large and potentially traumatised population (e.g., Basile et al., 2022; Kang et al., 2024), this analysis offers only one piece of a most intriguing puzzle. It offers a starting point to some insights into the potential reverberations of unattended to trauma.
In an article entitled “Trump: How can trauma help explain his die-hard support? (Misrachi, 2020), I concluded that the outcome of the US elections in November 2020 “may reflect the extent to which… the American public are able or willing to acknowledge and attend to their trauma including how far their efforts at trauma recovery — to reduce trauma’s impact — are enabled or thwarted”. In this article, by focusing on the American population, I begin to explore possible reasons why such efforts may have been thwarted. It’s an analysis that attempts to look at the potential impact of a leader’s behaviour, reflective of their own underlying unresolved trauma, on the broader emotional landscape of a nation. It seeks to understand how the actions of Donald Trump (hereon referred to as DT), a catalyst for widespread emotional unrest, may have resonated with deeply held anxieties and unresolved traumas within the collective American psyche. By focusing on trauma-based anger (e.g., van der Kolk, 1987), we may begin to grasp the dynamics of this phenomenon. But are there any trauma-informed lessons?
A leader’s trauma-driven behaviours might create a culture of fear or blind loyalty, influencing the actions of those around them. Traumatised and untreated, such leaders can also be surprisingly well camouflaged. On 21 January, 2025, ABC interviewer, Marr, asked Shapiro: “If somebody sat down next to me and said, that sunlight was pouring over the entire world because of [DT], I would question that person’s sanity”. Understanding why some people support leaders who exhibit concerning behaviours is a complex issue. As mentioned, there are likely multiple motivations at play, including shared values, various anxieties, or a sense of disillusionment with the political establishment. Some like neuroscientist, Azarian, caution us not to assume DT supporters are mentally ill, vulnerable, racist, bad or evil. Research suggests that various processes can lead individuals to be unaware of how their past traumas impact their behaviours (Goldsmith, Barlow & Freyd, 2004), this being regardless of those who chose to vote or not to vote. For instance, DT’s niece, Mary Trump, describes in her (2020) book “Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man” observed that those following orders while working for her uncle are doing inappropriate, unethical or immoral things. She stated “[they] are perpetuated by… People who know better… too numerous to name, have become, unwittingly or not, complicit in their perpetuation” (Trump, 2020, p.15). Firstly, it’s important to remember that the lives of traumatised individuals can be well camouflaged, i.e., they can remain “unseen” (Misrachi, 2012). Therefore, the effects of trauma in leaders and those who choose to follow them, can be subtle and difficult to detect. But if Mary Trump’s observations are about people who work for DT. What about those who don’t? Why do those many supporters exist?
Trauma is escape when there is no escape (Herman, 1992). Large numbers equal a stampede. It may be tempting to focus on the dysfunction of one individual leader, after all it is them who are being watched on camera and elsewhere. But it’s crucial and equally if not more important to also consider the broader population, i.e., the societal context, those many who are watching. After all, either by voting or not voting, it’s the American people who chose their leader. Currently, there appears to be an imbalance: An over-focus on one individual, DT, with very little focus on the extraordinarily large numbers of those who do watch and follow DT. For example, focusing on just DT, ABC interviewer, Marr, asks Shapiro, “is Trump sane?”. And again, Australia’s former ambassador to the US Joe Hockey warns a second Trump presidency will be “disruptive” because “handbrake is off” [as] he’s not constrained by the need to be re-elected…”. Isn’t it time we widened our lens? Assuming the ballot boxes were not rigged, what about the millions who did vote for this one individual? What factors influenced their voting or non-voting decisions? What were their needs and if their needs were to be met, how should they be met?
A significant portion of the US population are traumatised with limited access to adequate trauma-informed treatment (e.g., Kang et al., 2024; Basile et al., 2022; Perry & Szalavitz, 2017). This in turn, would leave many feeling internally disempowered while searching for external empowering solutions. For instance, 86.4% of veterans screened positive for PTSD (Kang, et al., (2024), and almost one in three males together with over half of American females experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their life (Basile, et al., 2022). Dear reader, remember this.
The above facts implies that even if traumatised Americans wanted to receive help, a great many are likely to feel, even if not articulated, profoundly disempowered by the impacts of their delayed untreated trauma. Moreover, few would have the internal resources required to begin to acknowledge and attend to their trauma [or] efforts at trauma recovery (Misrachi, 2020). In journal, World Psychiatry, Brewin and Colleagues (2025) state “progress in prevention [of PTSD] has been disappointing” (p.52), and this is very likely because external trauma-relevant interventions and resources barely exist on US ground (Perry & Szalavitz, 2017). Untreated traumatised leaders who exploit societal trauma may resonate with voters struggling with their own unaddressed traumas. This can then create a sense of validation or a feeling of “shared experience”, even if the leader’s solutions are ultimately harmful. This begs obvious questions: what are the implications of these findings for understanding the relationship between untreated trauma, leadership, and societal stability? And is that why a stampede chose DT?
Within any nation, to avoid creating an empty psycho-social-emotional space, timing and availability of trauma-relevant resources and interventions matter. Effective trauma treatment for a traumatised population requires adequate time and readily accessible resources, both of which appear to be lacking in the US (e.g., Brewin, et al., 2025). Even if there were sufficient resources and a strong desire to heal, the process of trauma recovery takes time, leaving many individuals and families across generations struggling with the symptoms of unresolved trauma.
Since the US has insufficient trauma-prevention and trauma-recovery resources, and since there is often a lengthy duration for trauma recovery to take hold in any population even if resources were available, an empty psycho-social-emotional space would naturally and logically emerge. So along comes DT, only too happy to arrive again, he gladly fills-up this seemingly empty psycho-social-emotional space or vacuum. We often see DT’s anger appearing uninhibited. In modelling and encouraging expressions of anger and rage, DT is perhaps giving millions of trauma-based angry Americans permission to be, like him. For instance, despite suffering a physical injury (a bleeding ear as a result of a failed assassination attempt), he escalated the situation, shouting “Fight!” three times to a terrified crowd while pumping his fist in the air. Perhaps DT’s aggressive, impulsive and confrontational style may have resonated with millions of untreated Americans struggling with their own unresolved traumas; their suppressed trauma-based anger (e.g., van der Kolk, 1987). Unlike the overwhelmed more quiet ones, the anger-driven traumatised segment of the American population would have readily identified with what has been described by others as an “extremely [and] extraordinarily volatile” leader, a “merchant of anger.”, and a “master of provocation”. In reacting to their own unique traumatic stress, both groups, whether via their presence or absence at the ballot box, would likely influence the voting outcome. Unaware of their trauma-based needs, some may be repulsed by DT, but it appears that a great many others may have found inspiration from a perceived charismatic leader able to put words to their traumatic pain and frustrations, i.e., someone who spoke their “language”.
Mary Trump (2020) details how her uncle, DT, was raised in a cruel and toxic family system. So the inevitable question of whether DT’s own unaddressed trauma caused another cascading effect, yet again, on a grand public scale would seem legitimate. In other words, DT’s own unaddressed trauma-based anger (e.g., van der Kolk, 1987) may have triggered and also inspired a large segment of the American population’s own unresolved trauma-based anger. Henceforth, significantly impacting the multi-generational emotional landscape of an already traumatised population. However, this does not suggest a “domino effect” because the cumulative effect permitting someone, like DT, to be resurrected was not dependent on just one single event setting off a series of similar or related events or chain reaction. But rather appears to be a confluence of complex, including trauma-based factors (some touched on here), interacting within the American psyche over decades within an impoverished or somewhat vulnerable psycho-social-political ecosystem. Meanwhile, it appears DT may have also offered his followers a sense of empowerment, regardless of whether genuine or destructive. One thing for certain, we see he enjoys the role of Savior, offering a sense of relief to his people at every opportunity. Maybe in DT’s mind it feels like he is doing good to his people by “coming home” again.
Summary: Collectively, it appears that an impoverished public health system along with societal and historical conditions, allowed DT to re-emerge and “strike” that deadly match — twice. That is, with little to no affordable trauma-informed treatment programs (i.e., “dry weather conditions”), and with cumulative trauma-based anger (i.e., “strong winds”), it appears that the US population just needed that “single spark” (i.e., someone like DT) to come along and ignite their internal anger (i.e., “fires”). Those millions experiencing anger and frustration were more likely to express their discontent through voting, while those feeling alienated from the political process, may be more likely to disengage from the electoral system. It may therefore be tempting to ask: Would the American population reacted in such a surprising way, ultimately paving DT’s homecoming or resurrection, had there been adequate trauma-relevant interventions and resources on the ground in the US early enough? After all, in efficiently “striking” that deadly match, DT seized the opportunity to fire-up large segments of the untreated traumatised American population in spectacular and theatrical ways — twice. Perhaps this teaches us that nations do need to be mindful of avoiding a trauma-generated, empty psycho-social-emotional space or vacuum, that could allow a charismatic leader with an undefined, yet volatile mission to re-emerge, inadvertently stepping into and penetrating a nation’s vulnerable psychological space.
Note: This article only begins to explain the appeal of DT’ behaviour, and why it didn’t take much for him to ignite yet again, a significant portion of the traumatised American population, causing an unanticipated surge in popularity, much to the shock of onlookers. However, in its contribution to an intriguing conundrum on Why was Donald Trump chosen by Americans — twice, it also provides some worrisome questions. Will the above (partially described) psychological phenomena serve as an incubator for further social unrest or wildfires both within the US and across the globe? No doubt, further research-based insights, including more trauma-informed analysis, may shed further light on factors contributing to the twice-repeated choice by the US population of DT, a 78-year-old traumatised and untreated male leader.
This article was originally published in Mind Cafe, February, 2025, Issue 107. (Some modifications were made to the original article to suit a general readership).
Selected References:
Basile, K.C., Smith S.G., Kresnow, M., Khatiwada, S., Leemis, R.W. (2022). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2016/2017 Report on Sexual Violence. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Brewin, C.R., Atwoli, L., Bisson, J.I., Galea, S., Koenen, K., Lewis-Fernández, R. (2025), Post-traumatic stress disorder: evolving conceptualization and evidence, and future research directions. World Psychiatry, 24: 52–80.
Goldsmith, R. E., Barlow, M. R, Freyd, J. J. (2004). Knowing and not knowing about trauma: Implications for therapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, American Psychological Association APA PsycNet. Vol 41(4), 448–463.
Herman, J. L. (1992a). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence-from domestic to political terror (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Kang, H., Fischer, I.C., Dickinson, Na, P.J., Tsai, J., Tedeschi, R.G., Pietrzak, R.H. (2024). Posttraumatic Growth in U.S. Military Veterans: Results from the National Health and Resilience in Veterans Study. Psychiatr Q 95, 17–32.
Misrachi, S. (2020). ‘Trump: How can trauma help explain his die-hard support?’. Mind Cafe, Sep. Issue 64, p. 09–12.
Misrachi, S. (2012). Lives Unseen: Unacknowledged Trauma of Non-Disordered, Competent Adult Children of Parents with a Severe Mental Illness. Department of Social Work Melbourne School of Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences.
Perry, B.D., Szalavitz, M. (2017). The Boy who was Raised as a Dog, And Other Stories from a Child Psychiatrist’s Notebook. Basic Books, New York.
van der Kolk (1987) Psychological Trauma. American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. Washington, DC. London, England.
