President Donald Trump has a long history of latching onto specific words and phrases, whether he’s describing people’s good looks as “central casting” or praising his own policies, businesses or seemingly anything he does with superlatives like “the best” and “the greatest.”
On the flip side, his go-to insults also rely on short, simple vocabulary ― words like “stupid,” “crazy,” and “dumb.” A particular favorite, however, is “sick.”
Over the years, Trump has called James Comey “either very sick or very dumb,” dismissed Nancy Pelosi as a “sick woman” and labeled Adam Schiff as “probably a very sick man.” He’s described journalists, comedians and political rivals the same way, while his White House Rapid Response account has kept the insult alive on social media, calling late night host Jimmy Kimmel “a sick freak” and branding a recent Kamala Harris media appearance as “SICK.”
(And no, he does not appear to be using the term in the more modern slang way for “cool.”)
At first glance, the word might seem like just another Trumpism ― blunt, simple, a little playground-esque. But psychologists and communications experts say there’s more going on. The repeated choice of “sick” isn’t necessarily just an example of rhetorical laziness. It offers a window into how Trump views the world, how he positions his opponents and why that framing can be so effective.
What does this word choice suggest about someone’s psychology and worldview?
“When someone repeatedly uses the word ‘sick’ as an insult, it often reflects a worldview that labels others, reducing disagreement or dislike to a sense that the other person is defective or abnormal,” said Hallie Kritsas, a licensed mental health counselor with Thriveworks. “Psychologically, it can serve as a way to project discomfort, simplify complex emotions or maintain a rigid ‘good vs. bad’ view of people.”
Indeed, this tendency reveals an inability to tolerate difficult or uncomfortable feelings and experiences. It’s much easier to judge and put things into simple boxes like “right or wrong,” “good or bad” and “sick or well” than to try to make sense of something challenging.
“When someone jumps to the word ‘sick’ without really explaining anything else, I think it often suggests that this person might tend to ‘other’ people or things that they just don’t simply understand,” said Manahil Riaz, a psychotherapist and owner of Riaz Counseling. “Maybe they’re not comfortable with the ambiguity and the complexity of issues or people. So if their worldview doesn’t fit what’s happening, then instead of trying to understand it, they create some sort of emotional distance by dismissing it or name calling it.”
She compared this impulse to school bullying, as teens and children have not yet developed the emotional maturity to fully think beyond “black and white” categorization and put things in the gray.
“It can also suggest a lack of empathy toward people who are different, which promotes harmful group thinking,” Riaz noted.
In Trump’s case, his repetitive use of this simple word ― without providing much additional context or clarification of his meaning ― is noteworthy, said Meghan Watson, the founder and clinical director of Bloom Psychology & Wellness.
“It’s this persistent use of the same word without indicating any thoughts behind the word choice that can be confusing,” Watson said. “If a family member did something similar, you might wonder how they’re seeing themselves in the world or if it’s an indication of a bigger problem. I think this consistent utilization can make people question if you’re OK.”
What does this signify from someone in a position of power?
“Someone in power might use the word ‘sick’ to describe opponents because it’s a quick way to discredit and dehumanize them,” Kritsas said. “Labeling others as fundamentally ‘abnormal’ or ‘broken’ shifts focus away from their ideas and instead paints them as unworthy of respect. It also rallies supporters by creating an ‘us versus them’ dynamic, reinforcing loyalty through shared disdain.”
She emphasized that the strategy simplifies conflict, avoids nuanced engagement and thus strengthens control.
“It’s a good way to ignite fear into people to gain more power ― saying ‘That person is sick, but I will guide you. I’m the person you need to listen to,’” Riaz said. “It’s this idea that ’I’m the strong leader who will take care of you. I’m in control and need to continue to be in control.”
She believes the ambiguity of the word “sick” is powerful as an attack on a political opponent because it attacks their character without engaging in any specific acts or policies. Political disagreement is then warped into personal defect.
Trump’s ‘sickness’ metaphor makes it impossible to approach opposing views with anything like respect.
- Daniel Midgley, linguist and co-host of the “Because Language” podcast
“It’s easier to talk about the person than about an issue they’re presenting, like universal health care, for example,” Riaz noted. “It’s emotionally immature and superficial, but it can be powerful to attack the person presenting the idea, rather than engage with issues on a deeper level and contend with that ambiguity and nuance.”
While plenty of people would like to talk about bigger issues and could probably find more common ground in these discussions, she believes using words like “sick” is a way to silence any opposition and shut down these conversations.
“Trump’s use of ‘sick’ employs a contagion metaphor,” said Daniel Midgley, a linguist and co-host of the “Because Language” podcast. “Think about what being ‘sick’ means. When someone is sick, you might also get sick if you associate with them. So, if ideas are a kind of ‘sickness,’ then the logical response would be to only associate with people who share our own ideas.”
The unfortunate outcome of this approach is intellectual siloing, he added, so people never hear any ideas they haven’t already thought.
“It’s fine to exclude some views from our information diet, but this should be because we’ve decided their content makes them a waste of time, and not because we fear contagion,” Midgley said.
What is the impact of this insult on individuals and society as a whole?
“When a public figure like Donald Trump repeatedly uses ‘sick’ to describe opponents, it can normalize demeaning language and shape how supporters view those people,” Kritsas said. “They can then be seen not as individuals with different views, but as defective and/or dangerous.”
Stoking this kind of fear and distress has interpersonal and cultural effects.
“For supporters, it can validate hostility and deepen loyalty by framing opponents as enemies,” Kritsas said. “Culturally, this rhetoric provides for disrespectful dialogue, reinforces stigma around illness and contributes to a more polarized, adversarial climate. From the highest levels of government, such language has a magnified effect. Further, it signals that contempt and dehumanization are acceptable, which can increase division, fear and mistrust across society.”
That kind of rhetoric and behavior from the highest levels of government normalizes hostility and makes people feel like it’s OK and even good to insult and dehumanize others.
“If the principal of a school is a bully and the teachers are bullies, how are the kids going to turn out?” Riaz asked. “The kids might find it to be a survival strategy to turn into a bully and follow the example of the corrupt but powerful leaders in this kind of chaotic environment.”
Midgley believes that using words connoting “sickness” to characterize the opposition removes people’s agency.
“It says that the person didn’t arrive at their conclusion through reasoning, but that they somehow ‘caught’ it,” he explained. “Now they’re not just wrong, but dangerous. They are no longer themselves, but under the control of some kind of ‘mind virus.’ Trump’s ‘sickness’ metaphor makes it impossible to approach opposing views with anything like respect. You don’t respect a disease.”
If it’s “dangerous” to associate with people on the other side of the political aisle due to their “sickness,” then there’s no avenue for meaningful conversations where people can find nuance and communal understanding. Instead, there’s just deeper red and blue polarization.
Furthermore, the tactic discourages critical thinking and distracts from serious issues that impact people’s lives.
“His supporters who back him up no matter what do not ask themselves, ‘Hey, what exactly is sick about this person or this issue?’” Riaz said. “And using a word like sick is an example of name-calling, which deflects attention away from questions like, ‘Who benefits from us being divided?’ ‘How does this particular politician vote and what policies have they created?’ ‘Who do they listen to?’ The conversation shifts from being about real issues to focusing on personal attacks.”
She compared it to a concept from the Roman era ― “bread and circuses” ― a political strategy in which the government distracts the masses from real problems and maintains favor through superficial appeasement with food and entertainment.
“With these insults and distractions, our government today feels like a circus,” Riaz said. “It feels like something out of a movie or a piece of theater.”