Narcissistic Personality Disorder and the President-Elect


This post is a critique of psychiatry’s spurious personality disorder diagnoses.  It is neither a defense, nor a condemnation, of Mr. Trump.  In my view, it is right and proper that we the people should comment freely on, and criticize, our political leaders, as we deem appropriate.  But assigning spurious psychiatric labels is problematic for two reasons.  Firstly, it adds nothing useful to the discussion.  Secondly, it affords unwarranted validity and reliability to what are nothing more than loose collections of inherently vague thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, with no explanatory significance.

The point is not whether Mr. Trump “has narcissistic personality disorder”, but rather that there is no such thing as narcissistic personality disorder.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

On December 17, Richard Greene, a Communication Strategist, posted an article on the Huffington Post titled Is Donald Trump Mentally Ill? 3 Professors Of Psychiatry Ask President Obama To Conduct A Full Medical And Neuropsychiatric Evaluation.

In this article, Mr. Greene reproduces (with the authors’ permission) a letter that was sent to President Barack Obama on November 29, 2016. Here’s the text of the letter:

“President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
November 29, 2016

Dear President Obama,

We are writing to express our grave concern regarding the mental stability of our President-Elect. Professional standards do not permit us to venture a diagnosis for a public figure whom we have not evaluated personally. Nevertheless, his widely reported symptoms of mental instability including grandiosity, impulsivity, hypersensitivity to slights or criticism, and an apparent inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality lead us to question his fitness for the immense responsibilities of the office. We strongly recommend that, in preparation for assuming these responsibilities, he receive a full medical and neuropsychiatric evaluation by an impartial team of investigators.


Judith Herman, M.D.
Professor of Psychiatry
Harvard Medical School

Nanette Gartrell, M.D.
Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
University of California, San Francisco (1988-2011)
Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School (1983-87)

Dee Mosbacher, M.D., Ph.D.
Assistant Clinical Professor
Department of Community Health Systems
University of California, San Francisco (2005-2013)”

Mr. Greene’s article contains a link to an interview given by Lynne Meyer, PhD, whom Mr. Greene describes as “a Psychologist specializing in personality disorders, brilliantly explaining how such a disorder might help us understand Mr. Trumps comments and behaviors and the challenges that likely lie ahead for our country.”

Mr. Greene then lists the DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder.


“If someone does have ‘Narcissistic Personality Disorder’ they can, indeed, wake up, see a Tweet or a news report from a foreign leader criticizing him, mocking him, calling him ‘weak’ or threatening his ego in any way and order some kind of impulsive, vindictive, punishing, immediate response that could include an unhinged order to attack that foreign leader or foreign country with military force, even including the authorization of nuclear weapons.

It is extremely likely that there would be some kind of impulsive, angry diplomatic response.

Because someone afflicted with this incurable and progressive ‘Narcissistic Personality Disorder’ simply cant help himself.”

Note that the APA’s pseudo-diagnosis narcissistic personality disorder is being presented here as a valid entity, an incurable and progressive affliction. Note also the contention that if a person has this disorder, he simply can’t help himself.

Earlier in the article Mr. Greene had stated that he had been interviewing psychiatrists and psychologists about Donald Trump’s alleged “Narcissistic Personality Disorder”, and that:

“Virtually every mental health professional I interviewed told me that they believed, with 100% certainty, that Mr. Trump satisfied the DSM criteria of this incurable illness and that, as a result, he is a serious danger to the country and the world.”

Mr. Greene continues his article with a summary of the psychological and behavioral characteristics of “people with NPD”, and a summary of the concerns expressed by the mental health professionals that he had interviewed.

The article closes with an extended quote from “a clinical psychologist”, essentially endorsing and expanding on the points made by Dr. Meyer in the earlier interviews. These anonymous comments are fairly extreme, e.g.:

“The point about him getting worse in the future also cannot be overstated. An increasing paranoia combined with growing sadistic vindictiveness is pretty much a given. We have seen it consistently in other leaders, past and present, with this character defect.”

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

But the essential core of the article is the second (and longer) video interview with Dr. Meyer. As mentioned earlier, Dr. Meyer is a psychologist, but it is clear from her comments that she endorses the psychiatric “diagnostic” system and the ontological and explanatory status of this so-called diagnosis. It should also be noted that Dr. Meyer couches her responses in hypothetical terms and does not state or imply that Mr. Trump meets the criteria for this “disorder”.

Here’s an extended quote from the interview. The interviewer is presumably Mr. Greene.

Q. I’d like you to share whether narcissistic personality disorder is the same thing as someone being a bit egotistical or quote unquote narcissistic.

A. Well to answer that question, no. When you have a trait that is a little bit narcissistic, that is not a diagnosis. So in order to make a diagnosis, you’d have to have five or more criteria, and that would be about one percent of the population which have NPD, which is narcissistic personality disorder. And when you have this diagnosis, it’s a pervasive disorder, it’s hardwired in the brain. And with narcissistic personality disorder it’s very highly untreatable, it’s very difficult to treat because narcissists don’t like to have anybody have an opinion that is not theirs, they don’t like interpretations, and in fact they are very fragile. They are the most unlikely people to seek out psychotherapy because of their grandiosity, sense of self-importance. And they actually create a world around them that’s a little bit delusional, they lose track of reality, especially if they have people around them feeding their sense of self-importance.

Q. So if someone were hypothetically the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief with sole and exclusive and unfettered access to thousands of nuclear weapons and the entirety of the United States military, would that be a problem if they were suffering from narcissistic personality disorder?

A. If they had the true diagnosis, the concern would be their lack of stability and especially their impulsivity and they’re quick to anger. So I would be very concerned that in a moment of rage or impulsivity, they would react because they are reactive, they’re thin-skinned, and they would do something destructive.

Q. So it’s not outside of the realm of possibility, without being totally paranoid here, that if someone were the Commander in Chief and they had narcissistic personality disorder which is not just a trait, it’s as you said an actual diagnosis. And if a foreign leader said something very negative about them, criticized them for not being strong enough, for being weak, for whatever, that they could go into some sort of impulsive reaction and potentially use or misuse their power over the military and over the release of weapons and even nuclear weapons. Is that completely out of the question?

A. No it’s absolutely in the realm of possibility that they would use their power to punish or be destructive and without thinking they would react, because they are wounded. We have a concept called narcissistic rage which is when you go against the narcissist they usually retaliate, and that’s part of the condition. They can be retaliatory.


The central problem here is that the “diagnosis” of narcissistic personality disorder is being presented as a reality something “hardwired into the brain” which has both explanatory significance, and predictive validity. In fact, the criteria for this disorder, like all DSM entries, are merely a loose collection of vaguely defined thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. There is no evidence that these activities even if they could be reliably identified in specific individuals constitute a coherent entity. In fact, the polythetic aspect of the “diagnosis” (five out of nine) virtually guarantees that the “diagnosis” is not a coherent entity. Individuals who score “yes” on items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 will inevitably differ markedly from those scoring “yes” on items 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. And that’s even conceding that these items can be applied in a reliable and consistent fashion, which they can’t.

Let’s look at some of the DSM-5 criteria for this so-called disorder.

“Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.” (p 669)

It is obvious that this criterion cannot be rated against a simple yes or no standard. What does preoccupied mean? What is unlimited success? How can we even know other people’s fantasies?

Here are two more criteria:

“Requires excessive admiration.”

“Believes that he or she is ‘special’ and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).”

In effect, the “diagnoser” must shoe-horn his/her assessment of the individual into a yes or no judgment, then count the yeses. So essentially we have five (or more) pieces of garbage data, which through the mindless alchemy of psychiatry become an incurable illness, “hardwired in the brain”.

The fact that a “diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder” has no explanatory usefulness is highlighted by the following hypothetical conversation.

Wife: Why is my husband so self-important; why does he have such a sense of entitlement?
Psychiatrist: Because he has an illness called narcissistic personality disorder.
Wife: How do you know he has this illness?
Psychiatrist: Because he is so self-important and has such a sense of entitlement.

Narcissistic personality disorder is just a label. It explains nothing. The only evidence for the “illness” is the very behavior it purports to explain.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DSM-5’s general definition of a personality disorder is:

“an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment.” (p 645)

The reality, however, borne out by decades of research, indicates clearly that behavior is “enduring” only when the circumstances and context that maintain the behavior are equally enduring. When our circumstances change, our perceptions and our actions change, and this general adaptability usually outweighs any tendencies that might exist to stay mired in the habits of the past. Although we are usually willing servants to our habits, we are not their slaves.

In his book Personality and Assessment, (1968, reprinted 1996), Walter Mischel, PhD, having reviewed two decades of research on this matter, concludes:

“Global traits and states are excessively crude, gross units to encompass adequately the extraordinary complexity and subtlety of the discriminations that people constantly make. Traditional trait-state conceptions of man have depicted him as victimized by his infantile history, as possessed by unchanging rigid trait attributes, and as driven inexorably by unconscious irrational forces. This conceptualization of man, besides being philosophically unappetizing, is contradicted by massive experimental data. The traditional trait-state conceptualizations of personality, while often paying lip service to man’s complexity and to the uniqueness of each person, in fact lead to a grossly over-simplified view that misses both the richness and the uniqueness of individual lives. A more adequate conceptualization must take full account of man’s extraordinary adaptiveness and capacities for discrimination, awareness, and self-regulation; it must also recognize that men can and do reconceptualize themselves and change, and that an understanding of how humans can constructively modify their behavior in systematic ways is the core of a truly dynamic personality psychology.” (p 301)

There is no evidence that the individuals to whom psychiatry attaches the label narcissistic personality disorder are somehow exceptions to this general finding. There is no evidence that these individuals’ brains are “hardwired” for inflexibility. But psychiatrists, busy and preoccupied as they have been in the invention and promotion of spurious, but medical-sounding, diagnoses, have chosen to ignore this large corpus of psychosocial research, and to provide instead a medical façade to the long-standing human activity of name-calling.

The point of all this is that psychiatry’s “personality disorders” are not valid ways to conceptualize or categorize behavior. They have an appearance of face validity, but the labels add nothing to our understanding of the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in question. And in fact, the personality disorder labels have two very negative effects. Firstly, they create the impression that the behaviors in question have been explained. In mental health case discussion, for instance, one often hears statements like: he’s arrogant and demanding because he has narcissistic personality disorder; or he keeps very much to himself because he has schizoid personality disorder; etc. In fact, narcissistic personality disorder and schizoid personality disorder are just labels which explain nothing. Genuine understanding of human actions requires a detailed knowledge of the individual obtained through lengthy and painstaking dialogue, in a context of mutual trust and respect. It is definitely not something that can be derived from fifteen-minute “med checks” four times a year. Nor is it something that can be obtained by someone who views people through the distorting lens of psychiatric “diagnoses”.


Seven months ago, on June 9, 2016, the eminent psychiatrist Allen Frances, MD, architect of DSM-IV, stated categorically that Donald Trump did not have narcissistic personality disorder, or for that matter any personality disorder. So much for the reliability of psychiatric diagnoses.


  • Nice Phil. It is funny that Frances was sure Trump didn’t “have NPD”, whereas other psychiatrists and psychologists are sure he does.

    It just shows that NPD and other “personality disorders” do indeed exist somewhere – as beliefs in the minds of psychiatrists and psychiatrists which get projected onto people they interact with… but not in the ontological reality of individuals.

    On the other hand, splitting, projective identification, and other processes commonly associated with neglect and abuse of various kinds are real. But a depth understanding of problematic modes of human experiencing commonly mislabeled “personality disorders” (I prefer the term “developmental levels”) goes much deeper, and is much less certain and concretized, than the DSM diagnoses.

  • Mark

    an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture

    It’s rather remarkable how even the DSM gives the game away that “personality disorders” are normative rather than scientific judgments. For anyone paying close attention, these little slips are everywhere — among professionals the truth sometimes slips out in conversation, or in remarks in academic journals, perhaps a few lines in the DSM — but in public little is said to imply anything other than that “mental illnesses” are objective, biological realities.

  • Nanu Grewal

    Hi Phil,
    On a much more serious but more public example, it is worth following the “psychological’ assessemnt of the mass murderer Anders Breivik.

    The first lot stated categorically that he was a “classic paranoid schizophrenic”. Then the next lot said he was perfectly sane.

    from New York Times article

    The clinical
    disagreement prompted some Norwegian news media to speculate that the
    methods of psychiatric evaluation would also be put on trial along with
    Mr. Breivik when hearings begin next week.

    The Norwegian daily, Aftenposten,
    said that the divergent evaluations presented the court with a unique
    challenge. Sven Torgersen of the University of Oslo told the paper that
    he anticipated that the trial would likely become, at least in part, a
    discussion of psychiatry.”

  • Phil_Hickey


    Yes. One doesn’t get to know and understand a person by filling in checklists.

  • Phil_Hickey


    Yes. Stay on the culturally approved track!

  • Phil_Hickey


    So! Psychiatrists can’t agree on something as basic to their specialty as “diagnosing schizophrenia”. But isn’t it an illness just like diabetes? Can you imagine if a diabetic received this kind of conflicting assessment?

    But psychiatry seems to survive these obvious demonstrations of its invalidity pretty much unscathed. One of the perks of virtually unlimited pharma money.

    Best wishes.

  • Olmy Olm

    Reminds me of a recent event in my country where a doctor was found to have euthanised several patients of his (which is still illegal here) and arrested for it. One psychologist started writing about it publicly, saying the doctor has “narcissistic personality disorder”.

    Eventually, he was charged with, you know, actually talking to the guy. He soon changed his mind. Now the doctor was a benevolent altruist putting people out of their misery because they pleaded him to do it. No more “NPD”.

    P.S.: Not making an opinion of euthanasia one way or another. The point is the NPD part.

  • Phil_Hickey


    Thanks. An interesting perspective.

  • FoonTheElder

    Trump is a full blown narcissist. He has let his actions be known for decades for everyone to see. We’re not talking about a few of the traits, we’re talking about practically all of them, plus pathological lying, splitting and projection.

  • Olmy Olm

    You’re missing the point of the article. It’s about the validity of a “diagnosis” of NPD or any other PD or D or what have you, as anything other than an arbitrarily and vaguely defined collection of thoughts, emotions and behaviors that a group of so-called specialists has deemed to be signs of “mental disorder”, with no real basis at all.

    In case you’re here for the first time, this is an anti-psychiatry site that rejects all psychiatric labels.

    P.S.: Considering what you wrote, I do have to wonder if you read the article at all.

  • FoonTheElder

    The diagnosis is valid when a figure such as Trump has shown most of his behavior in the spotlight for decades. It is not as if he is some sort of unknown individual without a very extensive track record.

  • Olmy Olm

    That’s beside the point. The point is not that *mental illness doesn’t exist*. “NPD” doesn’t exist.

  • FoonTheElder

    Sorry, it does. Just because you wish it to go away, doesn’t make it so.

  • Olmy Olm

    How would you know what I wish and what I don’t? I could say the same for you: Just because you wish mental illness to exist doesn’t mean it does.

    I don’t have the time or energy for this nonsense. Give me one piece of proof, one shred of evidence that “mental illness” is a real phenomenon.

  • Rob

    Nobody denies human experience. When an angry person murders someone or a depressed person commits suicide, their behavior is motivated. What we debate here is the claim (belief) that cognitive disturbances are rooted in defective chemistry or other biological abnormalities.

  • FoonTheElder

    I don’t believe that mental illness is caused only by defective chemistry. It might be a factor, but it is not the only factor. Not everyone who has similar brain chemistry becomes personality disordered.
    The defective chemistry argument is great for price gouging drug companies, but a very incomplete explanation for mental illness. Especially when we have no idea how most of the medications actually work to change brain function and whether some of them actually work at all. Many of the new drugs don’t work any better than the older drugs.

  • FoonTheElder

    When the evidence is there and you refuse to believe it, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Having dealt with many personality disordered individuals, most have all the same traits and similar types of causes, declaring it not to be there is not a rational argument.

  • Cledwyn Broadbollocks

    I saw what I imagine was Donald’s inaugural speech recently,. The same old bunkum for the eternally duped.

    The man has the culture and mentality of a school bully.

    Here’s hoping that henceforth he comports himself in a manner befitting one of his calling, you know, waging war on defenseless countries, persecuting minorities, playing courtier to the mob, and so on and so forth.

    Least that’s an end to the reign of boring Barack, that pious fraud, that sententious bore. I don’t know who he thought he was. He spoke like a Morgan Freeman character from a bad Hollywood movie. Judging by how sanctimonious he is, and how sanctimonious and self-righteous scoundrels usually are, one has to lament that men suffer not the torments of conscience to an extent commensurate with the enormity of their crimes.

    Coming back to Donald, he seems to be something of a compendium of all that is loathsome about human beings. He loves a good brag, for example. Whilst I wouldn’t go so far as to describe this as gender-peculiar behavior, we men especially love to brag, an observation which perhaps led Mencken to say that “a man is as inseparable from his vanities as a dog from its fleas.” It really is ridiculous, something to roar and wail at in equal measure.

    Luckily for men, we rarely reach a point in our development where the penchant for bragging has to be continually expiated by that most pitiable form of knowledge for such lowly circus clowns as we, that is, knowledge of ourselves, which brought to the highest pitch of perfection leads to depression, and even suicide; thus it follows that men are necessarily the coxcombs that they generally are, inasmuch as without our asinine vanity we’d soon die out; not that that would bother me; I see nothing desirable about our continuing to pollute the earth with our presence.

    A man is like a cock, who struts atop his own dunghill for awhile, then drops dead, face down in his own shit.

  • Olmy Olm

    Before we go into anything else: Why do you think that even the ICD11 (International Classification of Diseases), hardly an “alternative” institution, has removed the individual names of personality disorders?

  • FoonTheElder

    Because they are a bureaucracy who isn’t necessarily right and they constantly make changes. Were they right before or were they right now? Were their descriptions all inclusive or just a general analysis. So were the people with serious problems under their old description, just fine because a bureaucracy changed their definitions?

  • Olmy Olm

    I wrote that they removed the individual names of personality disorders. They no longer separate personality disorder into separate types. Precisely because those types don’t make any empirical sense. There’s so much overlap it’s just a mess.

    If this is the level of your reading comprehension, I don’t trust you to view those disordered individual with more accuracy either.

  • Cledwyn B’Stard

    We are narrative spinning creatures. The narcissist is one who figures in his own fictions as does the sun in the solar system; everything revolves around him. Other people seem like mere plot devices, or worse, mere bridges or stepping stones you walk over to get where you’re going, “post-horses that you ride into the ground and then leave at each stage”(Balzac), that have no existence outside of their own drama and no function beyond their utility to the only important personage therein – or so it seems – next to whom all other creatures dwindle to the diminutive dimensions of an amoeba.

    Such people probably make-up the majority of people in society, but there are of course degrees of vanity.

    Moving to the other end of the scale of human vanity, the self-loathing depressive figures in his own dramas as an extra, or as a lowly clown in a circus entertainment, and in this respect he is not far from the truth, though in the matter of other details he may err greatly.

    I agree with Mischel that a man’s personality is not cast in marble, though by no means infinitely adaptable. Where I really disagree is with this assertion that man isn’t driven by irrational forces.

    We are all of us, of course, completely batshit bonkers, but as Sam Harris has pointed out, there is sanity in numbers, at least a nominal sanity.

    Brought together into large mobs under the centripetal pull of a shared desire to go mad and deny reality, what lunacy can’t men get away with?

    Look at ghosthunting. I saw a man on TV offer a ghost out for a fight the other day! It was like watching a modern-day adaptation of Don Quixote, watching these people tilt at windmills, taking every (non) occurrence as confirmation of their beliefs, that is, of their madness.

    The normalcy of the irrational forces that govern men gives madness a safe medium in which to operate, free from the gaze of psychiatric predators, it being one of the those counterfeit currencies in the commerce of men by which we are able to obtain undeserved honors, and a reputation for what we are categorically not – in this case, “sane”.

  • Hi Cledwyn, great comment again! If you are on here please email me: bpdtransformation (at) gmail (dot) com – or let me know if you can speak to me on here.

  • Jake

    YESSS! It appears I was right all along. For so many years I’ve been arguing that the root of bigotry is a narcissistic personality disorder and inflated ego and delusions of grandeur. Dealing with so many bigots of all types over the years I immediately recognised a similarity to my fathers Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It made perfect sense that a person with narcissism would argue their superiority over other people who were of different race, religion, sexuality, etc. Another thing I noticed was that a bigot was prejudice to more than just one group. I often found that an Islamophobe for example was also prejudice to homosexuals or blacks. The multiple bigotry only confirmed my theory pointing to an over inflated ego and self worth. This article finally puts a conclusion on my entire argument about bigots.