An online professional training course for mental health providers has drawn significant controversy after presenters characterized supporters of former President Donald Trump as members of a "national-scale cult." The seminar, conducted on August 7 and entitled "The Impact of Donald Trump on America—A Cultic Studies Perspective," was designed for licensed therapists and practitioners. It encouraged therapists to confront pro-Trump clients and integrate political activism into therapy sessions, according to reports.
The course, led by trauma specialist Dr. Jamie Marich and sociologist Janja Lalich, was immediately met with criticism from professionals within the mental health community. Critics argue that the training blurred ethical lines by pathologizing political beliefs, which goes against counseling guidelines that caution against diagnosing individuals based on their political or religious views. The presenters' approach to equating millions of Americans with cult members has been seen as crossing this ethical boundary.
During the training, the instructors likened Trump's followers to authoritarian movements and claimed the MAGA base aims to restore "white majority and white power." Janja Lalich expressed personal distress over why some trauma victims support Trump, while the session drew comparisons between Trump and dictators such as Mao Zedong and Kim Jong Un. They cited Trump's use of defamation lawsuits as evidence of controlling behavior and accused his supporters of misogyny and "toxic capitalism."
The course also suggested that therapists openly display political symbols, such as pride flags or activist slogans, and use "motivational interviewing" techniques to shift pro-Trump clients' beliefs. However, it acknowledged contradictions in certain therapy methods, like EMDR, when used in politically charged situations.
Despite the instructors' acknowledgment that political cults can exist across the political spectrum, the course's focus on Trump and his supporters has led to accusations of political indoctrination rather than an objective exploration of mental health issues. The program offered three continuing education credits for therapists, but the National Board of Certified Counselors has policies against portraying those with differing political or religious views as inherently dysfunctional, raising questions about the course's adherence to these standards.
The controversy has sparked a renewed debate over the role of politics in clinical practice and the appropriateness of using therapy as a vehicle for activism. This has left the mental health community grappling with the potential implications on the therapeutic relationship and the broader discussion of professional ethics.
