The sudden deaths of filmmaker Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele, prompted an outpouring of grief and sympathy across the internet. However, the response on former President Donald Trump's preferred platform, Truth Social, took a starkly different and controversial turn.
A Controversial Response to Tragedy
On Monday night, Donald Trump posted a message on Truth Social addressing the tragedy. He attributed the deaths to what he called Rob Reiner's "massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS." Trump further described Reiner as "tortured and struggling" and claimed the director was driven to rage by an "obsession" with him during a "Golden Age of America."
The post, which mixed insults with a perfunctory call for the couple to "rest in peace," was widely criticized as heartless and self-absorbed. Notably, the criticism extended to some of Trump's own supporters on the platform, who labeled the statement "tacky," "uncalled for," and "unnecessary." Despite this, the post garnered significant engagement, amassing over 9,300 reposts and 38,900 likes.
The Psychology of Blame and Hypocrisy
Experts consulted by HuffPost offered psychological insights into the nature of such a public response. John Jost, co-director of the Center for Social and Political Behavior at New York University, framed it as classic narcissistic behavior. "It is no real surprise that Trump made it all about himself," Jost said, describing it as an act of projection by someone exhibiting "malevolent personality traits."
Daniel R. Stalder, a social psychologist at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, connected parts of the post to the common, albeit unfortunate, practice of victim blaming. "There are psychological benefits to victim blaming," Stalder explained, noting it can satisfy a need to believe in a just world and a desire for personal control, making people feel safer.
The analysis also touched on perceived hypocrisy. The post came after extensive discourse from right-wing figures, following other tragedies, arguing that criticizing the deceased was in poor taste and could incite violence. Psychotherapist Gina Simmons Schneider highlighted how online distance fuels dehumanization. "Online, it’s easy to spew hate without seeing the direct social consequences of that abusive behavior," she said.
Extreme Polarization and the Role of Leadership
Jay Van Bavel, director of NYU's Center for Conflict & Cooperation, contextualized the incident within a pattern of worsening partisan reactions to deaths. "Every time this happens, it gets worse," he stated, linking the rise in polarization to social media algorithms and growing institutional distrust.
Van Bavel explained the powerful "in-group vs. out-group" dynamics at play, where empathy is reserved for one's own side and schadenfreude can be directed at opponents. He emphasized the outsized influence of leaders in modeling behavior. "When political leaders are signaling that it’s OK to do this, we are far more likely to do it," Van Bavel said. "It’s really significant when someone like Donald Trump does this. It sends a signal that it’s acceptable."
Jost argued this creates an environment where "hypocrisy and dishonesty is not a problem for one’s constituents," and "dehumanization is commonplace." Simmons Schneider referenced Stanley Milgram's obedience studies, warning that "ordinary good people can be made to commit unspeakable crimes by corrupt leaders."
Navigating a Divided Society
With political conflicts exacerbating anxiety and straining family relationships, experts suggested paths forward. Van Bavel recommended focusing on shared values and remembering that the most extreme online voices do not represent average voters. He cited Pew Research data indicating that just 10% of users create 97% of political posts.
The key, according to Van Bavel, is for leaders to set a tone of civility. The absence of such leadership, as demonstrated in this incident, signals to followers that dehumanizing rhetoric and indifference to the suffering of perceived opponents is acceptable, further eroding the collaborative spirit necessary for a functional society.
