Forest Benedict, LMFT

In the world of trauma and psychology, we often hear about the fight, flight, and freeze responses. But there’s a lesser-known survival mechanism that is just as crucial in understanding human behavior—fawning. Fawning is the act of appeasing an abuser or dangerous authority figure to maintain safety, often at the cost of one’s own boundaries, beliefs, or well-being.

And nowhere is this response more evident than in the political landscape surrounding Donald Trump.

Understanding Fawning as a Trauma Response

Fawning is a survival adaptation often developed by individuals who have been subjected to narcissistic abuse, authoritarian control, or unpredictable environments. Instead of fighting back or fleeing, a person engaging in fawning seeks to pacify and please the dominant figure to avoid conflict or harm. This response is common among children of abusive parents, victims of domestic violence, and—on a macro scale—entire populations living under oppressive leadership.

People who fawn tend to:

• Suppress their true opinions and emotions to avoid backlash.
• Rationalize or defend harmful behaviors of the abuser or leader.
• Lose their sense of self in deference to maintaining favor with the dominant figure.
• Feel a deep fear of rejection or retaliation if they speak out.
• Become overly loyal, even to their own detriment, to avoid perceived threats.

In the context of Trump’s presidency and political influence, this trauma response is alarmingly prevalent.

The Politics of Fawning: How It Manifests Under Trump

Trump’s leadership style—marked by narcissistic tendencies, authoritarian control, and public humiliation of dissenters—has created an environment where many feel forced to fawn rather than fight. Whether in political institutions, media, or even among everyday Americans, this trauma response plays out in ways that shape the nation’s discourse and policies.

1. GOP Leaders Who Publicly Submit

One of the clearest examples of fawning is how Republican leaders enable and excuse Trump’s behavior out of fear of political and personal consequences. Time and again, we have seen GOP figures initially criticize him, only to later fall in line, defending or even echoing his most dangerous rhetoric.

• Lindsey Graham, once a vocal Trump critic, became one of his most ardent supporters.
• Kevin McCarthy denounced Trump’s actions post-January 6th, only to later visit Mar-a-Lago in a symbolic act of submission.
• Numerous Republicans who voted to impeach Trump faced intense retaliation, a lesson that many others took as a warning: fall in line, or be exiled.

This is fawning in action—a desperate attempt to maintain safety and status in a system where defying the leader results in punishment.

2. Voters Who Excuse Harmful Behavior

Many of Trump’s most loyal supporters engage in fawning as well, often minimizing or justifying his corruption, racism, misogyny, and attacks on democracy. Rather than confronting the reality of his actions, they:

• Shift blame (e.g., “The media is out to get him!”)
• Normalize abusive behavior (e.g., “That’s just how he talks!”)
• Defer their own moral compass in favor of his approval (e.g., “He’s a strong leader who tells it like it is!”)

For many, the alternative—admitting they were manipulated or complicit in harm—is too psychologically distressing. So, fawning becomes the coping mechanism.

3. The Media’s Struggle with Holding Trump Accountable

Major news outlets have also exhibited signs of fawning. While some journalists call out Trump’s dangerous rhetoric, many others engage in false equivalency, normalizing extremist views, or toning down coverage to avoid backlash.

• Networks that once challenged Trump eventually gave him excessive airtime because of the ratings he brought.
• Some reporters frame his blatant lies as “misstatements” or “exaggerations” instead of calling them what they are—dangerous propaganda.
• Many mainstream outlets hesitate to hold his enablers accountable, fearing loss of access or being labeled “fake news.”

This isn’t about journalistic neutrality—it’s about appeasing a figure who punishes those who don’t conform.

Breaking the Cycle of Political Fawning

Fawning, like any trauma response, is not a sign of weakness—it is a survival mechanism. But in the context of politics, it is being weaponized to keep people in fear and submission. To break free, we must:

1. Call it what it is. Understanding fawning as a trauma response helps people recognize when they are engaging in it or seeing it play out in political dynamics.
2. Encourage critical thinking. Instead of blindly defending harmful leaders, we must question why we feel the need to protect them at all costs.
3. Hold leaders accountable. The more people who resist, the harder it becomes for authoritarian figures to demand total loyalty.
4. Normalize dissent. A healthy democracy depends on the ability to challenge power without fear of exile or harm.

Conclusion: The Cost of Political Fawning

Fawning may have evolved as a means of survival, but when applied to politics, it erodes democracy, enables abusive leadership, and strips people of their autonomy. Trump’s reign has revealed how trauma responses play out on a national scale, leaving many trapped in a cycle of submission and appeasement.

But the antidote to fawning is courageous self-awareness. The more we recognize and name these dynamics, the more we can resist them—and rebuild a culture that values integrity over blind loyalty.

America has a choice: continue fawning in fear, or stand up with clarity and conviction.

Which path will we take?

In empowering support,

Forest Benedict, LMFT

For more articles on self-connection, codependency, religious trauma, CPTSD, IFS, connection, healing, and beyond, I invite you to check out my blog and follow for future posts here.

*Created with the assistance of AI