Navigating the Impact of Politics on Mental Health: Insights from Board Certified Psychologists in the Public Sector

The U.S. 2024 Presidential Election and the changes intended or already enacted by the incoming administration are presenting significant challenges for us and those we serve, with uncertainty emerging as a central theme. For board-certified forensic and/or serious mental illness psychologists, especially in the public sector, this uncertainty coupled with the government’s plans to identify relevant mental health issues and alter how psychological services are delivered, requires us to confront the broader political landscape and its growing impact on the mental health of our patients, ourselves, and the impact of politics on our profession.

The intersectionality of political polarization and mental health impacts has achieved unique relevance in recent years. For example, Valiavska & Smith-Frigerio (2022) highlighted how political polarization via social media influenced public health changes. Similarly, Yousafzai (2022) noted Pakistan’s increased political polarization, via in part unchecked social media consumption, resulted in limited resources being allocated to mental health. Political rhetoric has been shown to harm psychological health, increasing interpersonal strain and contributing to symptoms of depression, anxiety, and even suicidal behaviors (Garner et al., 2021). This and other research have made clear that mental health professionals must be attuned to the effects of political climate, particularly at the state level. Specifically, Fraser et al. (2022) found that outcomes in county elections can skew broader health metrics (e.g., obesity and vaccination rates), especially when individuals feel out of step with their state’s political stance. Those with less-than-optimal mental health experience the greatest declines in well-being, further reinforcing how political polarization can negatively impact both mental and physical health. One does not need a study of the U.S. population to see how the nexus between mental health and political divide is manifesting today. For board-certified psychologists working in the public sector and with underserved populations, this research underscores the importance of recognizing that many individuals’ mental health will be impacted by the changes we have already seen since January 2025; in particular, vulnerable populations will likely experience the most substantive, negative ramifications.

From the perspective of a public-sector serious mental illness (SMI) psychologist, a significant political challenge ahead is the likely reduction in mental health resources allocated to individuals with SMI due to perpetuation of stigma, particularly following violent public incidents. Such actions not only increase the stigma surrounding this group and reduce likelihood of long-term recovery, but also discourage individuals from seeking treatment, fearing further exclusion and discrimination (Clement et al., 2015; Pescosolido, Manago, & Monahan, 2019). As we move into the next four years, this and related issues (e.g., authorization of mass deportations of undocumented individuals) will demand our continued advocacy, to educate the public, and to counter these false narratives. From the perspective of a public-sector forensic psychologist, available research highlights the increasing impact political polarization effectuates on individuals (ourselves and evaluees/patients); what remains to be seen is how this may be an increasing topic of relevance to certain forensic issues (e.g., competence to proceed, risk assessment, immigration evaluations, etc.). What is also less well-understood currently, is how board-certified (and forensic) psychologists respond to an increasingly polarized climate exerting change on public sector work (e.g., freezing of federal funding for federal-level forensic evaluations), and how this may reciprocally impact the mental health of a public sector forensic professional.

Specifically, the coming years will see shifts in mental health funding and service delivery, which will have significant implications for the care of vulnerable populations. The political landscape, particularly in the wake of the pandemic, has influenced how mental health services are both delivered and perceived. Yousafzai (2022) notes that political rhetoric has contributed to an increase in depressive and anxious symptoms, including suicidal behaviors, particularly in contexts of political conflict. Valiavska & Smith-Frigerio’s (2022) study highlights how political polarization during the pandemic, especially around national elections and misinformation, created significant burnout among public health officials and negatively impacted their ability to relay scientifically accurate information. These imbalances in power dynamics resulted in public sector workers leaving their posts, compounding the challenges faced by public health systems. Additionally, policy shifts that impact underserved communities (e.g., ending of immigration protection and diversity-equity-and-inclusion initiatives) are a growing concern, as changes in funding and leadership, as well as shifts in access to reproductive care, are particularly threatening to vulnerable populations (Rosen, 2024). Furthermore, the intersection of mental health and social justice remains an urgent issue. Research by Nayak et al. (2021) found that political polarization, especially during the 2016 election, was linked to the onset of depressive, sleep, and anxiety disorders among those who perceived high levels of polarization within their state.

Board certification connotes a promise to adhere to best practices and sound ethics. However, psychologists have been slow to reach consensus about our involvement in social justice and advocacy. Some of this delay is legitimate; for example, federal psychologists are prohibited from engaging in ostensibly political activities (including some social justice initiatives) under the Hatch Act. Conversely, it is not inherently unethical to advocate for mental health policy and systems change to benefit patients, ourselves and our colleagues, and some have argued that we hold an obligation to do so based on the wording in the principles guiding our ethics (Alexander, 2017). Forensic psychology is currently grappling with the ethics of social justice following the recent initiatives put forth by the administration. It is not unreasonable to suppose many public sector psychologists worry that public trust will erode in the profession if we collectively do not find ways to navigate these rapid administrative changes. Therefore, the current political climate in the U.S. offers a unique opportunity for board certified professionals to advocate for evidence-based practices in public systems, to work collaboratively with ourselves and others to address systemic challenges (e.g., highlighting the benefits of remote therapeutic and evaluation services to SMI and justice-involved individuals), and to train future psychologists to understand power, privilege and intersectionality in therapeutic and other public mental health settings (Wright et al., 2025). As the research above indicates, political polarization results in mental and physical health concerns for the individuals within that system and may extend to impacting how board-certified psychologists effectively complete their work. Indeed, there are several initiatives in various forms of enaction, or promised to take form over the next few years, that may directly impact our work (e.g., ending of telework capacities, termination of diversity-equity-and-inclusion initiatives) and increase likelihood of professional burnout as resources previously available to us are altered or disbanded.

We hope this editorial commentary evokes reflection in our colleagues, and a desire to support each other and the individuals with whom we work. As board certified specialists, particularly those working with serious mental illness and within forensic settings, we stand at a critical juncture. The intersection of political polarization, systemic challenges, and shifting public perceptions of mental health demands a proactive and united response. Our ethical obligation appears to extend beyond providing care to individuals; it encompasses advocating for systemic change, combating stigma, and promoting evidence-based policies that benefit underserved populations and allow us to continue our important work. By fostering collaboration, supporting inclusive practices, and preparing future psychologists to navigate these challenges, we can mitigate the adverse effects of political polarization on both our patients and us. In the face of uncertainty, our collective resilience and commitment to ethical, patient-centered care and professional advocacy will serve as a stabilizing force for those we serve—and for the profession as a whole.