When Politics Go Under the Skin: How U.S. Political Stress Fuels Depression and Anxiety — and What To Do About It

The increasing negativity in American politics has become an omnipresent social force in the American society that, for a segment of the population, has impacted daily mood, sleep, relationships, and in many cases, has led to extreme distress and clinically diagnosable impairments. A growing empirical literature ties political factors—polarization, continuous negative news exposure, election turmoil, and sociopolitical stress—to increases in depressive and anxiety symptoms across populations (Smith, 2022; Kellerman et al., 2022; Fraser et al., 2023; Suzuki et al., 2023; Gimbrone et al., 2021). Understanding these pathways is essential for clinicians, trainees, and patients who must navigate a political environment that can worsen mental health.

How political factors influence mood and anxiety

Three linked mechanisms recur across the literature.

First, politics creates chronic stress. Large national surveys and repeated samples found that many Americans report politics as a persistent source of stress—affecting sleep, mood, and day-to-day functioning. Those who are younger, more politically engaged, or on the political left tended to report higher health impacts in recent U.S. studies. Politics functions like a chronic psychosocial stressor that can exacerbate depressive and anxious symptomatology (Smith, 2022).

Second, the 24/7 news and social-media ecosystem amplifies uncertainty and worry. Intensive longitudinal work using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) shows that greater daily exposure to distressing news increases same-day and next-day worry, which then generalizes into hopelessness and broader anxiety—mechanisms directly relevant to depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. Reducing exposure or changing the way one engages with news can therefore alter proximal worry dynamics (Kellerman et al., 2022).

Third, discrete political events—contentious elections, threats to democratic norms, or perceived threat to personal identity—can be traumatic for some people. Representative surveys following the 2020 U.S. election found measurable election-related PTSD symptoms and linked affective polarization (intense hostility toward political out-groups) to elevated trauma symptoms. Among young people, trajectories of “sociopolitical stress” during the 2020 election correlated with worse psychological well-being (Fraser et al., 2023; Suzuki et al., 2023). For adolescents, political lenses may track with diverging internalizing symptom trends, suggesting political climate interacts with developmental vulnerabilities (Gimbrone et al., 2021).

Taken together, the evidence supports a causal pathway: heightened political exposure and polarization leads to chronic uncertainty, worry, and social fragmentation which results in increased risk or worsening of depressive and anxiety disorders for vulnerable groups.

Practical suggestions — for clinicians, students, and patients

Below are pragmatic, evidence-informed steps that map onto the mechanisms above.

For clinicians and students (assessment & systems):

• Screen for political stress explicitly. Add a brief question about politics/news impact (e.g., “Has political news or conflict been affecting your sleep, mood, or relationships?”). Research shows politics is a measurable contributor to distress; asking normalizes the experience and identifies a modifiable stressor (Smith, 2022).
• Integrate psychoeducation on media exposure. Teach patients about the EMA findings showing news exposure leads to increased worry which leads to a sense of hopelessness. Collaborate to create a personalized “media plan” (frequency, sources, time limits) (Kellerman et al., 2022).
• Be alert for election-related trauma. For patients with intrusive thoughts, hypervigilance, or avoidance tied to political events, consider PTSD screening and trauma-informed interventions; survey data indicate a nontrivial prevalence of election-related PTSD symptoms (Fraser et al., 2023).
• Advocate at systems level. Recognize political polarization as a social determinant of mental health; document it when relevant and push for institutional resources (e.g., campus campaigns, employee wellness around election cycles) (Suzuki et al., 2023).

For patients and the public (self-care & behavior):

• Tame the media diet. Replace continuous checking with scheduled updates (e.g., 15 minutes twice daily); pick a few trustworthy sources and avoid endless feeds. EMA data show this reduces event-driven worry (Kellerman et al., 2022).
• Use Cognitive Behavior Therapy strategies for worry. Behavioral experiments, worry postponement, and cognitive restructuring reduce rumination and hopelessness—core processes linking political exposure to depressive and anxious symptoms.
• Choose civic action that protects mental health. Meaningful engagement (volunteering, local organizing) can convert distress into agency; however, monitor for burnout and step back when physiological or mood cues demand it (Suzuki et al., 2023).
• Strengthen social supports across differences. Polarization fragments social ties; intentionally nurturing nonpolitical shared activities preserves social buffers against depression and anxiety (Gimbrone et al., 2021; Smith, 2022).

Closing note

Politics can negatively affect mental health—sometimes dramatically. However, political stress is a measurable, addressable risk factor to the development of depressive disorder and anxiety. Screening, targeted media habits, cognitive-behavioral tools, trauma-informed care when needed, and community interventions form a coherent toolkit to reduce the psychiatric burden of political life.

Cite this article in APA format:

Santos, F. E. (2025, September 17). When politics gets under the skin: How U.S. political stress fuels depression and anxiety — and what to do about it. Franco E. Santos. https://francosantos.com/when-politics-gets-under-the-skin-how-u-s-political-stress-fuels-depression-and-anxiety-and-what-to-do-about-it/

References (APA)

Fraser, T., Panagopoulos, C., & Smith, K. (2023). Election-related post-traumatic stress: Evidence from the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Politics and the Life Sciences, 42(2), 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2023.8

Gimbrone, C., Bates, L. M., Prins, S. J., & Keyes, K. M. (2021). The politics of depression: Diverging trends in internalizing symptoms among U.S. adolescents by political beliefs. SSM — Mental Health, 2, 100043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmmh.2021.100043

Kellerman, J. K., Hamilton, J. L., Selby, E. A., & Kleiman, E. M. (2022). The mental health impact of daily news exposure during the COVID-19 pandemic: An ecological momentary assessment study. JMIR Mental Health, 9(5), e36966. https://doi.org/10.2196/36966

Smith, K. B. (2022). Politics is making us sick: The negative impact of political engagement on public health during the Trump administration. PLOS ONE, 17(1), e0262022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262022

Suzuki, S., Hoyt, L. T., Yazdani, N., Kornbluh, M., Hope, E. C., Hagan, M. J., Cohen, A. K., & Ballard, P. J. (2023). Trajectories of sociopolitical stress during the 2020 United States presidential election season: Associations with psychological well-being, civic action, and social identities. Comprehensive Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16, 100218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpnec.2023.100218