Expert Identifies Psychological Disorder That Makes Republicans Justify Harm

During the government shutdown, as families worry about putting food on the table, the Trump administration has the ability to tap into contingency funds that could keep food assistance going. Instead, Republican leaders claim they can’t.

“There’s no legal mechanism to do it,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters.

“My understanding is that the administration made the assessment that those funds could not be used for this purpose,” said Rep. John Rose (R-Tenn.) on CNN.

The result? Millions of families left uncertain, hungry, and struggling — all while leaders framed the suffering as beyond their control.

But that claim doesn’t hold up. Legal experts, the president’s actions during the last shutdown, and even a previous memo from Donald Trump’s U.S. Department of Agriculture all suggested the government could, in fact, keep funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, during a shutdown. In reality, the power to act exists.

So why portray harm as unavoidable? According to mental health experts, there’s a psychological explanation — and a name for it: violent innocence.

“Violent innocence is a term that posits that a person or institution can cause significant harm while remaining morally ambiguous and/or seemingly ‘unaware’ that they are causing it,” Alexandra Cromer, a licensed therapist with Thriveworks, told HuffPost.

The term was first detailed by psychoanalyst Christopher Bollas, who described it as an aggressive “form of denial.”

“The violent innocent sponsors affective and ideational confusion in the other, which he then disavows any knowledge of ― this being the true violation,” Bollas wrote, explaining how those who practice violent innocence sow confusion and isolation while denying responsibility.

Cromer describes the mindset as willful ignorance: “It means that an institution or person is maintaining a level of unawareness to protect or preserve their belief that they are not harmful and do not cause active harm,” she said.

In other words, violent innocence is a defense mechanism that lets people — or institutions — protect their self-image, even while inflicting real-world harm.

“Violent innocence can be dangerous because it posits that growth is not an ongoing process of gaining consciousness awareness,” Cromer noted.

On a personal level, it shows up as the familiar “I didn’t mean to hurt you, so you shouldn’t be upset.” On a national scale, however, it becomes far more consequential.

When leaders choose not to release contingency funds to keep SNAP benefits flowing — and then claim, “we can’t do anything” — that is violent innocence in action. Procedure becomes a moral shield, and the suffering of millions is framed as inevitable.

“People or institutions might insist on their own innocence despite being given information that their decisions or inaction cause harm due to a desire to protect or preserve their view of self,” Cromer said. “Receiving feedback and a request for change is hard, but it is necessary.”

By clinging to the narrative of goodness or helplessness, individuals and institutions avoid accountability and perpetuate the harm they deny.

“For some, being made aware of hurt caused requires them to take active remedial steps,” Cromer said. “Many institutions and people have a hard time with this insight due to the fact that many view ‘mistakes’ as ‘permanent.’ In some instances, the people or institutions do believe that they are actually innocent and have not caused any harm, despite contrary feedback.”

Violent innocence thrives wherever accountability feels unbearable. It allows those in power to claim moral purity while harm spreads. Breaking the pattern requires awareness, acceptance of responsibility, and a commitment to change — proving that growth and integrity can go hand in hand.