Psychologist warns family estrangement over politics can worsen mental health

A clinical psychologist warned that severing family relationships over political differences — a practice increasingly framed as "self-care" on social media — can deepen loneliness and damage mental health.

Dr. Chloe Carmichael, author of "Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly," told Fox News Digital that automatically cutting off relatives because of their politics removes important social support and can leave people more isolated. "Cutting off your social support, cutting off your family members, creating loneliness and isolation for yourself, is actually the worst thing you can do for your mental health," she said.

Carmichael said younger progressives have been particularly likely to sever ties with older relatives over support for President Donald Trump, and she linked the behavior to research suggesting liberals report worse mental health than conservatives. She described a pattern she calls the "five Ds": defriending on social media, putting distance in real life, dropping relationships, disinviting speakers, and declining to date people because of political differences.

Public-opinion measures show declines in self-reported mental health among young adults. Gallup data indicate that the share of people ages 18 to 29 who say their mental health is "excellent" has fallen substantially in the past decade, with young women among those reporting some of the steepest drops. Carmichael said the move to cut ties over politics can exacerbate an "epidemic of loneliness" and remove a buffer that social support normally provides against mental-health problems.

She acknowledged that establishing distance is appropriate when interactions include name-calling, threats or abuse, and said standing boundaries can be a legitimate form of self-protection. But she cautioned against estrangement as the default response to disagreement.

To preserve relationships and protect mental health, Carmichael recommended what she calls "listening resiliently." She advised asking questions and delaying rebuttal during difficult conversations, recalling times when one’s own views changed, and cultivating curiosity and compassion rather than immediate judgment. She also suggested practical preparation for those who struggle to speak, such as role-playing conversations or arranging support before raising sensitive points at work.

Carmichael argued that free expression and open dialogue build more authentic relationships, reduce suppression of emotion and have measurable effects on the brain. "When we name our emotions, our amygdala activity has been shown to decrease," she said, referring to research linking emotional labeling with reduced fear-related brain activity.

Her comments come amid public debate about how families should respond to political splits. In the wake of the 2024 election, some commentators urged distancing from Trump-supporting relatives; for example, a psychiatrist on a media program suggested it might be healthier to avoid such family members during holidays. A July essay in New York Magazine argued that neutrality in relationships "doesn’t exist" and that cutting off family members can sometimes be appropriate.

Carmichael said those perspectives reflect a range of responses but warned that promoting estrangement as a general prescription could leave people without key supports. She emphasized that equipping people with communication tools can reduce bullying and polarization and help to clarify and correct misinformation through open scrutiny and debate.

Mental-health experts note that social ties are a major factor in psychological well-being. Research across disciplines links social isolation to higher risk for depression, anxiety and poorer physical health outcomes. Carmichael framed maintaining lines of communication where safe as a form of resilience that preserves emotional resources and the ability to seek help when needed.

While some people will legitimately require distance from relatives because of harm or ongoing abuse, Carmichael urged others to evaluate whether estrangement is serving long-term mental-health goals or merely relieving immediate emotional discomfort. She recommended measured boundary-setting, practice in difficult conversations and leaning on community resources when family connections are strained.

Carmichael’s book, public comments and suggestions for conversational techniques add to an ongoing conversation among clinicians, journalists and the public about how to balance safety, authenticity and social cohesion in a polarized political climate.