From Allen J Francis who wrote the DSM Criteria for Narcissist Personality Disorder, read it yourself, their CMS adds hyperlinks to keywords that include ads. I tried using DA's interface to strip it of the links for better reading, but it didn't work, so I'll just expand on it.
What basically people do with personality disorders, is they diagnosis from afar, or based on superficial or purposefully fake activities like acting. There is a long history of Trump acting a role that dates farther back then the apprentice. It dates back to at least his early interest in Broadway.
Francis also backs up my thought that in order to be diagnosed with a mental illness that it must first be a disorder. He also shows that its unethical to diagnose from afar, and I assume outside of private sessions. This also includes diagnosing over time, as Trump's ghost author did years later for the press by claiming the Art of the Deal was a textbook of a sociopath, conveniently in time for the election.
I also will tell you that mental illness is not a binary set of conditions, it is a range, the scale of the range usually dependent on the test. Most test score from 0-20 the tendencies towards a specific disorder. Most disorders overlap in their symptoms and therefore have to be tested in a way that you can determine the probability of that disorder. This also assumes you manage to get one-on-one sessions with person (in Trump's case, you know no one has except maybe his family). That means the best you can say when declaring someone to have a disorder (granted you don't care about ethical practices) is "subject exhibits the patterns of x disorder based on a, b and c."
But, what we have is idiots, who hastily diagnose someone in order to virtue signal or vent emotions. Such behavior is further normalized by the lying media in order to justify persecutions of the person they are diagnosing. This is just like how the word 'NAZI' is used, ironically by the same people willing to diagnose unethically. In the end its simply wrong to do so without proper observation. Words like "Psychopathy, sociopath and narcissist' are deployed unethically by people based on no real evidence of it.
Everyone wants a pathology when they are 20 years old, then when they try to take the reigns of power, everyone else tries to diagnose them with a pathology in order to destroy them. Or to put is another way, you want the Black Death at 20, and at 70, everyone else is trying to give you it so you die.
Does the same go in reverse? In a way yes, but when you argue a positive for a person you are not engaging in a destructive act overall. It is when you attempt to argue the negative do you enter the realm of potential slander. Still, in the end it is always up to the victim to press charges for libel.Speaking of libel I love defending Alex Jones, it pisses off everyone without a brain
If you haven't noticed, Alex Jones has yet to be the brought up on libel, yet he is the target for censorship (he's been taken off Shoutcast.com don't tell he's not under attack). This actually is a tell in a way, a tell of intent by the people he is talking about. It means he's for the most part telling the truth about them in his reports. If they come after Infowars with libel cases, it would be the greatest trap set in the history of scandals. So instead, they try to attack the man, and then try to keep him from broadcasting his message.