Why are therapists upset with Mel Robbins’ The Let Them Theory?

Short version first

The “new book” you’re asking about is Mel Robbins’s The Let Them Theory (late 2024).
It packages a simple stance—stop trying to control other people; regulate your own behavior instead—that went wildly mainstream.
The scale alone guarantees blowback, but therapists’ objections aren’t just professional turf-protection; many are substantive.
The Guardian • Axios

Ground the idea

What the book says in one line: when someone acts in a way you don’t like, let them… and then choose your own boundary or response.
This maps closely to radical acceptance—a Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) skill about fully accepting reality while deciding what you will do next.
DBT practitioners describe radical acceptance precisely this way; Robbins translates it into a sticky, portable mantra.
Verywell Mind • Behavioral Tech

Why some therapists are upset (and what they’re right about)

Oversimplification vs. clinical nuance

A mantra is not a treatment plan. Psychologists and therapists point out that “Let Them” can blur the line between acceptance and avoidance.
If you routinely “let” a partner stonewall, a boss exploit, or a teen escalate risk, you may be reinforcing harm or disengaging from necessary repair.
Several clinician pieces and critiques stress that the book under-specifies when to pair acceptance with assertive communication or limit-setting.
ABC • innermelbpsychology.com.au • The Cut

Power, safety, and context blind spots

The slogan doesn’t travel well into asymmetric or unsafe situations—domestic abuse, workplace coercion, medical neglect—where “letting” is the wrong move.
Cultural critics also flag the risk of passive resignation: a tidy story that soothes individuals while leaving structural problems untouched.
The Cut • Vox

Repackaging clinical ideas without attribution

Many clinicians feel Robbins rebrands existing skills (DBT’s radical acceptance, elements of ACT and boundary work) with little credit.
That complaint gets entangled with a separate public dispute: the popular “Let Them” poem by Cassie Phillips (and her claim Robbins piggybacked the phrase without acknowledgment).
Whatever the legal merits, the optics of attribution irk people trained to cite sources.
Verywell Mind • PMC • The Couch Blog • New York Post

Communication gets de-emphasized

A number of therapist responses worry readers will hear “don’t ask for needs, don’t repair—just detach.”
That confuses boundaries (clear expectations + consequences) with cutoffs (withdrawal to avoid discomfort).
Instagram

Pop-psych packaging and hype

Critics argue the book’s tone is sales-forward, the guidance sometimes superficial or repetitive, and the claims outsized for a single heuristic—fair critiques of much mass-market self-help.
Vox • Cannonball Read 17

Is there validity to the concerns?

Yes—in scope and in application. Two truths can coexist:

Self-help works (to a point). There’s a solid evidence base for bibliotherapy and other self-help modalities improving mild-to-moderate symptoms, especially when grounded in CBT/DBT principles or paired with light guidance. That supports the utility of bite-size skills like “Let Them” for many readers. PMC • ScienceDirect

Self-help can misfire without guardrails. Research (and clinician experience) documents negative effects from unguided self-help—misapplied techniques, delayed care, or justification of avoidance—especially for complex trauma, high-risk behavior, or severe psychopathology. That directly mirrors therapists’ reservations about a universal “let it go” stance. Cambridge University Press & Assessment

So the concerns are valid when the mantra is used as a universal rule rather than a context-dependent skill.
And they’re less valid when aimed at the sheer simplicity of the language.
Simplicity is the point: good mnemonics compress a clinically sound move (accept reality → choose a boundary) into something a stressed brain can remember.
Several clinician-authored explainers explicitly endorse “Let Them” as a useful shorthand—with nuance.
The Couch Blog

Where “Let Them” is strong vs. brittle

Strong fit: overfunctioning/people-pleasing cycles; anxiety-driven control. Low-stakes disagreements among equals; situations where your leverage is mainly your own choices. As a step zero: pause → regulate → then pick a boundary or request. (It’s the “downshift” before a conversation.) Verywell Mind

Brittle without modification: safety issues, abuse, or coercion (acceptance ≠ tolerance of harm). Relationships that require repair conversations (parenting, partnerships, teams); if you repeatedly “let them,” you may be practicing cutoff, not boundary. Systems problems (hostile workplaces, discrimination) where individual detachment won’t change the hazard. The Cut

A compact decision rule (architect’s view)

Use Let–Name–Decide: Pause and accept what just happened (Let). Classify the context: low-stakes vs duty-of-care vs power-imbalance (Name). Then Decide: adjust your behavior, schedule a repair talk, or escalate if unsafe. ScienceDirect

Context you shouldn’t ignore

The book’s historic reach means it will be used outside its competence envelope; that alone explains some therapist alarm. Even Axios’s mea culpa lauding the book’s usefulness acknowledges the shock waves from its popularity. Scale magnifies misuse. Axios

The credit dispute (Cassie Phillips’s viral poem vs. Robbins’s branding) isn’t about clinical accuracy but about norms of attribution; to clinicians trained to cite, it signals carelessness with intellectual lineage. New York Post

Bottom line

Therapists aren’t “upset” because the core idea is wrong; they’re concerned because a good heuristic can become a bad habit when unmoored from context, communication, and safety.
If readers adopt “Let Them” as a first step—not the whole staircase—it’s broadly consistent with evidence-based practice.
If they wield it as a universal law, the critics’ warnings are well founded.