SORROW, PITY, OUTRIGHT FEAR: Should we the people be concerned...

MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2026

...about the president's (mental) health? We'll start the week with a basic question. As we do, we'll be starting to wind down the past several weeks of reports.

As we start the week, our basic question is this:

Should American citizens be concerned about the state of the president's mental health? More directly, should American citizens be fearful—frightened, afraid—about his mental health?

We refer to any possible cognitive decline, but also to any possible "mental illness." And because the language of "mental illness" is often taken to be, and is frequently offered as, the ultimate form of insult, we want to start the week by restating some basic conceptual points:

A mental illness is, in fact, an illness:

In our view, a (serious) "mental illness" is, in fact, an illness. 

When someone is diagnosed with a significant "mental illness," that's a diagnosis of an actual illness. It isn't simply a shorthand way of saying that the person's behavior is very bad.  

Some such diagnosis is a diagnosis of a personal tragedy, as would be the case with a serious "physical" illness. The assertion of a possible "mental illness" shouldn't be seen as an insult.

Also this:   

A mental illness frequently is a physical illness:

"Mental illnesses" frequently have a physiological component. The leading authority on mental illness prefers the emerging term "mental disorder." But this is one part of its overview:  

Mental disorder   

A mental disorder, also referred to as a mental illness, a mental health condition, or a psychiatric disability, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning. A mental disorder is also characterized by a clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotional regulation, or behavior, often in a social context.

[...]  

For a mental state to be classified as a disorder, it generally needs to cause dysfunction. Most international clinical documents use the term mental "disorder", while "illness" is also common. It has been noted that using the term "mental" (i.e., of the mind) is not necessarily meant to imply separateness from the brain or body. 

A "mental illness" isn't necessarily disconnected from the brain (a physical organ) or the body. For example, in its discussion of antisocial personality disorder (colloquially, "sociopathy"), the leading authority says this:

Antisocial personality disorder

Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is a personality disorder defined by a chronic pattern of behavior that disregards the rights and well-being of others. People with ASPD often exhibit behavior that conflicts with social norms, leading to issues with interpersonal relationships, employment, and legal matters. The condition generally manifests in childhood or early adolescence, with a high rate of associated conduct problems and a tendency for symptoms to peak in late adolescence and early adulthood. 

[...]  

Research into genetic associations in antisocial personality disorder suggests that ASPD has some or even a strong genetic basis. The prevalence of ASPD is higher in people related to someone with the disorder. Twin studies, which are designed to discern between genetic and environmental effects, have reported significant genetic influences on antisocial behavior and conduct disorder. 

As its overview continues, the leading authority goes into some detail about the "specific genes" which may be involved in the development of this disorder. Simply put, an unfortunate child may perhaps inherit the physiological condition which correlates with ASPD. 

We've advised you to pity that child—but also to be deeply concerned about where his conduct may lead.

Certain forms of "mental illness" may be surprisingly prevalent:

We'll guess that most people would be surprised by the prevalence of certain "mental disorders" (forms of "mental illness"). In the overview about ASPD to which we've already linked, the leading authority offers this statement concerning the prevalence of ASPD (colloquially, "sociopathy"): 

The estimated lifetime prevalence of ASPD amongst the general population falls within 1% to 4%, skewed towards 6% men and 2% women. 

As we've noted in the past, that six percent figure (among men) is apparently derived from major studies of this "mental disorder." We'll guess that many people would be surprised by that alleged degree of prevalence.

Obviously, that figure doesn't mean that six percent of adult men are the equivalent of Hannibal Lecter. It does mean that some version of this "mental disorder" ("mental illness") is less rare than many people may think.

You're reading this here for a reason:

Please understand:

No one at this site is a medical specialist. No one at this site is experienced in the diagnosis and treatment of various "mental disorders."

You're reading these observations here because our upper-end press corps has sworn that they will never interview the medical specialists who could, at least in theory, offer detailed understanding of these basic points. For better or worse, the state of play is this:

Our journalists have agreed to adhere to a code of silence about matters of "mental illness," at least with respect to major political figures like the sitting president.

When it comes to an important matter like this, we the people have been left on our own.

We've advised you to pity the child who may be afflicted—perhaps through genetic inheritance!—in the deeply unfortunate ways we've described. That said, some medical specialists have said that the sitting president is afflicted in these ways, and that this state of affairs should be viewed as extremely dangerous.

Full disclosure! We know of no reason to believe that this possibility will ever be discussed in the New York Times, or in The Atlantic, or on The Last Word or The Rachel Maddow Show. 

Major news orgs and individual journalists simply aren't going to go there.  Example: When Mary L. Trump stated her view on CNN in late February, the interview ended right there, and it was never mentioned again!

That said, an obvious question seems to prevail:

Should we the people be concerned about the president's "mental health?" More to the point, should we the people be actively fearful about that matter?

Way back in the president's first term, some major medical specialists said the answer was clearly yes.  The fact that they said it doesn't make it true, but that's what those specialists said.

This week, we'll finish our review of these matters. As a general matter, we've advised you to pity the child, but also to consider the possibility of fearing his behavior.

Remember:

You're reading about this topic at this site for a somewhat unusual reason. For better or worse, our high-end journalists have agreed on a basic point:

This topic must never be discussed! It simply isn't done!

We the people have been left on our own. We'll review some basic points during the rest of the week.

Tomorrow: Correctly or otherwise, this was an early warning

SATURDAY: Where have all the specialists gone?

SATURDAY, APRIL 18, 2026

This is the gamble we've chosen: It's as we noted in this week's reports:

In Tuesday's front-page overview for the New York Times, Peter Baker quoted recent comments about President Trump's "mental health"—comments about the president's "psychological fitness."

Baker quoted a large number of elected officials, podcasters and lawyers. But he didn't quote any remarks by any medical specialists—by any "mental health professionals."

Similarly, Lawrence O'Donnell reminisced on several occasions this week about his past interviews with such medical specialists on his Last Word program. 

That said, those interviews, infrequent and limited as they were, took place during the president's first term—from 2017 on through January 2021. O'Donnell conducted no interviews with medical specialists on this week's Last Word programs. 

Even now, in the face of the growing concerns reported by Baker, it seems that O'Donnell no longer conducts such interviews. As he reminisced this week about past interviews, he didn't explain why that it is. 

Where have all the medical specialists gone? Why didn't Baker quote any such observers? Why didn't O'Donnell quote such current observers? Why doesn't O'Donnell conduct such interviews at this point in time?

We can't answer those very good questions. We'll offer these speculations:

It could be that the president's various lawsuits have convinced news orgs like MS NOW that such interviews can no longer take place. It may also be that medical specialists—some, though plainly not all—have become reluctant to offer assessments about the president's mental health or about his possible cognitive decline.

It may be that an org like the New York Times is also gripped by such concerns. It may be that Baker wanted to quote such medical specialists as Mary Trump and Dr. Vin Gupta (among several others), but editors refused to let that occur.

Is something (seriously) wrong with President Trump? If so, that is of course a personal tragedy. But is something wrong with President Trump in a way which may be extremely dangerous, given his role in the world?

With regard to such important questions, Baker quoted the nutcase Alex Jones. He quoted no medical specialists!

For his part, O'Donnell played tape of what was said by a medical specialist in 2017 and in 2021. He didn't mention things which have been said by medical specialists in just the past few weeks.

We see no sign that these apparent blackout policies are going to change. All in all, it must be said:

All in all, for better or worse, this is the gamble we've chosen!

Starting Monday: A great deal remains to be said

DIAGNOSIS: Baker quoted the nutcase Jones...

FRIDAY, APRIL 17, 2026

...disappeared Gupta and Trump: As we start, let's be fair to the New York Times—and to Peter Baker, a highly skilled synthesizer.  In fairness, let's say this:  

The basic premise of Baker's recent front-page report was in fact basically accurate. Also, the situation Baker described could be seen as a (somewhat low-IQ) matter of general interest.  

Baker's lengthy report appeared above the fold, on page 1A, in Tuesday's print editions. As it now appears online, it starts in the manner shown, principal headline included:

Trump’s Erratic Behavior and Extreme Comments Revive Mental Health Debate

President Trump’s erratic behavior and extreme comments in recent days and weeks have turbocharged the crazy-like-a-fox-or-just-plain-crazy debate that has followed him on the national political stage for a decade.

A series of disjointed, hard-to-follow and sometimes-profane statements capped by his “a whole civilization will die tonight” threat to wipe Iran off the map last week and his head-spinning attack on the “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy” pope on Sunday night have left many with the impression of a deranged autocrat mad with power.

The White House rejected such assessments, saying that Mr. Trump is sharp and keeping his opponents on edge. But the president’s eruptions have raised questions about America’s leadership in a time of war...

Democrats who have long challenged Mr. Trump’s psychological fitness have issued a fresh chorus of calls to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the president from power for disability. But it is not just a concern voiced by partisans on the left, late-night comics or mental health professionals making long-distance diagnoses. It can be heard now among retired generals, diplomats and foreign officials. And most strikingly, it can be heard now on the political right among onetime allies of the president.  

In fairness, all that was true! The president's behavior, and his unusual comments, had in fact resulted in a series of comments about his "mental health"—about his "psychological fitness." 

It's also true that comments about the president's mental state had come from a wide array of sources—not just from "partisans of the left."  

It was true! Many people had issued challenging remarks about the president's mental state. And Baker seemed to be willing to cite all these comments—even those which came from some of the most disordered voices within the national maelstrom:

Former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia Republican who recently broke with Mr. Trump, advocated using the 25th Amendment, telling CNN that threatening to destroy Iran’s civilization was “not tough rhetoric, it’s insanity.” Candace Owens, the far-right podcaster, called him “a genocidal lunatic.” Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist and founder of Infowars, said Mr. Trump “does babble and sounds like the brain’s not doing too hot.”  

Baker was even willing to quote such profoundly marginal figures as Candace Owens and Alex Jones! To appearances, no one was being left behind!   

(In fairness, it can be defended as a matter of general interest when a deranged figure like Alex Jones says some of the things he has recently said. We say that because, however disordered Jones may be, he still has a fairly substantial following. For that reason, it qualifies as a matter of public interest to learn what he has said.)  

Baker quoted a wide array of public figures who had made recent remarks about the president's mental health. That said, there was (at least) one such well-known person the gentleman failed to cite.   

Unlike the nutcase Jones, there was a reasonable chance that the person in question actually knew what she was talking about! We refer to the (current or former) "mental health professional" who had appeared on CNN, where she had offered this:    

BURNETT (2/26/26): You've known him your whole life. Do you actually see a [cognitive] decline?

MARY L. TRUMP: I do, but I think it's important to remember that Donald has never been fit in any capacity. Obviously, what we're dealing with now are age-related cognitive declines. We're dealing with physical issues that the White House tries to cover over.

But this is somebody who for decades now has had serious, undiagnosed and untreated psychiatric disorders, which are only going to worsen, especially given the pressure he's under and given the cognitive and physical declines.  

Sad! Perhaps at the direction of his editors, Baker was willing to quote the nutcase Jones, but he refused to quote Mary Trump!   

In fairness, it's possible to regard Mary Trump as "an interested party," because, of course, she is. An editor might decide to disappear her rather startling assessments for that very reason.  

In fairness, you can imagine that some editor made some such assessment. That said, please notice this:  

Right at the start of his lengthy essay, Baker seems to say that "mental health professionals" (plural) have been making assessments about the president's mental health. NBC's Dr. Vin Gupta would be an obvious example.

(For Mediaite's report, click here. Headline: MS NOW Medical Analyst Dr. Vin Gupta Claims Trump Has ‘All The Signs of Dementia’)

Even though he was willing to quote a manifest nutcase like Alex Jones, Baker failed to quote any such medical specialist in the course of his long overview. Mary Trump's comments were disappeared, but so were Dr. Gupta's.

We regard that as an insulting refusal to serve. So too, we're sorry to say, in the case of Lawrence O'Donnell.   

As we noted yesterday, O'Donnell has done some serious reminiscing in several of his Last Word programs this week. On Wednesday night, he played videotape from the good old days—from the occasional broadcasts, during President Trump's first term, when he would bring Dr. Lance Dodes on the air to assess the president's mental health.   

Dr. Dodes had hardly been reassuring. On Wednesday's Last Word, O'Donnell played tape of Dr. Dodes from January 2021. In the tape O'Donnell played, Dr. Dodes was shown saying this about President Trump     

DR. DODES (1/9/21): A delusional psychopath who has been the same his whole adult life, and who we knew would get worse the more stress he was under, because that's what happens with people with this kind of severe disorder. ...He is going to continue to get worse.  

The fact that he said it doesn't mean it was true. But now, it does seem, to many observers, that president is "getting worse." But O'Donnell no longer interviews specialists like Dr. Dodes—and in the wake of her comments on CNN, we can find no sign that he proceeded to interview Mary Trump.

Baker will tell you what the nutcase Jones has said. O'Donnell will play the videotape of the good old days, when he would, on the rare occasion, interview a medical specialist like Dr. Dodes.

Baker disappeared Mary Trump and Dr. Gupta. O'Donnell failed to say why he no longer conducts interviews of that type.

In each case, it seems to us that we're looking at a failure to serve. At what seems like a very dangerous time, we're looking at an imitation of journalism—at an imitation of life.

Still coming: Much more remains to be said