COGNITION(S): Applebaum takes it up a notch!

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2026

Her latest suggestion ignored: Yesterday, on Deadline: White House, the Atlantic's Anne Applebaum kept floating a general notion.

She seemed to be floating a general notion concerning President Trump. To our ear, she went beyond her previous attempts at hinting / suggesting / but not quite saying what she now rather plainly seemed to imply.

"I think the story of this, today's madness starts a few days ago," she said at 4:06 p.m. With that, she initiated a lengthy discussion involving Nicolle Wallace and two other high-profile panelists. 

Applebaum's use of "madness" seemed to be colloquial there. But soon, a new level of hinting took shape. 

As Applebaum continued, she directly cited President Trump's peculiar text to the Norwegian PM. In that text, the president had strangely said that his failure to win the Nobel Peace Prize had possibly created a bit of a new world order.

According to Applebaum, "the text blamed Norway for not giving him the Nobel Peace Prize. It said, now that he hadn't won the prize, he wasn't going to be so interested in peace anymore. And he implied that this was a justification to invade Greenland." 

It's as we've noted in the past two days. On Monday, Applebaum had cited this same peculiar text in this essay for the Atlantic. On Tuesday morning's Morning Joe, she had discussed the same peculiar behavior by President Trump. 

Now, a mere ten hours later, her hinting / suggesting went well beyond the hinting / suggesting which had been lodged in those earlier efforts. Here's the start of what she told Wallace as two other panelists listened:

APPLEBAUM (1/20/26): Many other crazy things have happened, but this was so strange, and so off-the-wall, and it was so clearly detached from reality...that I think people are finally beginning to see that there's something very wrong. 

Something is "very wrong," Applebaum flatly said. The president's text had been "so off-the-wall" that people "were finally beginning to see" it.

Things the president said in that letter were "clearly detached from reality!"  She had used similar language before, but now she added this:

APPLEBAUM: I mean, Trump is living in his own world. I'm not going to make a medical diagnosis. I don't think there's any point in doing that at this point, but he has his own world, his own rules. He's not practicing normal diplomacy. He's not seeing the world in a normal way. And that is, of course, since he controls the U.S. military, very dangerous.

Could there be a violent invasion of Greenland? Yes there could.

With that, her presentation ended. Plainly, she felt she was describing a situation which involves great danger.

"I'm not going to make a medical diagnosis," Applebaum now said. This went well beyond the hints and suggestions she'd previously lodged—but as the long discussion unfolded, neither Wallace nor either of the other two panelists reacted to the plain insinuation lodged in that new formulation.

"I'm not going to make a medical diagnosis," Applebaum had now said. Since she isn't a medical professional, it wasn't obvious how she possibly could have made some such diagnosis, even in a provisional way—and she herself quickly backed away from her own newest hint. 

"I don't think there's any point in doing that at this point," she said, without explanation. 

Still, despite that instant walk-back, an obvious line had been crossed. We think of the passage from Camus' allegorical novel, The Plague, in which this finally occurs:

CAMUS (page 36): The word “plague” had just been uttered for the first time. At this stage of the narrative, with Dr. Bernard Rieux standing at his window, the narrator may, perhaps, be allowed to justify the doctor’s uncertainty and surprise—since, with very slight differences, his reaction was the same as that of the great majority of our townfolk. 

As it turned out, the citizens of the fictional Oran still weren't ready to confront the idea that they may have been hit by a plague. But now, the word had been uttered for the first time—and events would move on from there.

Applebaum had moved her hinting and her suggesting up another notch. The term "medical diagnosis" had been uttered for the first time—but reluctance being what it is among our imperfect species, the same old avoidance occurred

Given his "off-the-wall" behavior—given his clear "detachment from reality"—should someone be seeking a provisional medical diagnosis of the president's possible condition? 

The possibility had now been floated. But no one returned to this overt suggestion in the course of the ensuing lengthy discussion.

Ever so slowly they turn! It has long been a rule within the guild—simply put, you absolutely don't go there! You don't discuss the possibility that there could be some problem with the cognition, or with the mental health, of a major political figure.

As with many rules, this rule had been a very good rule—until such time as it wasn't. 

Yesterday afternoon, with Applebaum moving her hinting up a notch, Wallace, Bassin and Professor McFaul all plowed blindly ahead. In the course of a long discussion, they gave no indication that they had heard what Applebaum had just said. 

Wallace quickly offered a murky parable, but then she went with this:

"Again, we don't know why he acts this way. But let's just say it—he acts like a bleeping lunatic."

Like many others, Wallace has been "just saying" that sort of thing for a very long time. But with that, we were back to simple insults of the colloquial kind. No one was prepared to suggest that it might be time to ask actual medical specialists how this strange behavior by the president might possibly look to them:

Is something medically wrong with President Trump? Could it be a form of cognitive decline? Could it be a serious "personality disorder" (a form of what is still called a "mental illness")? 

Could it be a cognitive decline layered on top of some such unfortunate condition?

Applebaum has been hinting for the past several days that the answer is some form of yes. She keeps ratcheting up her suggestions, but she doesn't seem ready to make the recommendation herself.

Earlier that very day, Colby Hall had been forthright enough to describe the type of cognitive decline he thought he saw right before him. No one was willing to enter any such realm on yesterday's Deadline: White House.

In theory, journalists should investigate what they think they see, often by seeking the views of highly qualified specialists. Again and again, then again and again, our journalists and major pundits may not always choose to do that.

More from The Plague: In Camus' famous allegorical novel, The word “plague” had just been uttered for the first time.

For a slightly longer passage, you can just click here. In what ways might our own foot-dragging modern journalists resemble the folk in Oran?