Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What did neurologists and psychiatrists say about Donald Trump's cognition in 2023 and 2024?
Executive Summary
A substantial number of psychiatrists, neurologists, and other mental‑health professionals publicly warned in 2023–2024 that Donald Trump’s public behavior was consistent with possible cognitive decline or serious personality pathology and urged formal, in‑person neurological evaluation and transparency of medical records. At the same time, many physicians and professional bodies invoked ethical limits on remote diagnosis — the Goldwater rule — and Trump’s medical team pointed to a reported perfect Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score as evidence against impairment, leaving the medical question unresolved without a sanctioned, full clinical evaluation [1] [2] [3].
1. What critics actually claimed — urgent warnings and stark language
Multiple clinicians publicly framed Trump’s speech patterns, memory lapses, and apparent disorientation as evidence raising the possibility of dementia or severe personality disorder, with some labeling the evidence “overwhelming” and calling the situation a public‑health and national‑security concern. For example, psychiatrists and psychologists including Lance Dodes, Bandy Lee, and John Gartner joined broader statements and petitions that described “manifestations of poor cognitive function,” frequent tangential thinking, phonemic errors, and confusion about reality, and urged a comprehensive neuropsychiatric workup; some advocates went as far as to declare the condition a probable dementia and a public emergency [4] [5] [6].
2. What defenders and ethicists said — restraint and procedural limits
Physicians associated with Trump’s care and numerous professional ethicists pushed back on public diagnostic claims, citing both a reported perfect MoCA score from a 2023 exam and the ethical prohibition against diagnosing public figures without a personal examination. The American Psychiatric Association’s Goldwater rule and similar professional norms were invoked repeatedly to argue that remote commentary is unethical and clinically unreliable absent informed consent and direct assessment; supporters of Trump emphasized the MoCA result as evidence he was “fully fit,” while urging that definitive answers require formal testing [2] [3] [1].
3. The evidence clinicians pointed to — speech, behavior, and test confusion
Clinicians documenting concerns highlighted repeatable features: interrupted or incoherent speech, inability to complete thoughts, confabulation, and public episodes of apparent disorientation. Some cited a widely publicized instance in which Trump reportedly described a MoCA dementia screen as a very hard “IQ test,” which the test’s creator, Ziad Nasreddine, said should not be used to measure intelligence and that no studies equate MoCA to IQ testing; critics used that episode as symptomatic, while defenders stressed the MoCA score itself as exculpatory [7] [3] [1].
4. Organized activity: petitions, coalitions, and public events raising alarms
Between 2023 and 2024 a range of organized efforts surfaced: petitions signed by hundreds of clinicians, statements from coalitions like the World Mental Health Coalition, conferences, and media appearances intended to alert the public and policymakers to perceived cognitive risks. These groups called for full transparency of medical records and formal neuropsychological evaluations; their messaging combined clinical description with policy urgency, while critics accused some participants of political motivation and noted variable methodological rigor in diagnosing from public behavior [1] [5] [6].
5. What remains unresolved — why professional consensus is lacking
No public, peer‑reviewed, in‑person clinical assessment establishing a diagnosis was released in 2023–2024, and the debate therefore pivots on interpretation of public behavior and limited disclosed test results. Because the Goldwater rule restricts off‑site diagnosis and because the MoCA is a screening tool not a definitive test for dementia, both sides can cite factual elements: clinicians who observe speech and memory anomalies argue these are consistent with neurodegeneration, while defenders emphasize the screening result and ethical limits on remote diagnosis. The conflict is thus between observational clinical concern and procedural limits to definitive diagnosis [1] [2] [7].
6. Bottom line and context for readers — what the evidence supports now
As of the end of 2024, the factual landscape shows a clear split: a sizeable group of mental‑health professionals publicly expressed serious concern that Trump’s behavior suggested cognitive impairment and called for formal exams and record disclosure, while other clinicians and professional norms emphasized that without a sanctioned, in‑person neuropsychiatric evaluation no authoritative medical diagnosis can be established. The record contains documented public statements, petitions, and media commentary on both sides, but no publicly available, definitive clinical diagnosis emerged in 2023–2024 to resolve the dispute [1] [5] [2].