Have court cases or evaluations officially documented concerns about Trump's mental competence?

1. Judicial actions have authorized targeted psychological exams in litigation, not broad competency rulings

Federal courts have ordered and supervised psychological examinations as part of discovery in civil cases involving Trump — for example, a federal judge ruled on the conditions of mental-health evaluations in the E. Jean Carroll matter, barring Trump from recording the exam and limiting certain consent-form language, demonstrating courts will manage how exams proceed but also showing these are procedural rulings tied to specific claims rather than findings of incompetence ^[1].

2. Criminal-law machinery for declaring incompetence remains unused in high-profile Trump cases so far

Criminal courts have established routes — competency evaluations and determinations of criminal intent are routine legal concepts — but reporting on contemporary defenses suggests Trump’s legal team has mounted arguments about subjective belief and intent rather than asking courts to find him legally incompetent; analyses of defenses note strategies that focus on claimed good-faith beliefs rather than medical incapacity rulings ^[4].

3. Outside-the-courtroom expert panels and publications have loudly raised concerns, but they are not judicial findings

Several organized groups of mental-health professionals and edited volumes of clinicians have publicly asserted that Trump displayed traits or behaviors they viewed as dangerous or disqualifying, notably the multi-author collection edited by Bandy Lee and the widely publicized “Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” commentary that gathered psychiatric voices concerned about risk to democratic institutions ^{[2] [3]}. These publications and petitions generated political and public pressure, but they represent professional opinion pieces and advocacy rather than court-ordered diagnoses.

4. Professional-ethics limits and screening tests complicate claims about formal evaluations

The American Psychiatric Association’s Goldwater Rule has constrained many clinicians from offering public diagnoses without direct evaluation, and commentators have noted that brief screening tests Trump has publicized (which he has described as high-scoring) are not designed to demonstrate full competency or rule out cognitive decline — experts warned such screens “don’t necessarily speak to competency” and are insufficient as standalone proof ^{[2] [5]}.

5. Media and later independent panels continued assessments, but courts remain the arbiter of legal competence

News outlets and independent panels have continued to collect videotaped behavior and convene expert reviewers who conclude concerns about cognitive decline or dangerousness, and some reporting describes panels that judged him as failing mental-fitness criteria; nevertheless, those findings are nongovernmental evaluations and differ from a court’s legal determination of competence or incapacity, which requires due-process forensic procedures and specific judicial orders ^{[6] [7]}.

Conclusion: what the record actually documents

The factual record in the sources shows courts have required and regulated psychological examinations in particular lawsuits involving Trump (for example, discovery rulings in the Carroll case), and mental-health experts outside courtrooms have repeatedly warned about his fitness, but there is no documented instance in the provided reporting of a court formally declaring Trump legally incompetent to stand trial or unfit to hold office in a sweeping, adjudicative sense; the distinction between procedural judicial management of exams and a formal legal finding of incompetence is central and not bridged by the cited materials ^{[1] [4] [2]}.