What is the APA Goldwater Rule and how has it been applied in political contexts?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Goldwater Rule is an ethical guideline adopted by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 that forbids psychiatrists from offering professional opinions about the mental health of public figures they have not personally examined and authorized, a prohibition the APA reaffirmed and clarified amid 21st-century political controversy [1] [2]. The rule’s history, periodic tightening and repeated public challenges—most visibly during and after the 2016–2020 U.S. presidential debates—show it functions as both a professional safeguard and a flashpoint between duties to patients, society, and free speech [3] [4].
1. Origins: from Fact magazine to an APA ethics code
The rule takes its name from a scandal in the 1964 presidential campaign when Fact magazine solicited and published unsolicited psychiatric judgments about Republican nominee Barry Goldwater, an episode that embarrassed the psychiatric profession, led to a libel suit, and drove the APA to codify a restraint against public psychiatric diagnosis of public figures in 1973 [5] [1] [3].
2. What the Goldwater Rule actually says and why
Codified as Section 7.3 of the APA’s Principles of Medical Ethics, the Goldwater Rule cautions that it is unethical for psychiatrists to offer a professional opinion about a public figure’s mental state unless the psychiatrist has conducted an examination and obtained proper authorization, a standard framed to protect the credibility of psychiatry and to prevent diagnostic terms from being used as partisan weapons [1] [6].
3. Reaffirmation and expansion in contemporary practice
Faced with renewed public debate about leaders’ mental fitness, the APA’s Ethics Committee reaffirmed the rule in 2017 and issued clarifying opinions that broadened its practical reach—urging restraint not only on formal diagnoses but on most public psychiatric commentary about individuals not personally evaluated [2] [4].
4. Political applications: Trump, dissenters, and high-profile breaches
The rule’s limits were tested after 2016 as some psychiatrists publicly speculated about then‑President Donald Trump’s mental state and a 2017 anthology, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, openly defied the rule by arguing a civic duty to warn the public; critics and adherents both cite those events to argue for and against the rule’s utility in politics [7] [8] [9].
5. Ethical and legal tensions—duty to warn, free speech, and public safety
Opponents say the rule curtails clinicians’ free speech and may withhold potentially important warnings about leaders; defenders counter that ethical limits preserve scientific credibility and that legal duties such as Tarasoff’s “duty to warn” hinge on a physician–patient relationship and therefore do not override the Goldwater Rule when no such relationship exists [4] [7] [6].
6. Enforcement, limits, and institutional fragmentation
The rule applies only to APA members and thus lacks universal bite—other psychiatric and psychoanalytic organizations have different stances, and enforcement has been uneven: high-profile commentators who flouted the rule, or who argued diagnosis from public behavior, generally faced debate rather than consistent discipline, illustrating both the rule’s symbolic power and practical limits [8] [6].
7. Where the debate stands now
Five decades after its adoption the Goldwater Rule remains a contested boundary between professional ethics and civic obligation: the APA continues to defend restraint as necessary to protect the profession’s credibility, while critics, including some psychiatrists and public‑health voices, argue for a narrower or retooled standard that balances risk, public interest and evidence-based commentary—an unsettled policy debate reflected in repeated calls to revisit or refine the rule [2] [9] [10].