By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump seemingly displayed a misunderstanding of U.S. geography leading up to his meeting with Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, repeatedly referring to Alaska as if it were a foreign country or a destination separate from the United States. During a Fox News interview and a White House press conference, Trump stated he would “go back to the United States” from his meeting with Putin, and on another occasion, said he was “going to Russia.” This is not the first time the president has made such comments, leading to public criticism and questions about his awareness of the location of his meeting. At the meeting’s conclusion, Putin suggested future talks in Moscow, which Trump seemed open to.
Read the original article here
Trump, 79, Seems Utterly Perplexed About Where Alaska Is – The president made multiple comments suggesting he doesn’t know Alaska is part of the United States. It’s a statement that, frankly, hangs in the air like a poorly-timed joke. The sheer bewilderment, or perhaps calculated ignorance, surrounding something as fundamental as the geographical location of a US state is, to put it mildly, concerning. The casual way the subject seems to arise and the subsequent confusion—or misdirection—are hard to ignore.
The issue, as some have pointed out, isn’t just a matter of geography. It’s a symptom of something larger. It’s a symptom of a president who appears to struggle with basic comprehension, a president who doesn’t seem to grasp the very structure of the nation he leads. When a leader casually refers to “going back to the United States” as though the country itself isn’t the primary destination, it invites questions about their grasp on reality.
The fact that such comments are now seemingly commonplace is almost more alarming than the comments themselves. There was mention of a press conference where statements were made about going to Russia, even referencing the country multiple times. What’s more troubling is the context. It’s not merely a matter of a verbal slip-up; it’s the repeated phrasing, the tone, the overall impression given. One might argue that it’s all a deliberate tactic, that it’s some grand play of misdirection or a demonstration of how a mind works when it considers the world. But how many times can one make that assumption before it becomes truly concerning?
The notion that Alaska might somehow be perceived as separate from the United States, or that its location is vague in his mind, opens up a Pandora’s Box of possibilities. It could, of course, be pure ignorance. It could be a calculated strategy, a way of keeping people off balance. Or it could be something else entirely, something more deeply concerning. The sheer volume of references to the Russian Federation in this context immediately raises some obvious questions.
The situation is further complicated by the age factor. It’s not just about simple geographical knowledge; there is increasing talk of cognitive tests, and the very real possibility of age-related cognitive decline is something that should be considered. Is it an expression of memory issues? A sign of something that has been developing behind the scenes? There’s a distinct possibility that something more profound is at play here.
Moreover, the way this seemingly simple situation—this basic misunderstanding of U.S. geography—is unfolding highlights a worrying trend. This is the situation with an administration in which a certain narrative is perpetuated, and there seems to be a persistent lack of journalistic follow-up. One is left to wonder whether the lack of serious inquiry reflects a deeper problem: a reluctance to confront the gravity of the situation or the political implications.
The idea that the president might be considering a deal with Russia that would involve parts of or all of Alaska, which some have proposed, adds another layer of complexity. Could this, heaven forbid, be another case of following through on some of his past plans? It does not require a rocket scientist to see the absurdity of such proposals. It seems there is no shortage of people who consider such possibilities.
Ultimately, this whole situation, this perplexing question of Alaska’s location, becomes more than just a geographical riddle. It raises fundamental questions about leadership, competence, and the responsibility of holding high office. And the fact that these questions are being raised so openly, so frequently, is a sign of the times. It’s a sign that something is fundamentally wrong, and it demands a response. This entire situation has been a perfect example of the absurdity and embarrassment this has created for the United States.