By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former President Trump recently stated he undergoes extensive medical examinations, supervised by top doctors at Walter Reed, consistently receiving “PERFECT Marks” and displaying “Strong Results.” Furthermore, he claimed to have aced at least three cognitive exams, with many doctors and experts present. According to Trump, he was informed that few people “ace” these tests, leading previous presidents to avoid them. Trump stated that he takes these tests out of a sense of duty to the country.
Read the original article here
Trump Brags About Taking More Dementia Tests Than Any Other President, and honestly, it’s a statement that’s hard to unpack without a healthy dose of head-scratching. It’s not exactly the kind of thing you’d expect to hear from someone who’s, well, *not* concerned about their cognitive abilities. Usually, the whole point of a medical test is to get information and then use that information to improve health. The test itself isn’t the victory; good results are. Bragging about how many times you’ve been poked and prodded for a health issue feels a little…off, to say the least. It’s like boasting about how many times you’ve been to the dentist for a root canal.
Donald Trump also suggested it was “treasonous” for anyone else to talk about his mental and physical state, which is a whole other layer of complexity. It creates a chilling effect on any discussion of a leader’s fitness for office. To declare that expressing concerns about someone’s capacity to lead is an act of treason—that’s a serious accusation. It essentially shuts down any opportunity for open dialogue or scrutiny. It casts a shadow over the press, the public, and even medical professionals who might have legitimate concerns. This declaration smacks of an authoritarian playbook, where transparency is sacrificed for the sake of control.
If we’re keeping track, here’s what we’ve got: Trump taking multiple dementia tests (and bragging about it), along with the assertion that questioning his mental or physical state is somehow an act of treason. These two points, taken together, paint a particularly strange picture. Why the emphasis on the tests? Is it a way to project strength, to prove that he’s fine? Or, perhaps, is it a defense mechanism, a preemptive strike against any perceived attacks on his health? If someone is truly secure in their abilities, wouldn’t they downplay the need for such tests instead of broadcasting them?
The idea that questioning a leader’s health is treason is not only undemocratic but also incredibly dangerous. A president’s health is absolutely a matter of public concern. It’s a key part of the information necessary to make informed decisions about his capacity to lead. The suggestion of treason is designed to silence and intimidate. It is an effort to eliminate all criticism. It’s a move that prioritizes protecting his image over the needs and rights of the country and its citizens.
The juxtaposition of these two behaviors, bragging about tests and labeling criticism as treason, highlights a disturbing trend. It reveals a desire for control and a willingness to manipulate the narrative. It’s a clear indication of someone who is insecure or feels he has something to hide. It’s difficult to reconcile the image of a strong, capable leader with this kind of behavior. Instead, we’re left with questions, doubts, and a sense that something isn’t quite right.
This whole situation also feeds into a broader climate of suspicion and distrust. When leaders are unwilling to be transparent about their health, it creates an environment where speculation and conspiracy theories thrive. It leads to the erosion of trust in institutions and the spread of misinformation. It’s a self-inflicted wound to democracy. It’s a sign of a leadership style that prioritizes ego over the well-being of the nation. It should be a wake-up call for anyone who believes in open dialogue, accountability, and the importance of a healthy and functioning government. The question now becomes: how do we respond to these tactics? How do we ensure that transparency and critical thinking continue to be valued, especially when they are under attack?