The Denial of Presidential Unfitness and Dangerousness to Humanity

The World Now Sees What Experts were—and Continue to be—Silenced for Saying

Jun 19, 2026

Now the whole world can no longer deny that the most powerful nation in the world is incapacitated at the top, as a “political truth teller” explains:

whatever was happening with Trump’s health had been increasingly visible throughout the summit…. There were moments when he appeared distracted or uncertain about where he was supposed to go. He arrived late to the opening session [of] the final day, and, finding it already underway, walked into the room and announced, “I’m the boss.” It was met by pandering laughter because the other leaders in that room knew their only goal was to manage Trump….
Trump is visibly unwell, easily played, and is lavishing his admiration on the most dangerous men alive…. It is embarrassing, but the embarrassment is only the surface of [the] danger underneath.

The Atlantic published:

the world now faces something new and frightening: a psychotic state. The administration is consistently detached from reality; the normal policy process we have seen in past administrations is nonexistent in this one. No one around the president even hints that anything he does is inappropriate, unpopular, or unwise…. Trump, left on his own without adult supervision, has lurched from blunder to catastrophe.

Neither of these articles mentions our accurate predictions or efforts to prevent these calamities. The conditioning that was put in place—that mental health experts should never comment on mental health issues of critical public concern (imagine saying that of legal or constitutional experts!)—affects us to this day. This conditioning did not exist when I first began speaking publicly, before the American Psychiatric Association (APA), led by Jeffrey Lieberman, artificially inculcated in the public the absurd idea that health professionals attempting to protect the public’s health were being “unethical”.

Yet, there was a 2018 Atlantic article titled, “The Psychiatrist Telling Congress Trump Could Be Involuntarily Committed,” that—much like the New York Times article published at the same time and Lieberman’s “Just a Jerk” article on the same date—departs from all other major journal articles that took us seriously until then. In fact, it reads like an obvious “hit job” that carries Lieberman’s distinctive language:

Just a short time ago, the idea of an Ivy League psychiatrist privately meeting with members of Congress to convince them that the president is mentally unstable would have been the stuff of crazed conspiracy theories. But that’s exactly what Bandy Lee has been doing….
lawmakers’ interest is notable, even radical, for another reason as well: In defiance of the American Psychiatric Association’s ethical guidelines, Lee is relaying her analysis of the president’s mental health without having ever examined him.

This is despite admitting: “She’s been calling for a mental-health evaluation of the president for almost a year.” I cannot confirm that Lieberman met with the Atlantic the way I learned he did with the New York Times Editorial Board, but the standard for assessing dangerousness, which compels a mental health evaluation, is different from the standard for diagnosis—and the article’s ignorance of this difference gives away that it was APA- or Lieberman-driven. In any case, the manner of using aggressive language, excessively focusing on an involuntary admission—which I stated only as a last resort I was hoping to avoid—and deliberately placing my words wildly out of context to make me look ridiculous is almost identical:

However, if we examined my quotes in isolation, they were actually quite accurate, to the point where I would not say anything differently today:

She argues that Trump may actually be a dangerous person—one who’s shown a “pattern of violent behavior and violent tendencies”—and she’s considered whether the president should be involuntarily committed to a hospital mental-health program. “We … could be held legally liable if we don’t when the signs are obvious,” Lee told me….
Lee explained that she believes she has a duty to warn the public about what she sees in Trump….
She’s told me that Trump currently poses a public-health risk—most of all because of his ability to wage nuclear war unilaterally…. Lee told me, [his tweet] was a warning “of even the ultimate violence that could annihilate humanity as we know it.”
She suggested … “the 25th Amendment,” but acknowledged “it’s not my area” [my area is to see that the danger is removed, regardless of the means].
“It’s the first time that I’ve jumped into this domain because of medical concerns, because of human survival.”

The article quoted prominent APA member, Allen Frances, saying: “there is clearly nothing substantial to [Lee’s] claims and no reason to believe an evaluation would change anything.”

It also quoted, of course, Lieberman, saying: “You’ve got to be kidding. That’s preposterous,” about what I was proposing.

Indeed, while the article made me look preposterous, I would like our nation to consider the actual situation. Humanity’s current existential crisis, or at least the end of an 80-year stretch of unprecedented peace—certainly the end of America as we know it—was predicted, because it was predictable.

Technically, we do not make predictions but assessments of fitness and dangerousness, which in turn anticipate behavior. The fitness evaluation a panel of top independent mental health experts performed in 2019, as soon as the appropriate information became available, determined Donald Trump to be unfit for any job, much less president—and he has drastically deteriorated in fitness since. The dangerousness risk assessment a panel of the most eminent living psychiatrists performed in 2024, as a pre-sentencing report for the Manhattan District Criminal Court, showed him to be so dangerous, he needed to be incarcerated for the maximum sentence the law would allow—and he has dramatically grown more dangerous since.

Now, 36 of the greatest authorities in medicine and psychiatry, including multiple Nobel laureates and former department chairs, have stated unequivocally on the Congressional Record that the president must be removed for medical reasons. What is at stake is no less than the very survival of the human species.

How much more accurate do medical experts need to be? How much more aligned with medical ethics to preserve life, not the APA’s insignificant “Goldwater rule” (which actual scholars of “the rule” call, “etiquette—not ethics”), can we be? We cannot continually wait for the next election, for that has repeatedly been tried and it does not address what an ”anti-disinformation activist” calls, “psychological war on democracy.” What about the electorate’s wishes now?

Many continue to ask what average citizens could do—and this is a very important question, since the citizenry holds the ultimate power, even in a dictatorship. Use us. Cite us, do the opposite of what the major media are doing—pretending we do not exist—and employ us as your hired experts, for our obligation to the public far exceeds that to the private interests that pay us. And then, heed what one of the 36 signatories, Dr. David Abraham, said about a “bottom-up kind of national movement”:

Look, politicians live in the tops of the trees. We have to go to the bottoms of the trees and shake them until they come around to our way of thinking. And the way you do that is you have lots of people shaking the tree.

Shake with us.

Announcement:

Dr. Bandy X. Lee will hold her next planning meeting for Survival University on Friday, June 26, 2026, at 6 p.m. EDT / 3 p.m. PDT. Even if you have not registered, a paid subscription will include you in the invitations.