B X Lee -- Another Critical Meeting on an Ongoing Presidential Psychiatric Emergency
Another Critical Meeting on an Ongoing Presidential Psychiatric Emergency
August 17, 2026, at 5 p.m. EDT / 2 p.m. PDT
*A link is below, and will be sent an hour before the meeting for paid subscribers.
There was an important article in the New York Times by Dr. Jonathan Reiner, entitled: “I was Dick Cheney’s Cardiologist. Trump has Not Looked Well, and We Should Know Why.” It has generated considerable discussion among my colleagues, and I would like to quote it at some length here:
After Mr. Trump’s medical evaluation in May, Dr. Sean Barbabella, the physician to the president, wrote that Mr. Trump “remains in excellent health”…. Despite reassurances from the White House to the contrary,… the president has not looked well. I am not Mr. Trump’s doctor, and have only reviewed his records that have been made public. But Mr. Trump is probably the most photographed president in American history, and a variety of physical ailments are easy to see.
If some physical ailments are easy to see, how much easier are some mental ailments? Yet, because of the American Psychiatric Association’s modification of its “Goldwater rule” in March 2017, to please the new president, we have been required to pretend that we “see no evil, hear no evil.” The new version held that we could not make any comment, even when it concerned issues that are better assessed through objective behavior in public, such as dangerousness—unless he chose to become our patient and gave his consent. In everyday life, this is not the standard, since dangerous individuals seldom choose to be evaluated and almost never give consent to share their information—especially to their potential victims.
Despite the unparalleled power afforded to the president of the United States, there is no formal requirement for the commander in chief to certify his fitness for duty. That’s a mistake. Members of the military, Secret Service agents, commercial pilots, school bus drivers and air traffic controllers all must periodically demonstrate that they are well enough to perform their work. The current practice of reporting the results of a yearly medical examination for the president began in the Nixon administration, but it’s only a custom, not a formal obligation. And, as history has shown, it can be unreliable.
This is how we concluded our first edition of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, published in 2017, and will continue to assert in our latest, The Extremely Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, scheduled to be published later this year.
This does not mean that every detail about a president’s health must be disclosed. It’s appropriate to withhold elements of a medical history that could be exploited by an adversary. In 2007, when we replaced Mr. Cheney’s defibrillator, we didn’t share information about a new wireless feature of the device that I considered a security threat to the vice president. (We ultimately were able to get the manufacturer to disable that capacity.)
Our assertion was that fitness evaluations have important distinctions from diagnostic ones. The former is a functional test that does not have to disclose diagnoses or other details—in fact, it is a “yes or no” evaluation. It is an evaluation that is generally done for the public, the government, the court, or employers—not the patient. It does not need consent, and it relies more on collateral interviews and objective observations, not a personal interview, in which unfit individuals would have reasons to mislead.
The 25th Amendment to the Constitution allows for the best solution to this problem: It permits Congress to establish a panel outside the executive branch to assess the health and fitness of the president. In April of this year, Representative Jamie Raskin introduced a bill to create a congressional commission that would do just that. Ideally, such a panel would be empowered to review data from routine presidential physical examinations, as well as assessments performed when medical concerns emerge.
This is precisely so, and the very recommendation that renowned psychiatrists Drs. Nanette Gartrell and Dee Mosbacher made for the conclusion of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, which Rep. Jamie Raskin consulted and may have referenced for the commission he first proposed in 2017.
If such a commission were in place today, [there are] medical questions it could clarify concerning Mr. Trump’s health. The American public deserves answers to all of them.
Dr. Reiner poses seven detailed questions, which are almost identical to what we have been asking:
1. Why were so many—22—physicians summoned for Donald Trump’s latest medical examination, and what were their specialties?
2. The White House attributes frequent bruising in both hands to handshaking and frequent use of aspirin. Why would the president take an aspirin dose four times that of what doctors typically recommend?
3. Swelling in the president’s legs last summer led to an unscheduled medical evaluation. Why did the president’s physician described the problem as “chronic”, when it should be “acute”—a potentially much more serious condition—since his comprehensive physical examination a few months earlier documented no swelling?
4. The president often appears with excessive daytime somnolence. Why was this relatively new, potentially serious sign not addressed in the report after Mr. Trump’s comprehensive physical exam in May?
5. In October 2025, Mr. Trump underwent advanced imaging of his heart and abdomen at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. What were the specific symptoms that prompted such sudden, extensive testing, just a few months after his annual checkup?
6. Past medical reports have disclosed the president’s use of the drug finasteride, which prevents hair loss. The most recent medical examination, however, did not mention the drug; what other medications has the White House decided to withhold from the public?
7. The president has spoken about how well he performs on cognitive testing. However, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment is a brief and basic screening tool that does not replace more detailed testing. Why has the president undergone such an obtuse test numerous times, neither progressing to more sophisticated neurocognitive testing nor being deemed no longer to need “screening”?
Some people would argue that these personal medical details are more than the public deserves to know…. the United States does not have a king. In a representative democracy, the people must have confidence in the health of their leader, and in the leader’s capacity to guide the nation.
The question is not whether we have a king or a president, but whether the lives of all humankind, including all future generations, should be in the hands of one man—especially one whose likelihood of being mentally fit is close to zero.
Announcement:
*Please join us for an ONGOING PSYCHIATRIC EMERGENCY MEETING on Monday, August17, 2026, at 5 p.m. EDT / 2 p.m. PDT. The present situation is unsustainable and should not be tolerated! An ongoing emergency makes it more emergent, not less. A meeting link will be sent to paid subscribers an hour before (apologies for making it paid, but it is in part for attendees’ protection, given previous hackings)—and in the below.
Dr. Bandy X. Lee is inviting you to a live session:
Time: Aug 17, 2026 05:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84001626764?pwd=WHXqzGHMPrIeX9Bjm3FAebzuXfzfz9.1
Meeting ID: 840 0162 6764
Passcode: 519409
Discussion about this post
https://bandyxlee.substack.com/p/another-critical-meeting-on-an-ongoing
I am not a doctor, and did not even write for one on TV — although Law & Order had two shrinks as characters — but “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows,” and “the prevailing wind is from Vichy,” as in, TRUMP IS NUTS!
Hi Dr. Lee and thanks for sending this message. I apologize that I cannot make the meeting today - I have other deadlines today, but would like to ask you and your colleagues about the "possible actions" to remove Trump from office due to his exibited demented behavior?
Thanks, Elizabeth
From Democracy to Democrazy