ANALYSIS: When a former CIA director publicly questions the mental health of the U.S. president

A constitutional mechanism designed for the unthinkable

The U.S. Constitution anticipated this scenario. It did so because the Founding Fathers knew that power can corrupt the mind just as much as it can corrupt the body.

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1967, provides a mechanism for declaring a president unfit to perform his duties. The process requires the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to submit a written declaration to Congress certifying that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

In theory, it’s simple. In practice, it’s politically impossible.

Why This Mechanism Will Never Be Triggered

To invoke Section 4, JD Vance—the vice president chosen by Trump himself—would have to turn against his mentor. A majority of the cabinet secretaries—all appointed by Trump, all beholden to Trump—would have to sign their own political death warrant. Then, two-thirds of Congress would have to confirm this declaration.

It’s like asking a man to saw off the branch he’s sitting on. The 25th Amendment exists on paper. In the reality of Trumpism, it’s about as useful as a fire extinguisher on a burning submarine.

The former speak out, while the current ones remain silent

There’s a pattern here. And this pattern should terrify any American citizen.

Every person who has worked closely with Donald Trump and left his inner circle eventually sounds the alarm. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley called him a threat to democracy. Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called him incompetent. Former advisor Omarosa Manigault Newman spoke of a man in visible cognitive decline.

Forty-four former members of his own administration have publicly expressed serious reservations about his ability to govern. Forty-four. Not four. Forty-four.

The deafening silence of Republicans in office

And yet, those currently in power say nothing. Republican senators stare at their shoes. Representatives change the subject. Governors talk about the weather. This silence is not loyalty. It is fear. Fear of a devastating tweet, a humiliating nickname, or a hostile primary funded by the Trump machine.

And yet, in the halls of the Capitol, whispered conversations tell a very different story.

The Goldwater Rule and Its Limitations

Can a president be diagnosed from a distance? The short answer is no. The long answer deserves some consideration.

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association adopted what is known as the Goldwater Rule, named after Republican candidate Barry Goldwater, whom a thousand psychiatrists had declared unfit during the 1964 campaign. This rule prohibits psychiatrists from publicly diagnosing a person they have not personally examined.

The rule was wise. It protected against the political instrumentalization of psychiatry. But today it creates a constitutional blind spot: if a president shows clear signs of decline or instability, who has the right to say so officially?

The Professionals Who Broke the Silence

In 2017, Yale University psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee edited a collection of essays, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, in which 27 mental health professionals expressed their concerns. She invoked the “duty to warn”—the ethical obligation to warn when a person poses a danger to others.

The psychiatric establishment had disavowed her. But nine years later, in 2026, her warnings resonate with unsettling clarity.

Repeated factual errors

This isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of observation.

Over the past few months, Donald Trump has confused countries, attributed statements to people who never made them, repeated the exact same anecdotes just minutes apart as if it were the first time, and produced sentences whose syntax defies grammatical analysis.

His supporters see it as his style. His critics see it as a decline. Mental health professionals see it as indicators they are not allowed to name publicly.

Impulsivity as a Style of Governance

Tariffs announced, suspended, reinstated, and modified within 72 hours. Late-night tweets that contradict official statements made that morning. U-turns that leave allied diplomats without a compass. This is not strategy. Strategy presupposes a plan. What is unfolding before our eyes looks more like compulsive reaction.

A president who changes his mind is not necessarily unstable. A president who changes his mind several times a day on decisions involving billions of dollars poses a problem of an entirely different nature.

Not “Is he crazy?” but “Who’s really in charge?”

Behind the debate over mental health lies an even more staggering question.

If the President of the United States is mentally impaired—even partially—then who is actually making the decisions? Who drafts the executive orders that Trump signs? Who whispers the policies that Trump announces? The question is not rhetorical. It is constitutional.

During Woodrow Wilson’s second term, after his 1919 stroke, it was his wife Edith who screened documents and made decisions on his behalf for seventeen months. America was governed by a shadow president whom no one had elected. The 25th Amendment was created precisely to prevent this situation from happening again.

The Shadow of Unelected Figures

Who is playing the role of Edith Wilson in 2026? Is it Stephen Miller, the architect of the most hardline policies? Is it Elon Musk, whose influence on certain technological and space-related decisions far exceeds that of a mere outside advisor? The question deserves to be asked—and the fact that it can even be asked is a symptom in itself.

And yet, no one within the government apparatus seems willing to answer it.

The Diagnosis That Came Too Late

America has been through this before. It chose to look the other way.

Ronald Reagan received an official diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease in 1994, five years after leaving the White House. But the signs were visible long before that. His son, Ron Reagan Jr., stated publicly that the first symptoms had appeared as early as 1984—in the middle of his first term. Journalists covering the White House described a president who would fall asleep during meetings, confuse movies with reality, and rely increasingly on prepared cue cards for even the most basic interactions.

No one took action. The system protected the president’s image rather than the nation.

The fundamental difference with 2026

Reagan was surrounded by institutional safeguards. James Baker, George Shultz, Howard Baker—influential figures who could temper, correct, and redirect. The Reagan Cabinet functioned as a safety net.

The 2026 Trump Cabinet functions like a fan club. Dissenting voices have been eliminated. Internal checks and balances have been neutralized. While Reagan governed with safeguards, Trump governs with accelerators.

The Unease Among Transatlantic Allies

Across the Atlantic, the American debate over Trump’s mental health is having an effect no one anticipated: it is making Europe even more vulnerable.

How can one negotiate a trade agreement with a president whose own former aides doubt his stability? How can one plan a common defense strategy with an ally whose commander-in-chief might change his mind between breakfast and lunch? European foreign ministries are facing an unprecedented problem: they must deal with a partner who is completely unpredictable.

Belgium, like all European countries, is bearing the full brunt of the tariffs imposed by Washington. But beyond the economic impact, it is the existential uncertainty that gnaws at us: can we still count on America?

The Paradox of the Alliance

NATO is based on a simple principle: Article 5, collective defense. But this article itself rests on an even more fundamental principle—trust in the rationality of the ultimate decision-maker. If that rationality is called into question, the entire Western security architecture teeters on its foundations.

European leaders cannot publicly say that they doubt the U.S. president’s sanity. But their decisions—accelerating autonomous European defense, diversifying trade partnerships, and strengthening intra-European ties—say exactly that.

Covering Alleged Incompetence Without Falling Into the Trap

The media is walking a tightrope. On one side is the duty to inform. On the other is the accusation of activism.

When a former CIA director declares that a president is “clearly deranged,” is that a news fact or an opinion? The answer is both. It is an opinion—but one expressed by a source whose credibility and access to the world’s most sensitive intelligence make it a news story of the highest order.

Media outlets that ignore this statement are failing in their mission. Media outlets that turn it into a medical diagnosis are overstepping their authority. Striking a balance is nearly impossible.

The Discrediting Machine

Trump has spent a decade undermining the media’s credibility. “Fake news” is no longer an accusation—it’s a Pavlovian reflex that millions of Americans automatically trigger whenever a piece of news is uncomfortable. When Brennan speaks, Trump’s supporters don’t hear him. They hear an agent of the “deep state” seeking to overthrow a legitimately elected president.

This informational imperviousness is perhaps the most troubling sign of all. Not because Trump may or may not be mentally impaired—but because no fact-checking mechanisms work anymore in a country where reality itself has become partisan.

Access to the world’s most secret briefings

A former CIA director never speaks without good reason. And when he speaks this way, it’s because he knows things the public doesn’t.

John Brennan led the CIA from 2013 to 2017. Before that, he served as Obama’s homeland security advisor. Before that, he had spent 25 years with the agency. This man has read reports that 99.99% of the world’s population will never read. He has seen threat assessments that not even senators on the Intelligence Committee see in their entirety.

When this man says he is concerned, the relevant question is not “Does he have a political bias?”—of course he does. The relevant question is: “What does he know that we don’t?”

The informal network of former intelligence chiefs

Former CIA directors stay in touch. They no longer receive daily briefings, but they remain connected to a network of intelligence professionals who do see, in real time, what is happening in the Oval Office. When Brennan speaks, he isn’t just speaking for himself. He is the voice of an intelligence community that cannot speak out directly without violating its duty of confidentiality.

And that community is terrified.

What We Can Say—and What We Cannot

Intellectual rigor requires drawing a clear line between observation and diagnosis.

We can observe behaviors: impulsivity, contradictions, factual confusion, and an apparent inability to maintain a coherent position. We can note that dozens of people who have worked directly with Trump express similar concerns. We can observe that these behaviors seem to intensify over time.

What we cannot do is make a medical diagnosis. We are not psychiatrists. And even psychiatrists cannot diagnose from a distance. This limitation is frustrating, but it is necessary.

The Duty to Ask the Question

But the inability to diagnose does not mean we are forbidden to ask questions. A country whose president has access to the nuclear codes has the right—the duty—to ask whether that president is in full possession of his faculties. This is not a partisan attack. It is a fundamental democratic requirement.

And yet, asking this question in the America of 2026 means risking being labeled a traitor, an agent of the deep state, or an enemy of the people. The fact that this question has become unmentionable is perhaps the most striking proof that it must be asked.

Absolute power without checks and balances

There is one fact that every American should keep in mind at all times—a fact that should keep them awake at night.

The President of the United States can order a nuclear strike without congressional approval, without the Defense Secretary’s consent, and without consulting any other body. The order goes from the President to the Pentagon, and the missiles can be in the air in less than ten minutes.

This power was designed for a world where a rapid response could mean the difference between survival and annihilation. But it rests on an assumption that has never been questioned: that the president is mentally fit to make this decision.

When Deterrence Depends on Reason

Nuclear deterrence works only if adversaries believe the president will act rationally. Paradoxically, a president perceived as irrational might be considered more dangerous—and therefore more of a deterrent. But this logic has a limit: if irrationality is no longer a strategic posture but a real condition, deterrence turns into a global game of Russian roulette.

Brennan knows this. And it is probably this very reality that prompted him to speak out.

A Constitution Unsuitable for the 21st Century

The problem isn’t Trump. The problem is that no system can stop a failing president if his own party refuses to act.

The 25th Amendment doesn’t work if the vice president is loyal to the president. Impeachment doesn’t work if the president’s party controls the Senate. The courts don’t work if the judges were appointed by the president. The media don’t work if half the country believes they’re lying.

Every check on power envisioned by the Founding Fathers has been neutralized. Not by a coup, but by the very logic of the partisan system. American democracy has not been overthrown. It has been hollowed out from within.

What Other Democracies Have Provided For

In France, Article 7 of the Constitution provides that the Constitutional Council may declare the president unable to perform his duties. In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court may intervene. These mechanisms are not perfect, but they have the merit of involving independent institutions—not the president’s own inner circle.

America, which presents itself as the global model of democracy, paradoxically has the weakest mechanism for dealing with a potentially unfit president. This constitutional irony could have cataclysmic consequences.

Brennan’s Duty—and Ours

John Brennan did what his conscience dictated. The question now is: what do we do with this information?

When a former CIA director risks his reputation, his safety, and his peace of mind to issue a public warning, the least we can do is listen to him. Not to believe him blindly—but to take his words seriously. To weigh them. To test them against observable facts. And to draw the necessary conclusions.

A president’s mental capacity is not a taboo subject. It is a matter of national security. It is a matter of global security. And in 2026, it may be the most important issue on the planet.

The verdict no one will deliver

Is Donald Trump fit to govern? No court will rule on it. No doctor will issue a diagnosis. No vote will be held in Congress. There will be no verdict—at least not until history renders it with its characteristic ruthless hindsight.

But the absence of an official verdict does not mean there is no answer. The markets have responded—with volatility. Allies have responded—with distance. Former intelligence officials have responded—with alarm. And 244 million American voters will have to respond, too, when the time comes.

In the meantime, a former CIA director looked into a camera and said what many think, what some whisper, and what no one in power dares to admit. “This person is clearly deranged.”

History will judge whether we listened. Or whether, as so many times before, we preferred the comfort of blindness to the brutality of the truth.

Signed, Jacques PJ Provost