U.S. President Joe Biden speaks at the Economic Club of Washington, DC September 19, 2024 in Washington, DC.
Ever since the reality of President Biden’s mental and physical decline has been made public, ink is being spent, bemoaning that the nation was at risk because the President was not fit to make crucial decisions twenty-four hours a day.
Isn’t it foolish that, in a constitutional republic with clear separation and interdependence of powers, we should rely on one human being to make a decision at three in the morning that could have grievous consequences for the whole nation and the world? Are we under the illusion that we must and can elect an all-wise, always-on, energizer-bunny, superhero?
No matter the age of our elected president, as corporeal beings, they can suffer from the stresses of the role, or other common stresses, just like the rest of us. Because we insist on an image of a perfectly in-control leader, those around the president are cued to mask the boss’s problems under the guise of political loyalty or international stability.
U.S. history is full of examples of Presidents with medical conditions, often masked by their loyalists. The effects of Woodrow Wilson’s significant stroke were hidden from the public, as was Kennedy’s Addison disease and chronic back problems. Franklin Roosevelt’s declining health was masked prior to his election to a fourth term, in which his poor performance at the crucial Yalta Conference after WWII had grave consequences. He died just 82 days into that term. Other U.S. presidents had serious medical conditions that were kept from the general public. This is also true of other world leaders like Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong.
These all-too-human realities become huge ethical issues for the inner circle that is trying to maintain their leader’s public profile, as well as very real governance issues. Only in retrospect do we recognize the huge risks or damage incurred by reason of the inner circle, and at times, members of outer circles like the press, keeping this information carefully guarded.
The norms regarding a staff protecting a political leader are so powerful that appealing to the national interest is apparently insufficient to change behavior. It is in such cases that laws are needed to require the desired behavior.
In 1994, in my book The Courageous Follower, I wrote:
“Though serious illness can strike at any age, it is more common as people grow older. Senior leadership positions tend to be filled with older, more experienced people. Thus, illness among leaders is more common than we think…It can be extremely dangerous to allow leaders to make high-level decisions, perform critical negotiations, or engage in taxing events when their physical and mental processes are impaired by illness, pain, or medication.”
One of the dilemmas of the U.S. system of governance is that our Constitution requires the highest bar imaginable to remove a president no longer capable of performing their duties. Fewer all-or-nothing laws are needed to account for the realities of a president who needs weeks to recover from an accident or severe illness or is, by all reasonable standards, in cognitive decline. Let Congress work through a reality-based and politically acceptable way of dealing with these intermittent or slow-moving but irreversible events.
An effective law would address both the president (or other senior members of the administration) and those closest to them (their inner circle of counselors), who also must swear allegiance to the Constitution and the law. We have sensible protocols for when the president or other high-ranking officials go under anesthesia for a number of hours. We need sensible middle ground rules between that and the 25th Amendment.
The onus must fall equally on those designated as forming the president’s official inner circle as well as on the president. Taking a step back to the 3 a.m. phone call, a similar rule is needed when the president is awakened and still collecting their full cognitive capacity. The 3 a.m. call we most worry about is presumably an act of war, pre-emptive or defensive. In an age of hypersonic weapons, the window for that decision is less than thirty minutes.
Acknowledging this, no one expects the constitutional power to declare war by Congress to be applied. However, the least we can do is manage the risk, similarly to an ill or diminished president making the decision on their own. I know this goes against the grain of the buck stops here, but it is a prudent adjustment to the reality of the world we have created and the continued vulnerabilities of our leaders, young and old, in that world.
Medical reports on the president should require at least two qualified physicians reporting under oath. Reasonable limits can be placed on this to protect the individual leader’s dignity. If we are going to have a presidential system with so much power aggregated in the office, we now have clear evidence that we need to alleviate the conflict of loyalties experienced by private physicians and confidantes with legislation that requires, under oath, truthfulness by qualified observers.
Ira Chaleff is the author The Courageous Follower, and To Stop a Tyrant: The Power of Political Followers.
Trump's reliance on inflammatory, and often dehumanizing, language is not an unfortunate quirk—it’s a deliberate tactic.
When President Trump declared that the U.S. strikes “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, it wasn’t just a policy claim—it was an exercise in narrative control. Predictably, his assertion was met with both support and skepticism. Yet more than a comment on military efficacy, the statement falls into a broader pattern that underscores how Trump uses language not just to communicate but to dominate.
Alongside top officials like CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump claimed the strikes set Iran’s nuclear ambitions back by years. However, conflicting intelligence assessments tell a more nuanced story. A leaked Defense Intelligence Agency report concluded that while infrastructure was damaged and entrances sealed, core components such as centrifuges remained largely intact. Iran had already relocated much of its enriched uranium. The International Atomic Energy Agency echoed that damage was reparable.
Given this, it's not partisan to question Trump’s sweeping claim—it's responsible journalism. And yet, he has once again lashed out at the press and intelligence agencies, accusing them of spreading “fake news” and undercutting American pilots. This reaction—deflecting criticism with outrage—is part of a now-familiar pattern in his public playbook.
Trump's reliance on inflammatory, and often dehumanizing, language is not an unfortunate quirk—it’s a deliberate tactic. Over the years, he has referred to immigrants as “vermin,” accused critics of being “poison” to America, and described political opponents as “enemies from within.” These aren’t casual insults. They are rhetorical devices with a dark history.
There are several reasons why this behavior continues to go largely unchecked:
But language is not harmless. It shapes perception, frames debate, and influences behavior. When politicians label tax cuts as “relief” or describe policies in terms that evoke cultural identity—like “Make America Great Again”—they’re leveraging powerful emotional currents. It’s a common tool, but when wielded irresponsibly, it becomes dangerous.
A 2024 linguistic analysis of Trump’s speeches revealed a sharp uptick in violent and exclusionary terms, outpacing democratic norms and nearing the rhetoric of authoritarian regimes. What’s striking is that this trend doesn’t correspond with national crises. Rather, it appears intentional—language tailored to cast politics as an existential battle between “us” and “them.”
History warns us where this can lead. Dehumanizing language reduces the moral barriers to violence. It erodes our democratic foundations by normalizing division and incivility.
Harsh political rhetoric is nothing new in America. But the sheer volume, intensity, and repetition from someone with such a vast platform sets a dangerous precedent. The question now isn’t whether we agree with Trump’s policies. It’s whether we’re willing to accept this weaponization of language as the new political norm.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk listens as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025 in Washington, DC.
The recent breakup, breakdown, and reconciliation of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk is on full global display. It’s the kind of relationship chaos many hope to never experience. But if you know, you know.
Here is the short version: two work partners got into a disagreement and said hurtful things. The one with his name on the lease kicked the partner out on the streets. In fits of rage, each turned to social media and proceeded to drag each other through the mud by sharing either dark secrets or disparaging accusations. Then they apparently make up: Musk apologizes and Trump accepts.
While opinions about this “bromance” were trending, this is a case study anyone can observe in real time about how economic security affects relationships and what domestic violence prevention and communal healing look like.
In this case, economic security was highlighted as a threat of perceived scarcity through a threat to remove “billions and billions of dollars in governmental contracts” by Trump from Musk.
In a more commonly relatable relationship, economic security is the ability of individuals, families, or communities to meet their basic and essential needs consistently and sustainably. It encompasses a feeling of stability and safety regarding finances, including the ability to afford essentials like food, shelter, and healthcare, as well as the capacity to plan for the future and manage debt.
Economic security or the fear of losing that—particularly for families—is one of many contributing factors to why people stay in unhealthy and abusive relationships. In the United States, far too many children are maltreated or exposed to domestic violence. Researchers estimate that between 3.3 million and 10 million children are exposed to adult domestic violence annually.
This is important because nearly half of all women and many men experience domestic violence. It is critical to discuss domestic violence like the public health problem it is. Equally important to note is the ridiculous stigma that surrounds domestic violence as if it is not a public health and economic issue that affects someone every person knows—whether they are aware of it or not.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, domestic violence is a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control. This includes but is not limited to physical, sexual, emotional, economic, psychological, or technological actions or threats of action.
With this breadth of a definition, there are various ways to personally experience this kind of abuse.
In the Trump-Musk case, there was economic abuse, threats of action, and social media harassment. There was also a black eye displayed by Musk, who blamed it on his child. Again, this is common in domestic violence cases.
In the worst cases of domestic violence, there is psychological and physical violence (although it is greatly underreported). Research shows that financial abuse is present in 99 percent of domestic violence cases, according to the National Network to End Domestic Violence. If economic security affected billionaires, imagine the struggle between couples who rely on one another to split rent or support children.
In California, domestic violence is estimated to cost $73.7 billion dollars for survivors, communities, and taxpayers.
As a survivor and advocate, my call to action is beyond moral support, it's also to encourage courageous conversations in an intentional effort to de-stigmatize the topic and recognize the role everyone can play. There are no innocent bystanders, only silent witnesses.
As a society, there is a desensitization to violence with constant access to uncensored media. However, it is wrong to let that prevalence turn into acceptance. When it comes to domestic violence and economic security, the true cost is immeasurable—the shattered lives, the emotional scars, and the cycle of violence that perpetuates through generations.
Instead of making jokes or memes about the latest high-profile epic feud—it is critical to use this opportunity to seek alternatives. If you or someone you know is in an unhealthy or abusive relationship, it is important to simply check in on them or be there when they request support.
On a bigger scale, there is work being done to prioritize financial security as a means to end intimate partner violence. Sharing resources such as safety plans can be both tangible and support additional conversation.
For violence intervention, agencies and funding do this work but one of the easiest lifts regarding prevention is education and informative dialogue.
I didn’t leave until my situation became extremely violent because I was raised by my grandparents and didn’t know what a healthy intimate relationship was supposed to look like. I had a child before I had that knowledge. Now, as an adult, I am responsible for having these conversations with my son about healthy relationships to end the cycle of abuse.
The world is waiting to see if the Trump-Musk relationship does hold, or if they split up again. In the meantime, everyone can learn from their experience and put a wedge in the cycle of violence.
Monica EO'Mailani Flores is a survivor, and supporter of community well-being and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project on Domestic Violence and Economic Security.
Guests in the audience await the arrival of U.S. Vice President Mike Pence during the Federalist Society's Executive Branch Review Conference at The Mayflower Hotel on April 25, 2023, in Washington, D.C.
Last week, the Court of International Trade delivered a blow to Donald Trump’s global trade war. It found that the worldwide tariffs Trump unveiled on “Liberation Day” as well his earlier tariffs pretextually aimed at stopping fentanyl coming in from Mexico and Canada (as if) were beyond his authority. The three-judge panel was surely right about the Liberation Day tariffs and probably right about the fentanyl tariffs, but there’s a better case that, while bad policy, the fentanyl tariffs were not unlawful.
Please forgive a lengthy excerpt of Trump’s response on Truth Social, but it speaks volumes:
“How is it possible for (the CIT judges) to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of ‘TRUMP?’ What other reason could it be? I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real ‘sleazebag’ named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions. … In any event, Leo left The Federalist Society to do his own ‘thing.’ I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten!”
Let’s begin with the fact that Trump cannot conceive of a good explanation for an inconvenient court ruling other than Trump Derangement Syndrome. It’s irrelevant that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the 1977 law the administration invoked to impose the relevant tariffs, does not even mention the word “tariff” or that Congress never envisioned the IEEPA as a tool for launching a trade war with every nation in the world, the “Penguin Islands” included. Also disregard the fact that the decision was unanimous and only one of the three judges was appointed by Trump (the other two were Reagan and Obama appointees). (The decision has been paused by an appeals court.)
Trump is the foremost practitioner of what I call Critical Trump Theory — anything bad for Trump is unfair, illegitimate and proof that sinister forces are rigging the system against him. No wonder then that Trump thinks Leonard Leo, formerly a guiding light at the Federalist Society, the premier conservative legal organization, is a “sleazebag” and “bad person.” Note: Leo is neither of those things.
But Trump’s broadsides at Leo and the Federalist Society are portentous. Because Congress is AWOL, refusing to take the lead on trade (and many other things) as the Constitution envisions, it’s fallen to the courts to restrain Trump’s multifront efforts to exceed his authority. That’s why the White House is cynically denouncing “unelected” and “rogue” judges on an almost daily basis and why Trump’s political henchman, Stephen Miller, is incessantly ranting about a “judicial coup.”
The supreme, and sometimes seemingly sole, qualification for appointments to the Trump administration has been servile loyalty to Trump. But that ethos is not reserved for the executive branch. Law firms, elite universities and media outlets are being forced to kneel before the president. Why should judges be any different?
Trump has a history of suggesting “my judges” — i.e., his appointees — should be loyal to him. That’s why he recently nominated Emil Bove, his former personal criminal lawyer turned political enforcer at the Department of Justice, for a federal judgeship.
The significance of Trump’s attack on the Federalist Society and Leo, for conservatives, cannot be exaggerated. The legal movement spearheaded by the Federalist Society has been the most successful domestic conservative project of the last century. Scholarly, civic-minded and principled, the Federalist Society spent decades developing ideas and arguments for re-centering the Constitution in American law. But now Trump has issued a fatwa that it, too, must bend the knee and its principles to the needs of one man. The law be damned, ruling against Trump is ingratitude in his mind.
Speaking of ingratitude, the irony is that the Federalist Society deserves a lot of credit — or blame — for Trump being elected in the first place. In 2016, the death of Antonin Scalia left a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Many conservatives did not trust Trump to replace him. To reassure them, Trump agreed to pick from a list of potential replacements crafted by the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society. That decision arguably convinced many reluctant conservatives to vote for him.
In the decade since, the Heritage Foundation has dutifully reinvented itself in Trump’s image. The Federalist Society stayed loyal to its principles, and that’s why the Federalist Society is in Trump’s crosshairs.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
