Trump's Cognitive Decline: How Bad Is It? A DEEPER LOOK Analysis

Trump’s critics say he’s slipping. His defenders say he’s just being Trump. Here is a Deeper Look comparing past and present speech, identifying key breakdowns, and applying cognitive principles.

When I consider writing about something, one thing I look for are topics that are both demonstrably important and conspicuously underexamined by traditional media. This is one of “those” posts that considers something that is important but being largely ignored by the mainstream media: Is President Donald Trump—now five months into his second presidency—showing genuine, measurable signs of significant cognitive decline?

For all the scrutiny directed at Trump, this core issue—his mental capacity at age 79—is treated with marked hesitation by mainstream media. The space between Trump’s visible behavior and the public conversation around it has widened.

One reason for the hesitancy to confrontt this issue is the Goldwater Rule, which prohibits mental health professionals from diagnosing public figures without a personal evaluation. That ethical caution is understandable. But it’s also created a kind of sanewashing—a protective quiet that prevents meaningful, responsible analysis.

As usual, I approach this as an investigation— a) determine the criteraia, b) collect observable facts as evidence, c) apply the “law” (in this case, scientific understanding) to the facts.

I will warn you in advance, don’t expect this process to yield definitive proof that Trump is unfit for office. Spoiler alert - that’s not the conclusion. But if your hope in investing time in reading is to gain additional insight into where he probably sits on the “cognitive decline” spectrum, and what to look for as we continue on our journey with him, then you’re a good candidate to continue reading.

What Are We Looking For? Cognitive Criteria

Experts in neurology, linguistics, and cognitive aging have spent decades identifying speech and behavioral patterns that signal cognitive decline—especially in individuals over 70. While symptoms can manifest differently depending on the underlying cause (Alzheimer’s, vascular dementia, frontotemporal degeneration, etc.), certain linguistic and functional markers appear with striking regularity.

According to Dr. Thomas H. Bak, a cognitive neurologist at the University of Edinburgh, one of the earliest red flags is a subtle change in language use: “What we often see is a breakdown in the ability to track referents, retrieve accurate nouns, or maintain syntactic complexity.” In plain terms, that means people begin to say the wrong names, use the wrong words, lose the thread of their sentence, or talk in loops.

Based on this and related research, the following criteria are considered meaningful indicators of decline:

• Loss of referential accuracy (e.g., confusing Harvard with Harlem)

• Semantic errors and substitutions (using the wrong word and failing to correct it)

• Disorganized or tangential speech (drifting off-topic without return)

• Failure of self-monitoring (not realizing a mistake has been made or doubling down on it)

• Increased looping or repetition

• Simplified sentence structure and vocabulary (shifting from complex constructions to short, reactive statements)

Crucially, these signs are most detectable in unscripted contexts—moments where prepared remarks give way to spontaneous speech: debates, interviews, press gaggles, or live addresses. That’s where real-time cognitive load is visible.

Our approach in this investigation is straightforward: identify such moments, apply the relevant expert criteria, and track changes over time by comparing Trump’s speech and verbal behavior in 2005, 2015, and 2025.

Trump’s Speaking Style: What’s Just Trump, and What’s Not?

To fairly assess Trump’s speech patterns in 2025, it’s essential to first understand the idiosyncrasies that have always defined his rhetorical style. From his earliest media appearances through his presidency and now into his return to office, Trump has favored a nonlinear, improvisational, and highly performative approach. This includes frequent repetition, spontaneous digressions, and emotional appeals over structured argument. Political analyst John Heilemann once described it as “a rolling monologue that loops and turns like a river, but eventually lands at a familiar point.”

This style—which he proudly calls "the weave"—has served Trump well politically. It creates a sense of authenticity and relatability, particularly among audiences who feel alienated by polished political rhetoric. It is not new. But what’s new—and important to recognize—is that in 2025, something within the weave appears to be changing.

Previously, even when his sentences wandered, there was usually a narrative destination. A digression would return. A repeated phrase would support a theme. But recent examples show speech that not only meanders but never returns—that introduces a subject and loses it mid-stream, or substitutes key terms in ways that suggest semantic confusion rather than strategy. What once read as anti-establishment flair now increasingly resembles cognitive disorganization.

The difference may sound subtle, but it’s essential. Strategic digression relies on control. What we are now seeing, in growing frequency, is a loss of control over language—and that’s not style. That’s signal

The Harvard → Harlem → Harvard Moment

In April 2025, President Trump sat down with Stephen A. Smith for a televised interview. Smith asked:

“When people think about Harvard, what they’re basically talking about is … ask what do you … to those who view your actions as an attack on academic freedom … What do you say to that? What do you say to that?”

Trump responded:

“Well, I say this. We had riots in Harlem, in Harlem, and frankly if you look at what’s gone on—and people from Harlem went up and they protested … they protested very strongly against Harvard. They happened to be on my side. …”

This is not a stylistic choice. This is a breakdown in semantic processing. The word “Harvard” was used clearly and repeatedly in the question. Trump responded with “Harlem,” inserted a false anecdote, and then tried to cover it up with a fantasy “reconnect” — that Harlem people were protesting against Harvard. This is exactly the kind of episode cognitive experts look for when assessing aging speech patterns: a failure of retrieval, and a failure of real-time correction.

Then vs. Now: A Measurable Drift

In 2005, Trump appeared on Howard Stern and spoke with a tone that was markedly more controlled and linear than what we see today. He said:

"I mean, you do business based on the fact that Trump is a billionaire. People expect that you're successful, that you're decisive. If you don't live up to that image, you're out."

It’s still very Trumpian in style, but these were full sentences, presented with clarity and coherence. The language was self-referential, yes—but grammatically intact and semantically precise.

By 2015, his campaign speeches began to sprawl but still retained structure. Detours ended in a point. Pivots returned to message.

But in 2025, we see a new pattern: breakdowns in retrieval, disorganized sequencing, and uncorrected errors.

“We’re looking very strongly at the oranges, the oranges of the investigation…” —Trump, 2025

He meant “origins.” He repeated the error. He never corrected it.

Other recent episodes include referencing “airports” during the Revolutionary War and veering into Charlottesville while answering a question about Asia.

Other recent episodes include referencing “airports” during the Revolutionary War and veering into Charlottesville while answering a question about Asia.

Additional linguistic and behavioral indicators add to the picture:

• Rally speeches in 2024 averaged 82 minutes, up from 45 minutes in 2016. While Trump’s rallies have always been lengthy, this significant increase—paired with less structured content—suggests diminished internal pacing and a weakened sense of narrative arc. In cognitive aging literature, excessive or unfocused verbosity can be a marker of executive function impairment, particularly the ability to self-monitor and prioritize communication goals.

• Use of absolute terms like “always” and “never” rose by 13%. This shift may appear minor, but absolutist language is linked in psycholinguistic studies to rigid, all-or-nothing thinking—a trait associated with reduced cognitive flexibility. In aging populations, it can indicate a hardening of mental schema that prevents nuanced reasoning.

• Negative and profane language increased by 32% and 69%, respectively. Disinhibition—especially in emotional expression and impulse control—is a hallmark of declining executive function. In clinical contexts, a surge in inappropriate or excessively blunt speech is one of the early behavioral cues used to assess potential frontal lobe impairment.

These are not just rhetorical quirks or political strategy. They align with what clinicians and cognitive linguists identify as markers of frontal-executive decline—a category that encompasses attention control, self-correction, and the ability to stay organized in real time. When taken together, they reinforce the hypothesis that what we’re witnessing in Trump’s speech may not just be style. It may be signal.

Summary of Findings: Mixed, But Accelerating

Coherent in 2005:

• Trump’s speech was focused, linear, and semantically intact. He spoke in full sentences, answered questions directly, and showed no sign of verbal derailment. Even when self-referential or self-promoting, his language retained coherence, stayed on topic, and displayed clear internal monitoring.

Disorganized by 2025:

• Repeated word substitutions: Trump increasingly swaps key terms for incorrect ones without acknowledgment or correction. Example: “oranges” for “origins”—a mistake he repeated multiple times in the same sentence.

• Tangents with no return: Unlike his earlier digressions, which often looped back to a central message, his current speech frequently drifts off-course and remains untethered. This is a breakdown in narrative cohesion.

• Uncorrected false anecdotes: The Harvard → Harlem moment demonstrates a failure of referential accuracy and a lack of real-time correction. It is not a stylistic flourish—it’s a cognitive miss.

• Linguistic shifts toward repetition, aggression, and binary framing: The increase in profane language and absolutist phrases (“always,” “never,” “everybody says so”) may indicate not just a rhetorical choice, but a decrease in impulse control and cognitive flexibility—hallmarks of diminished executive function.

Is it Dementia? A formal diagnosis is outside the scope of what I can do here. But the patterns we’re seeing—rooted in well-established criteria used by neurologists, linguists, and geriatric psychologists—suggest that Trump’s cognitive profile has changed in measurable and concerning ways. These aren’t isolated gaffes. They represent a trend. And the trend points downward. So, without going so far as to make a diagnosis, it is very clear that the behavioral evidence shows a measurable cognitive shift, and the trajectory is not encouraging.

Conclusion – and What to Look For Going Forward

This wasn’t written with the goal of proving a case. It began with a question rooted in concern and curiosity: If we examine President Trump’s current behavior with discipline and objectivity—if we compare it to his own past and filter it through recognized scientific criteria—what, if anything, do we learn?

What we found is a measurable shift—a repeated pattern confirming a noticeable change in fluency, coherence, and control. What once looked like rhetorical flair now often veers into disorganization. What once seemed like political improvisation now carries traces of confusion, repetition, and misfiring.

What to Watch For Going Forward — Key Criteria and Tools for Evaluation

If you want to apply this same lens going forward—whether you’re watching a rally, an interview, or an off-the-cuff press moment—here are the key behavioral indicators to look for:

• Referential errors: Is he confusing names, places, or identities? Is he misidentifying people or events and building claims around those mistakes?

• Word retrieval issues: Does he appear to reach for a word and substitute another? Does he correct himself—or repeat the mistake multiple times?

• Disorganization: Does the speech have a clear beginning, middle, and end? Or does it drift, loop, or veer without returning?

• Failure of self-monitoring: Does he catch his own errors, course-correct, or clarify? Or does he plow through inaccuracies as if unaware they occurred?

• Emotional disinhibition: Is the tone increasingly angry, extreme, or profane? Is the speech marked by impulsivity rather than control?

• Cognitive rigidity: Are absolutist phrases like “always,” “never,” “everybody knows it” crowding out nuance or complexity?

It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in linguistics to spot these things. You just need to know what to look for, and be willing to make observations and apply the criteria. It’s all there, in plain sight, as we continue on this journey.

---