Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 6 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing Summarizing
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 8/21/26
  

Trump After the 2024 Election: A Neuropsychological Examination of a President Losing Control

By       (Page 1 of 7 pages)   2 comments

Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D.
Message Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D.
Become a Fan
  (6 fans)

Trump: A PRESIDENT LOSING CONTROL
Trump: A PRESIDENT LOSING CONTROL
(Image by Abbas Sadeghian)
  Details   DMCA

Trump After the 2024 Election: A Neuropsychological Examination of a President Losing Control

The Change Since the Election Is the Story

Something important has changed in Donald Trump since the 2024 presidential election. The issue is not whether Trump has always been narcissistic, impulsive, combative, thin-skinned, grandiose, or unusually dependent upon admiration. Those characteristics have been visible for decades. Nor is there much value in comparing the 80-year-old president with the businessman who appeared on American television thirty years ago. The clinically more interesting comparison is much closer in time: Donald Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign compared with Donald Trump in the summer of 2026.

That comparison reveals a troubling pattern. Since returning to the White House, Trump appears increasingly disinhibited, digressive, emotionally reactive, preoccupied with personal grandeur and legacy, intolerant of contradiction, dependent upon personal loyalty, and erratic in major foreign-policy decisions. His public speech increasingly wanders away from its original subject. His reactions to criticism are frequently disproportionate to the stimulus that produced them. His distinction between loyalty to himself and loyalty to the United States appears increasingly blurred. His fascination with authoritarian leaders has become intertwined with an increasingly expansive conception of his own power. Meanwhile, the Iran war has produced an extraordinary series of reversals in which declarations of imminent victory, demands for capitulation, negotiations, renewed threats and now economic warfare have followed one another with diminishing strategic coherence.

From a neuropsychological perspective, the significance lies in the convergence of these changes. Personality traits that existed previously appear more intense, less regulated and less effectively inhibited. That is precisely why the comparison with 2024 matters. We are not attempting to discover whether Donald Trump has always been Donald Trump. We are examining whether the mechanisms that previously regulated Donald Trump are functioning as effectively as they did when Americans elected him less than two years ago.

Cognitive Decline Is Not Synonymous With Forgetfulness

The popular conception of cognitive deterioration is remarkably primitive. People expect an impaired individual to forget his children's names, become lost in familiar surroundings or fail to remember what happened yesterday. Neuropsychology is considerably more complicated. Human cognition includes attention, inhibition, judgment, cognitive flexibility, planning, self-monitoring, emotional regulation, abstraction, working memory, organization of thought and the ability to distinguish important information from irrelevant information.

These executive functions depend heavily upon frontal and frontal-subcortical systems. They permit an adult to create distance between impulse and action. They allow a person to become angry without immediately retaliating, to experience an inappropriate thought without expressing it, to recognize that an emotional reaction is disproportionate, to abandon an ineffective strategy, to organize complicated information according to importance, and to consider long-term consequences rather than immediate gratification.

For a president, these functions are not academic abstractions. They constitute much of the machinery of competent government. A president must listen to information he dislikes, tolerate disagreement from advisers, distinguish personal humiliation from national interest, suppress retaliatory impulses, evaluate contradictory intelligence, change strategy when evidence demands it, and maintain a coherent hierarchy of priorities while simultaneously confronting dozens of competing problems.

The behavioral changes visible in Trump increasingly involve precisely these functions.

His Speech Is Becoming More Revealing

Trump has always spoken associatively rather than linearly, frequently departing from prepared remarks to tell stories, attack opponents or repeat grievances. What is increasingly striking is the degree to which the destination of his speech can disappear altogether. A subject begins in one place and migrates through a series of associations, complaints, memories, exaggerations and personal observations before occasionally returning to its original point.

This matters because coherent discourse is itself an executive activity. A speaker must retain the objective of the discussion in working memory, suppress irrelevant associations, monitor what has already been said, recognize repetition, evaluate the listener's response and continuously distinguish relevant material from irrelevant material. Increasing verbosity therefore does not necessarily indicate increasing cognitive richness. Sometimes the opposite occurs: more words are required because the executive system is becoming less efficient at organizing thought.

The extraordinarily long Cabinet meeting at the end of 2025 attracted attention partly because Trump appeared fatigued and at times closed his eyes. The more important feature was the broader organization of the event. A Cabinet meeting is an executive instrument. Its purpose is to identify problems, receive information, make decisions and coordinate government. When executive communication increasingly becomes an extended vehicle for personal grievance, reminiscence and unrelated material, the question is no longer simply whether the president talks too much. The question becomes whether his capacity to organize thought according to relevance is changing.

The Ballroom, the Helipad and a Disturbing Failure of Proportionality

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D. Social Media Pages: Facebook Page       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram Page

I was born and raised in Tehran, Iran, and came to the United States in 1976 to study psychology. Over time, America became my home, and I later became a U.S. citizen. My professional career has centered on clinical neuropsychology, particularly (more...)
 
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

 
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter

Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Breakthrough treatment for Hemianopia

Neuropsychology of Ayatollah Rohollah Khomeini

Iranian People's Struggle for Freedom, Part VI: The1953 MI6 - CIA, Coup in Iran

Sword and Seizure:Muhammad's Epilepsy and creation of Islam

The History of the Iranian People's Strugle for Freedom: Part III, The Era of The Benevolent Dictator

Why 27 People a Day Die From Air Pollution in Tehran

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

1 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments


Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D.

Become a Fan
(Member since Dec 13, 2006), 6 fans, 147 articles, 166 quicklinks, 1071 comments (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)
Facebook Page Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram Page

  New Content

Under sustained pressure, even highly capable people can become increasingly dysfunctional. Stress does not simply make a person uncomfortable; it can alter the way the brain allocates attention, evaluates danger, controls impulses, retrieves information, and makes decisions. The greater the pressure-- and the longer it continues-- the more likely these changes are to become visible in behavior.

One of the first functions affected is executive control. The prefrontal systems responsible for planning, inhibition, judgment, flexible thinking, and weighing consequences operate less efficiently when a person experiences prolonged or intense stress. Instead of considering several possibilities before acting, the individual may become more reactive. Decisions become faster, narrower, and more emotionally driven. A person who normally tolerates disagreement may become impatient, angry, defensive, or impulsive.

Pressure also produces cognitive narrowing. Attention becomes concentrated on whatever the individual perceives as the immediate threat. This can be adaptive during a genuine emergency: when escaping a burning building, carefully contemplating twenty alternatives is not useful. But the same mechanism can become dysfunctional in complex situations requiring patience and long-range judgment. The person may obsess over one problem while neglecting several more important ones.

Another common development is rigidity. Effective leadership requires the ability to absorb new information and change strategy when circumstances change. Under excessive stress, however, people frequently retreat toward familiar beliefs and habitual responses. Contradictory information becomes irritating rather than informative. Advisers who disagree may increasingly be viewed as obstacles or enemies. The individual may seek people who confirm existing beliefs, creating an environment in which poor decisions reinforce one another.

Stress can also interfere with working memory and verbal organization. A person may lose the thread of an argument, repeat points, move abruptly between subjects, have difficulty retrieving words, or substitute emotionally powerful statements for carefully developed reasoning. None of these behaviors by itself demonstrates neurological disease. They can occur in healthy individuals who are exhausted, angry, frightened, sleep-deprived, or overwhelmed.

An especially important phenomenon is emotional dysregulation. Under pressure, relatively minor frustrations can begin producing disproportionately large reactions. Criticism feels more threatening. Insults become harder to ignore. The need to respond immediately becomes stronger. Consequently, a person may spend considerable energy answering critics, defending personal status, or demonstrating strength even when doing so works against larger strategic objectives.

Power can complicate this process. Most people who become dysfunctional eventually encounter external restraints: a spouse, employer, colleague, board, physician, or institution tells them that something is going wrong. Powerful leaders may have fewer corrective mechanisms. Subordinates can become reluctant to contradict them, particularly when disagreement carries professional consequences. The more isolated the decision-maker becomes, the greater the danger that stress-induced errors will go unchallenged.

There can therefore be a destructive feedback loop: pressure produces poorer judgment; poorer judgment creates additional problems; those problems generate still more pressure; and increasing pressure further compromises judgment. The individual may respond by attempting to exert greater control, becoming more suspicious of opposition, making increasingly abrupt decisions, or searching for dramatic actions that promise immediate resolution.

This distinction is crucial in neuropsychological analysis. Dysfunctional behavior under pressure is not automatically evidence of dementia, psychiatric illness, or permanent cognitive impairment. Diagnosis requires considerably more evidence than observation from a distance. Nevertheless, behavior matters. When deterioration in judgment, impulse control, flexibility, attention, or emotional regulation becomes persistent and begins affecting consequential decisions, it deserves careful examination regardless of its ultimate cause.

For ordinary individuals, the consequences may involve damaged relationships, financial mistakes, or occupational problems. For someone exercising enormous political, military, or economic authority, the same psychological mechanisms can affect millions of people. That is why the ability to function rationally under sustained pressure is not merely a desirable personality characteristic in leadership. It is one of the essential requirements of the job.

Submitted on Friday, Aug 21, 2026 at 12:46:41 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
  Recommend  (1+)
Flag This
Share Comment More Sharing          
Commenter Blocking?

Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D.

Become a Fan
(Member since Dec 13, 2006), 6 fans, 147 articles, 166 quicklinks, 1071 comments (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)
Facebook Page Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram Page

  New Content
The War That May Never Have Been Necessary

Trump's newly announced "Economic D-Day" against Iran raises a question that should have been asked before the first bombs fell: If the United States possessed an economic weapon this powerful, why was it not exhausted before going to war?

The threatened strategy goes considerably beyond another routine package of sanctions. Its real force lies in secondary sanctions: confronting foreign governments, banks, shipping companies, energy traders, and corporations with a choice between maintaining significant economic relations with Iran and preserving access to the vastly larger American financial and commercial system. In principle, this begins to resemble an economic siege, although its legal and international structure is quite different from the UN-backed embargo imposed on Saddam Hussein's Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait.

That makes the chronology of Trump's Iran policy particularly troubling. The United States went to war, expended enormous quantities of expensive weapons, suffered retaliation against its regional military infrastructure, contributed to disruption in the Persian Gulf and energy markets, and endured months of conflict without forcing Iran to capitulate. Only afterward did Trump turn toward what may have been one of America's strongest instruments of coercion all along: its central position in the international financial system.

No one can prove the counterfactual. Iran might have resisted even overwhelming economic pressure, China might have provided Tehran with alternative economic channels, and negotiations still might have failed. But those uncertainties are precisely why economic coercion should have been thoroughly tested before military force, not discovered as an alternative after months of war.

The rational sequence should have been straightforward: diplomacy, escalating coordinated economic pressure, another serious attempt at negotiation, and only then consideration of military force if vital American interests truly required it. Instead, the sequence became diplomacy, war, prolonged destruction, and then an extraordinarily aggressive economic strategy.

Trump now appears to be reaching for a nonmilitary instrument that might have provided leverage before the war began. If "Economic D-Day" proves capable of changing Tehran's calculations, its success will raise an uncomfortable question about everything that preceded it: How much of this war-- and its human, economic, and strategic cost-- might have been avoided if this approach had been tried first?

That is not evidence of strategic mastery. It is evidence of a presidency making enormously consequential decisions in the wrong order-- and discovering alternatives only after the damage has already been done.

Submitted on Sunday, Aug 23, 2026 at 4:17:44 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
  Recommend  (0+)
Flag This
Share Comment More Sharing          
Commenter Blocking?

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment


 

Tell A Friend