Three cheers for Peter Baker and the New York Times for finally writing and publishing the article a lot of us have been calling for.
Well, maybe two cheers. I’ll explain in a bit.
But first, let’s take a few moments to appreciate the article headlined “Trump’s Erratic Behavior and Extreme Comments Revive Mental Health Debate” (gift link).
Its subhead reads: “As the president threatens to wipe out Iran and attacks the pope, even some former allies and advisers are questioning whether he has grown increasingly unbalanced, describing him as ‘lunatic’ and ‘clearly insane.’”
In the article, Baker concludes that Trump’s various statements over the past week “have left many with the impression of a deranged autocrat mad with power.”
He writes that “the president’s eruptions have raised questions about America’s leadership in a time of war.”
He writes that “never in modern times has the stability of a president been so publicly and forensically debated — and with such profound consequences.”
He notes that the concerns about Trump’s mental health are coming not just from “partisans on the left, late-night comics or mental health professionals” but from “retired generals, diplomats and foreign officials,” as well as former staffers and far-right former allies.
He quotes a wide range of people calling him “clearly insane,” “an extremely sick person,” “unhinged,” “out of control,” “batshit crazy,” and “a genocidal lunatic.”
Given the extraordinary influence of the New York Times, this article may have been just what the industry was waiting for, opening the floodgates of honest – and troubling – reportage about a topic they have spent over a decade sanewashing and covering up.
Or Maybe Not
Then again, it may amount to little or nothing.
Case in point: Peter Baker and the New York Times wrote and published a not entirely dissimilar article in October 2024, headlined: “Trump’s Speeches, Increasingly Angry and Rambling, Reignite the Question of Age” (gift link). In it, Baker wrote that Trump “has seemed confused, forgetful, incoherent or disconnected from reality lately.”
It didn’t actually use the words “dementia” – or “insane” or “batshit crazy” – but boy did I get ahead of my skis on that one. “New York Times opens the media floodgates on stories about Trump’s mental unfitness,” I wrote.
Wrong!
Instead, it became what newsrooms call a one-and-done. There was no follow-up. Incremental stories made no reference to its conclusions. Within a few days, both inside the New York Times newsroom and out, it was like it had never run.
So that’s my No. 1 concern with this latest article: that it will be quickly forgotten; confined to the ash heap of Washington political journalism.
By contrast, Peter Baker and the New York Times — and every other major news organization — should follow it up with aggressive reporting about what this means to the nation and the world.
What now? What next?
As I wrote last week, once a news organization acknowledges that the president is – or even may be – insane, they are also acknowledging that this is an extremely dangerous situation. That obliges them to start aggressively and constantly reporting on what can be done about it – even if there appears to be no political will to do so at the moment. It’s an imperative.
What we also need – as I begged for shortly before the election, when it really could have done some good – is a “Cronkite moment,” where trusted voices in news turn to the camera, or the internet, and declare that Trump is self-evidently unfit for office.
And in the meantime, every incremental news story about something Trump does or says that is abnormal – which is almost everything he does or says – ought to be accompanied by a statement about his mental instability.
Because that is really what explains Trump. Most immediately, it explains why we’re at war, and why he makes it worse and worse all the time.
Why are we at war? Who the hell knows? He doesn’t think like a normal person.
Other Things Wrong With the Article
If I had been Baker’s editor, I would have sent this draft back for revisions, and the article would have had a different headline.
Trump’s behavior doesn’t “raise” or “turbocharge” a “debate”. It sounds an alarm. It is a huge and troubling issue.
I would have asked him not equate the “crazy-like-a-fox” view with the “just-plain-crazy” view. Yes, Trump’s defenders make the “crazy-like-a-fox” argument, but they don’t have the evidence to back it up.
I would have told him to make it clearer that Trump’s recent appalling behavior – vowing to destroy a civilization, posting a meme of himself as Jesus – is extreme, but not out of character.
I would have suggested he move up the part about Trump posting a meme of himself as Jesus — performing a miracle, no less! — and note that it was widely seen as blasphemous as well as demented.
I would have had him point out that enthusiastically endorsing war crimes is – in and of itself — a clear sign of moral derangement.
I would have recommended he add a paragraph or two about how consistently Trump projects his character defects onto his political enemies.
I would have asked him to interview some mental health professionals, to better describe Trump’s condition and address what would normally be done about someone with his diagnosis.
I might even have suggested that in the paragraph about how “Trump’s stability has been a recurring issue since he first sought the presidency in 2016,” he acknowledge that mainstream reporters have historically not been comfortable writing about it.
And then, yeah, I would have told him: You are not done with this story. This is one of the biggest political stories of all time. It’s your beat now. Own it.