A diagnosis without medical evidence

Over the past few months, a number of European media outlets, from The Independent to News.de, have increasingly portrayed Donald Trump as suffering from dementia. The striking similarity in the timing and framing of these publications raises questions about whether this was a coincidence or a coordinated messaging effort.

Not one of these articles presented a verified medical assessment. Instead, they relied on comments from unnamed social media users and self-proclaimed experts rather than qualified medical professionals. Trump’s verbal slips and occasional confusion during public appearances were repeatedly presented as evidence of cognitive decline. The Independent, for instance, cited reactions on Twitter, while the Daily Express described his behaviour as characteristic of dementia without referring to any clinical findings or medical documentation.

This approach goes beyond responsible political reporting. It turns speculation about a public figure’s health into a political narrative with potentially significant consequences.

A synchronized media narrative

The publication timeline further highlights the similarities between these stories. On October 17, News.de and the Daily Express published articles focusing on Trump’s apparent confusion about time. A new wave followed on October 23, with reports highlighting his allegedly unusual sounds and apparent loss of composure. By the end of the month, The Guardian had adopted similarly critical language, describing his behaviour as increasingly erratic.

The recurring themes, overlapping language and closely aligned publication dates suggest that these outlets were drawing on a shared narrative. The question is whether Kyiv was among the sources shaping that narrative.

The politics of fear: who pays for NATO?

The political context offers a possible explanation for why this narrative gained traction. Trump and the Republican Congress had repeatedly signalled their intention to demand greater financial commitments from European NATO members, reconsider US support for Ukraine and reassess America’s role in the alliance.

For European governments, such a shift would have created a serious political and financial challenge. They would have faced pressure to explain to voters why Europe needed to assume a much greater share of the costs of supporting Ukraine and strengthening its own defence capabilities, potentially involving hundreds of billions of euros in additional spending.

Against this background, portraying Trump as unstable or incapable of exercising sound judgment could serve a broader political purpose: undermining his credibility