'Completely unhinged': Trump's escalating rhetoric fuels concerns over mental fitness

US President Donald Trump used incendiary, even genocidal language toward Iran yesterday (7 April). "A whole civilisation will die tonight," he wrote on his Truth Social platform, warning it would be "never to be brought back again."

While such remarks are often dismissed as negotiation tactics or habitual hyperbole, observers say a more troubling pattern is emerging, reports Le Monde. 

Frustrated by Tehran's resistance – particularly after anticipating the regime's collapse rather than disruption to the global economy – Trump appeared to abandon any remaining rhetorical restraint. "Open the Fuckin' Strait [of Hormuz], you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell," he warned days earlier.

At a widely watched press conference at the White House on Monday, a journalist directly questioned his mental fitness. "What is your response to critics who say that your mental health should perhaps be examined, as this war continues?" Trump brushed the suggestion aside, replying that more leaders like him were needed, arguing the country had long been "ripped off" on trade. He did not address the substance of the concern.

According to the Le Monde report, alarm has spread beyond his opponents. Former ally Marjorie Taylor Greene, who left Congress in January, issued a blunt warning on X: "25TH AMENDMENT!!! Not a single bomb has dropped on America. We cannot kill an entire civilisation. This is evil and madness." 

Democratic lawmakers echoed the sentiment. Representative Jim McGovern argued the cabinet was unlikely to act "for a man who is clearly insane," while Senator Chris Murphy described Trump's statements as "completely, utterly unhinged," suggesting cabinet officials should already be consulting constitutional lawyers. 

A constitutional safeguard – in theory

The debate has revived attention on the 25th Amendment, adopted in 1967 to ensure continuity of power if a president becomes unable to perform their duties. It allows a majority of the cabinet to declare the president unfit and transfer authority to the vice president, subject to potential challenge and final approval by Congress. 

In practice, however, such a move remains highly unlikely given political polarisation and cabinet loyalty. Democrats have instead focused on the administration's decision-making around the Iran conflict, particularly the lack of congressional consultation. Having failed twice to remove Trump through impeachment, they are wary of reinforcing his narrative of political persecution.

Still, some commentators see a dangerous escalation. Legal analyst David French described Trump's recent language as "completely deranged rhetoric" and argued it falls squarely within the territory contemplated by the 25th Amendment – even if public reaction has grown desensitised.

A longstanding pattern, now intensified

Questions about Trump's mental fitness remain difficult to resolve without independent medical evaluation. Unlike his predecessor Joe Biden, whose physical and cognitive decline was widely discussed despite efforts by aides to shield him, Trump has never been judged by conventional standards of coherence.

Since entering politics in 2015, his speaking style has relied less on structured argument than on provocation, exaggeration and improvisation – what he himself has called "the weave." His frequent, unscripted engagement with the media reinforces his image as a leader operating without constraint.

Yet this autonomy also highlights a key difference in governance. Biden's administration was marked by experienced advisers willing to challenge decisions behind closed doors, as seen during debates over the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal. Trump, by contrast, has built a system rooted in personal loyalty. Figures such as Pete Hegseth and Kash Patel owe their positions largely to him, raising questions about the presence – or absence – of internal dissent.

In a political environment already strained by war and division, the central concern remains unresolved: who, if anyone, within the current system is in a position to restrain – or even question – the president's most extreme impulses?