Is Trump Suffering from “WMD-Ophobia”? Leading Psychiatrists Express Concern at President’s “Dangerousness”, “Instability” and “Unpredictability”


President Trump’s apparent feckless impulsiveness in dropping weapons of mass destruction (MOAB – the largest non-nuclear bomb ever unleashed, tested on the people of Afghanistan) (image left below) and fifty-nine Tomahawk Cruise Missiles on Syria, exactly a week apart, on 6th and 13th April respectively, has unnerved much of the world.

His threats to Iran and North Korea, the latter even invoking a possible US nuclear attack without, apparently, even being aware of the consequences, are the stuff of nightmares, indeed of the chilling film “The Day After.”

Someone should send the movie-loving President a copy. 

Trump, it is reported, does not read so is probably unaware of Carl Sagan’s succinct assessment of not alone the unimaginable holocaust of nuclear confrontation, but of the demented, unhinged stupidity:  

“The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five.” 

The insane threats also come from a man who achieved five draft deferments during the Vietnam war, thus has no knowledge even of what one bullet can do, yet alone the mankind and all life vapourising monstrosities he seems to think he has divine power to unleash on a whim. (1) 

Ironic that this threat to humanity comes from a man who, it is reported, currently has Buckingham Palace pondering on how to accommodate – in a visit later this year – his fear of walking down steps or touching hand rails should they contain germs. He is allegedly a self described “germophobe”, (2) but not it seems, a WMD-ophobe. 

Numerous psychological complexities, including apparent megalomania, obsession with greatness – e.g., claims of having the biggest crowd ever for an inauguration, which aerial views showed were patently nonsense; his recent claim that his media ratings on a television show were the highest since the Twin Towers came down (3) (crass tastelessness aside) and a vocabulary so limited it makes George W. Bush with his “mis-speaks” and “Bushisms” look like an orator, are just a few of the characteristics which have a group of eminent psychiatrists extremely concerned. 

At a conference at Yale’s School of Medicine (4) Dr. John Gartner, a founder Member of Duty to Warn and a: ‘psychotherapist who advised psychiatric residents at Johns Hopkins University Medical School until 2015, said:

“We have an ethical responsibility to warn the public about Donald Trump’s dangerous mental illness …Worse than just being a liar or a narcissist, in addition he is paranoid, delusional and grandiose thinking and he proved that to the country the first day he was President.”  

Referring to the day’s inaugural crowd size claims he commented: “If Donald Trump really believes he had the largest crowd size in history, that’s delusional.” 

Professor James Gilligan pulled no punches, saying:

“I’ve worked with some of the most dangerous people our society produces, directing mental health programmes in prisons. 

“I’ve worked with murderers and rapists. I can recognise dangerousness from a mile away. You don’t have to be an expert on dangerousness or spend fifty years studying it like I have in order to know how dangerous this man is.”  

Dr. Gartner launched an on line petition (5) aimed at mental health experts, calling for the removal of the President from office due to being: “psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President.”  

Independent, screen shot, April 25, 2017

Dr. Bandy Lee of Yale University; former Harvard University Research Fellow and Chief Resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, in an extensive interview with the Independent, defended her colleagues and the holding of the Conference, which had been criticized by some for potentially contravening: “the Goldwater Rule, instituted by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in the 1970s to discourage practitioners from offering professional opinions on people in the public eye unless they had personally examined them.”  

Independent, screen shot, April 25, 2017

Dr. Lee invoked with force and clarity the argument of speaking out to prevent a greater harm, stating:  ‘It was acting as a psychiatrist might do in “ordinary practice” if they were forced to break confidentiality rules to protect people.”  

She qualified: “Assessing dangerousness is actually quite different from doing an individual analysis. It’s about protecting the individual and his or her potential victims.” 


“The real dangerousness is this instability, unpredictability and impulsivity that point to dangerousness due to mental impairment. The kind of taunting of North Korea, for example. The military attack that was done within a few days of office.

“He suddenly, impulsively, bombed Syria. And then the dropping of the Mother of All Bombs, the expression of contentment at the show of force, is very troublesome.”

The question was put to Dr. Lee as to whether she actually regarded the President as a threat to the survival of American society, her answer is an ultra sobering wake up call: “I wouldn’t be speaking up unless it rose to that level. It may come to that.” The Indepedent, April 25, 2017, Click to Read the full article at (6.)









Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

Articles by: Felicity Arbuthnot

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected] contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]