Analysis of the Cognitive Problems in Trump's Discourse

No head of state should feel safe anymore, since U.S. President Donald Trump ordered the arrest of Venezuela's president-and it actually happened.

Perhaps the risks would not be so great for other heads of state on planet Earth if Trump did not show signs of pronounced psychological disturbance:

- persistent geographic, temporal, and causal confusions;

- fabrication of conversations and events;

- inability to maintain a logical thread;

- attribution to himself of impossible achievements;

- transformation of personal vendettas into state political decisions.

Since Donald Trump declared that he wants to seize Greenland in order to punish Norway for not awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize, everyone should be watching his statements closely.

"What if he confuses me with King Charles and arrests me?!” we should ask ourselves.

Any one of us could be next...

Below, you will find an analysis of the cognitive problems in Trump's discourse.

----------------------------------------

• 1. Confusion About Events That Never Happened

Trump claims that "after World War II we gave Greenland back to Denmark.” The problem: the U.S. has never owned Greenland. Denmark has controlled Greenland since the 18th century. During World War II, the U.S. protected the island (because Denmark was occupied by Germany), but it did not take possession of it nor "give it back.”

Why it is concerning:

This is not a simple mistake-the entire argument for the U.S. "right” over Greenland is built on this fiction. He constructs an emotional narrative ("how stupid we were,” "how ungrateful they are”) starting from an imaginary event.

• 2. Invented Conversations with Foreign Leaders

Trump recounts detailed dialogues:

- Putin calls him: "I can't believe you solved this; it took 35 years. You solved it in one day”;

- A discussion with Macron about wine and champagne tariffs;

- A Swiss leader who "pleads” for tariff reductions.

The problem:

These conversations are presented as direct quotes, but the style, content, and context suggest fabrication or massive distortion. Putin praising him in the style of a cartoon character ("I can't believe it!”) does not correspond to anything verifiable.

Why it is concerning:

An inability to distinguish between what actually happened and what one wished had happened suggests confabulation-the brain "fills in gaps” with narratives that are plausible to the person involved.

• 3. Fantastical Numbers with No Correspondence in Reality

- "USD 18-20 trillion in investments” (for comparison: U.S. GDP is ~USD 27 trillion)

- "We eliminated 129 regulations for every new one” (mathematically implying thousands removed)

- "The trade deficit cut by 77% in one year”

- "31,000 soldiers killed last month” in Ukraine

The problem:

These figures appear in no official statistics. They are too large to be credible, yet are presented as absolute facts.

Why it is concerning:

Either the person can no longer assess numerical plausibility (deterioration of quantitative reasoning), or no longer distinguishes between what they want to be true and what is true.

4• . Broken Logic in Causal Chains

Concrete example - the China and wind turbines sequence:

"China makes almost all the wind turbines. And yet, I couldn't find wind farms in China. They're smart. China is very smart. They make them, they sell them for a fortune. They sell them to stupid people who buy them, but they don't use them. They put up some big wind farms, but they don't use them; they put them up to show people what they look like. They don't spin. They don't do anything.”

Logical analysis:

- Premise 1: China manufactures turbines

- Premise 2: China has no wind farms

- Conclusion: Therefore China is "smart” for making them but not using them

- Then: Actually it does have wind farms, but they "don't spin,” "don't do anything,” they're just for show

The problem:

Each sentence contradicts the previous one. It is impossible to follow what he is actually saying. Verifiable reality: China is the global leader in installed wind capacity (over 300 GW in 2024).

Why it is concerning:

Inability to maintain a single logical line across 4-5 consecutive sentences suggests disorganized thinking-ideas overlap chaotically without forming a coherent argument.

• 5. Uncontrolled Topic Switching Without Logical Connection

Example from the speech - a 2-minute sequence:

Start: oil production → jumps to: Venezuela and "50 million barrels” → jumps to: gasoline prices → jumps to: nuclear reactors ("I wasn't a fan but now I am”) → jumps to: AI and China → jumps to: President Xi "respects” what he did → jumps to: companies building power plants → abruptly returns to: "Green New Scam” and wind turbines in Europe.

The problem:

There are no logical transitions. Each topic triggers a free association to the next, without completing the previous idea.

Why it is concerning:

This is "tangentiality”-a neuropsychiatric symptom in which the person can no longer maintain a linear narrative thread. Thoughts "jump” from one association to another.

• 6. Deterioration of Strategic Reasoning

The Greenland case - analysis of his argumentation:

Explicit argument:

- "Greenland is strategically crucial”

- "Denmark cannot defend it”

- "Only the U.S. can”

- Conclusion: "Therefore we must buy it with full ownership”

Logical problem:

Even if all premises were true, the conclusion does not follow. The U.S. already has a military base in Greenland (Thule Air Base), already cooperates with Denmark on defense, already has strategic access. Full ownership adds nothing to security.

He then contradicts his own argument: he also says, "It's not about rare minerals... there's too much ice.” So no economic value. Then says, "It's for strategic security.” But he already has that through NATO. Then says, "You can't defend a lease.” But the U.S. defends South Korea, Japan, Germany-all on "leased” bases.

Why it is concerning:

He can no longer construct a logical argument even for his main project. He jumps between incompatible justifications, suggesting the decision is emotional/impulsive, with arguments generated post-hoc, chaotically.

• 7. Loss of Reality Testing - Absurd Threats to Allies

What he says about Denmark/NATO:

-"The U.S. paid basically 100% of NATO” (false-U.S. contributes ~16% of the common budget)

- "Denmark promised 200 million for Greenland, spent only 1%” (unsubstantiated)

- "They have a choice: say yes and we'll be grateful, or say no and we'll remember” (open threat)

The problem:

He publicly threatens a NATO ally of 75 years to obtain a territory that is not for sale, which he himself calls "a big piece of ice” with no economic value.

Why it is concerning:

There is no evaluation of consequences. Public threats to allies:

- Undermine NATO (which he claims he wants to strengthen);

- Alienate Europe (which he says he "loves”);

- Have no realistic mechanism of implementation.

This is "magical thinking”-"if I threaten hard enough, they'll give in”-without processing that Denmark cannot legally cede a self-governing territory without the consent of its inhabitants.

• 8. Grandiosity with Loss of Proportion

Examples:

- "I solved the India-Pakistan conflict in one day” (75-year conflict, unresolved);

- "I solved Armenia-Azerbaijan” (2020 ceasefire negotiated by Russia);

- "I eliminated Iran's nuclear threat” (Iran continues its program);

- "We will build the greatest golden dome ever built” (science-fiction technology).

The problem:

These are not typical political exaggerations ("we had the greatest victory”). They are claims about events that either never happened or are misattributed.

Why it is concerning:

The grandiosity is so extreme that it appears he has lost contact with the real limits of presidential power. He seems to genuinely believe he can "solve” decades-old conflicts "in a day” or eliminate nuclear programs by sheer will.

• 9. The Most Concerning Pattern: Personal Revenge as State Policy

The logical thread regarding Greenland:

"I didn't get the Nobel Prize” (misattributed to Norway)

"So I don't have to think only in terms of peace anymore”

"Greenland is strategic” (logical connection absent)

"Denmark was ungrateful” (based on the fiction that we "gave it back')

Conclusion: "We demand Greenland now”

The fundamental problem:

A major geopolitical decision (annexing allied territory) is presented as a response to:

- An imaginary personal offense (the prize);

- An imaginary lack of gratitude (for a favor that never occurred);

- Confusion between two different countries (Norway ≠ Denmark).

Why this is extremely concerning:

This is no longer "normal political narcissism.” It is an inability to separate personal ego from national interest. More gravely, the entire logical construction is based on false events processed as real, triggering real emotions (anger, injustice), which then produce real decisions with geopolitical consequences.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to catastrophic decisions:

"I was offended → they must be punished → I can't punish the correct country because I confused it → so I'll punish another country → and I'll build a post-hoc justification that sounds strategic.”

This discourse does not merely present a "controversial style” or "populist rhetoric.” It presents a clear pattern of:

Cognitive deterioration: persistent geographic, temporal, and causal confusions;

Confabulation: fabrication of conversations and events to fill gaps;

Disorganized thinking: inability to maintain a logical thread;

Loss of reality testing: fantastical numbers presented as facts;

Pathological grandiosity: attribution of impossible achievements to oneself;

Emotional logic: state decisions based on personal grievances.

The combination of these elements suggests significantly impaired cognitive functioning, incompatible with the responsible exercise of office.