Follow us on social

google cta
Unga_48791303991

When leaders get sick

Neuroscience shows that anxiety inhibits rational decision-making, but that is precisely what we need to help alleviate our fears surrounding the coronavirus.

Analysis | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

As COVID-19 and its effects test leaders and peoples around the world, I can’t help but recall my former routine — during my time at the CIA — of monitoring the health indicators of foreign presidents, parliamentarians, and politicians.

Was there shortness of breath during the press conference? Does his skin tone seem increasingly pallid? Did she slur her words in that address? While there are many reasons to be concerned about the health of our political leaders, the implications we tend to focus on are succession planning and power vacuums — what happens if the leader dies or is incapacitated?

But, rather than go straight to that dark corner, we ought to take a broader approach and consider how illness affects decision-making. After all, good decisions by leaders are more important than ever during this time of crisis.

While UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has now been released from the hospital, the list of political leaders at national and local levels who have tested positive for the COVID-19 virus continues to grow. Cases have been reported world-wide, from members of the U.S. Congress, to former NATO/EU official Javier Solana, to Iranian government officials, and more.

In Nicaragua, President Daniel Ortega has not been seen publicly for weeks, prompting speculation that he is ill with COVID-19. Politicians have long sought to hide illness and medical conditions from public view, primarily to avoid signs of physical weakness that could be used against them by political opponents. A classic example was Hillary Clinton’s bout of pneumonia while on the campaign trail in 2016, prompting a spate of commentary and speculation focused on her stamina and fitness for office.

Because of the high stakes, decision-making is already more challenging during a crisis. Having participated in multiple crisis simulations and war games, I have experienced firsthand how the body and mind react — primarily negatively — under stress.

But the COVID-19 pandemic brings an additional challenge. It personally threatens the well-being of leaders and their loved ones. If leaders become ill under such circumstances, their cognition, existing biases, and judgment are further strained. In the case of COVID-19, with its symptoms varying in terms of extent and severity, a leader may already be suffering the effects of COVID-19 before even realizing it. In addition, the majority of world leaders are male and are statistically less likely to visit the doctor than women. As such, they are likely to be less attuned to or acknowledge potential COVID-19 symptoms.

Assuming, as we have seen so far, those in power continue to interact with colleagues and constituents, avoid mask-wearing, and huddle together during press conferences, the infection rate among leaders around the globe will increase. Consequently, it is in our interest to monitor our leaders’ health indicators closely, to scrutinize decision-making, and to hold them accountable for their decisions.

Neuroscience shows that anxiety inhibits rational decision-making, but that is precisely what we need to help alleviate our fears surrounding the virus. Our confidence in government is predicated on seeing our leaders as credible decisionmakers. If the “brain fog” of a common cold is something to be avoided, then one can only imagine the effect of even a mild case of COVID-19 on cognition.


President Donald J. Trump participates in a bilateral meeting with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson Tuesday, September 24, 2019, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City. Vice President Mike Pence attends. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craiughead)
google cta
Analysis | Washington Politics
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.