Follow us on social

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

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)
Analysis | Washington Politics
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: White House April 7, 2025

Polls: Americans don't support Trump's war on Iran

Military Industrial Complex

While there are serious doubts about the accuracy of President Donald Trump’s claims about the effectiveness of his attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, the U.S./Israeli war on Iran has provided fresh and abundant evidence of widespread opposition to war in the United States.

With a tenuous ceasefire currently holding, several nationwide surveys suggest Trump’s attack, which plunged the country into yet another offensive war in the Middle East, has been broadly unpopular across the country.

keep readingShow less

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.