Olivia Asher is a reporter at the New Herald Tribune covering breaking news for the Digital Trends Desk. Before joining the newsroom in 2022, she covered criminal justice issues at the Orlando Plain Dealer.
December 2 , 2025
Washington, D.C., — The White House on Monday released a set of MRI scans belonging to President Donald J. Trump. The disclosures, officials said, were intended to address questions surrounding the controversial appointment of Alina Habba as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.
The release follows weeks of bipartisan calls for transparency after internal documents surfaced suggesting that medical evaluations had been conducted shortly before the appointment was made. While the White House emphasized that the publication of the scans was a “one-time exception” made in response to “extraordinary circumstances,” the move immediately generated intense national attention.
To avoid political conflicts of interest, the scans were reviewed by an independent panel of neurologists convened by Georgetown University. According to the panel’s summary report, the imaging showed “transient irregularities consistent with short-term cognitive disruption.” The panel stressed that the findings did not indicate permanent injury or long-term neurological disease.
However, the neurologists concluded that the president “was not legally capable of fully reasoned executive decision-making at the specific time” he designated Habba for the position, citing the federal standard for cognitive competence in high-level appointments. The report did not offer an opinion on whether the appointment itself should be considered valid, noting that such judgments belong to the courts and Congress.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the administration “did not anticipate the necessity” of releasing medical information but felt obligated to “support institutional stability” amid growing speculation.
Alina Habba, who has not publicly commented on the report, continues to serve in an acting capacity while the Justice Department conducts a procedural review of her appointment, a process officials say is standard given the circumstances.
Legal scholars note that the panel’s conclusion presents novel constitutional questions. “There’s very little precedent for retroactively assessing cognitive capacity tied to a specific executive action,” said Dr. Marjorie Keene, a professor of constitutional law at Columbia University. “How this unfolds may influence how future administrations handle medical transparency.”
Copyright © 2026. All rights reserved.