Donald Trump has never touched alcohol, puffed a joint, or even smoked a cigarette. Surprised? I was too when I first found out.

Yet the origins of that straight-edge lifestyle may explain every infuriating, bizarre, and unhealthy manifestation of his oversized personality—much more so than the stream of armchair diagnoses trickling down your news feed.


To some, he’s an unrepentant narcissist. To others, he’s an antisocial sociopath. Some have even gone so far as to suggest he’s living with the late stage degenerative effects of syphilis or early onset dementia. Despite the 1974 instatement of the Goldwater Rule making it “unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined in person,” there are more than a few mental health professionals who’ve publicly entertained what’s so deeply wrong with the leader of the free world.

[quote position=”full” is_quote=”true”]Trump has said that ‘Freddy’s’ lifelong habit of drinking and subsequent years of decline had a ‘profound impact’ on his personality.[/quote]

But there’s one explanation I haven’t seen yet: One that helps us truly grasp how his mind works, and (stay with me here) maybe even helps us find some empathy. If you really want to understand Trump’s contradictions—from his combative, yet people-pleasing manner to a superhero complex with a weakness for constant affirmation—“The Donald” narrative has to be flipped from one focused on lavish greed to one of desperately unfulfilled need.

Trump’s older brother Fred Jr. died tragically of complications from alcoholism at the age of 43 in 1981 when Donald was just 35. Trump has said that Freddy’s lifelong habit of drinking and subsequent years of decline had a “profound impact” on his personality. I’d argue it shaped the inner turmoil feeding his worldview: deep insecurities, brutal, codependent relationships, and an insatiable need for approval;

Simply put, Donald Trump is an untreated Al-Anon.

Wait—what’s an “Al-Anon”?

Back in 1951, Lois Wilson was at a crossroads. Her husband Bill had found a solution for his crippling drinking problem and also risen to national acclaim as the co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous. While “Bill W”’s success with AA was (and still is) a life-saving achievement, the reality for Lois and others like her was more complicated. While her husband flourished, she still carried the trauma from his years of emotionally abusive behavior. Lois herself was not an alcoholic, so making another appearance at her husband’s AA meetings wasn’t helping her pain. What’s more, she said being forced to listen to a room full of heavy drinkers tell war stories risked triggering even more resentment.

Wanting to “strive for her own personal growth” Lois soon founded Al-Anon, an organization dedicated to offering, “a program of recovery for the families and friends of alcoholics.” Al-Anon meetings are independent, but they lean heavily on the AA model, including an emphasis on sharing personal stories as a primary form of support and following the The Twelve Steps as outlined in Bill W’s Big Book.

No individuals are alike, of course, but there are some defining traits of an untreated Al-Anon:

As a longtime member of a Twelve-Step group. I’ve spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours in the shared company of people recovering from substance abuse and addictive behaviors, many of whom attend Al-Anon meetings. When I first saw Trump talk about his brother’s death, I’d never heard him speak with such obvious sincerity and vulnerability in his voice — before quickly veering into another rage-filled talking point. It hit me instantly: This man belongs in Al-Anon.

[quote position=”right” is_quote=”true”]It hit me instantly: This man belongs in Al-Anon.[/quote]

At Twelve-Step meetings, members are asked to avoid discussing “outside issues” (politics, religion, etc.) and instead are asked to focus on their recovery. But, in the aftermath of the election, every meeting I attended began and ended with someone compulsively venting about how the election had affected them personally. It was clear the president-elect had invaded the psyche of us all, maybe none more so than those who share his hidden pain. Privately, I began pointing out to a few friends in recovery that they actually have something specific in common with our new president: He doesn’t drink or do drugs, and he watched a beloved family member slowly kill himself through addiction. The unfolding displays of horrific disbelief followed by reluctant empathy was something I’ll never forget.

“When I heard he was a teetotaler I thought ‘Of course,’” says Dr. Greg Cason, a behavioral psychologist in Los Angeles.

Cason says research has shown that both alcoholics and defiant straight edges often exhibit the same personality disorders stemming from trauma. “They typically had abusive, authoritarian parents,” Cason says. “Whether or not they attempted to treat that with substance, the root symptoms remain the same.” While one brother turned to drinking and the other abstained in response, they were both taking extreme measures to avoid dealing with underlying issues like narcissistic tendencies and impulse control.

Cason shocked his colleagues in late 2016 when he gave the keynote address to the Lesbian and Gay Psychotherapy Association. It was just days after the 2016 election and Cason focused his remarks on how and why his colleagues must empathize with Trump voters. His argument was built around what he calls deep psychological wounds that have hit middle-aged, lower-income, white men without college degrees in recent years, creating a connective tissue between them and the billionaire real estate mogul. “I looked at a map showing where the most severe trends of addiction and suicide rates were spiking across the country,” Cason said. “They were all Trump states.”

However, when it comes to Trump himself, Cason doesn’t hesitate to speak more critically, saying Trump exhibits many of the common traits of a narcissist. Though he doesn’t attempt to formally diagnose Trump, he says new research argues that people like Trump exhibiting those traits weren’t necessarily born that way. Instead, it’s possible their emotional development was stunted after a traumatic, life-changing event. “If you see him as an 8-year-old boy, it’s very clear,” says Cason. “He thinks the world revolves around him, and he hasn’t learned to master his basic emotions. These behaviors (narcissism, codependent traits and maybe even psychopathy) were passed along from his domineering father, escalated by his brother’s drinking, and aided by his family’s abundant financial resources.

What Trump’s childhood reveals

[youtube ratio=”0.5625″ position=”standard” ]

“I want to thank my brother, my late brother, Fred. What a fantastic guy. I learned so much from Fred. Taught me more than just about anybody. Just probably about even with my father, a fantastic guy. So I want to thank Fred. He’s up there and he’s looking down also.”

Donald Trump at a campaign rally after winning the New Hampshire Republican primary, February 9, 2016.

Donald Trump was—and always will be—his father’s second son. Fred Trump Sr. was a domineering bully who never acknowledged the success of his attention-seeking son. By the time Donald became “The Donald” and plastered the family name all over Manhattan high-rises and Atlantic City casinos, Fred was suffering from dementia and unable to convey the affirmation Trump so desperately craved.

Fred Jr., Trump’s older brother, was supposed to be the true heir to the family dynasty. Tall, handsome, stylish, and funny, Fred Jr. carried himself with the natural grace that Donald has spent decades poorly trying to emulate. “He was a great guy, a handsome person. He was the life of the party. He was a fantastic guy, but he got stuck on alcohol,” Trump said in an interview during the campaign. He was so seemingly smooth that when he walked away from the family business, it was to become an airline pilot, something Trump would later bitterly dismiss as being “like a bus driver in the sky.” But Fred Jr. also carried the disease of addiction. When he rejected taking his place by his father’s side, his relationship with Donald became strained. As Michael D’Antonio, author of Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success, said in a recent interview: “Instead of becoming nicer because he observed his brother’s fine qualities, Donald became tougher. Instead of becoming more trusting, I think Donald became more paranoid.”

[quote position=”full” is_quote=”true”]He thinks the world revolves around him and he hasn’t learned to master his basic emotions.[/quote]

What happens to untreated Al-Anons like Trump

There’s a saying in Twelve-Step fellowships like Al-Anon that your disease isn’t cured, it’s in the other room doing push ups. The implication being that someone who doesn’t address their behavioral challenges will not only fail to get better, but will actually get worse over time.

The early days of Trump’s presidency show not someone at the height of narcissistic control, but someone on the perilous verge of collapse.

Comparing nearly 40 years of Trump television interviews is like watching a melting sulfurous candle. In 1980 a 33-year-old Trump uses many of the same rhetorical techniques he does today but his conversational tone is steady, measured and often thoughtful. Eight years later, Trump talks to Oprah Winfrey about trade policy and world powers like China. It’s closer to his bombastic style of today, but he’s still offering more nuanced takes and even praising Democrats like Jesse Jackson. By the time we get to 2005’s leaked Access Hollywood audio we’re in the company of the unhinged Trump. Even if you don’t believe Trump committed actual acts of sexual assault, it’s clear he’s willing to boast about such acts in order to desperately seek the approval of someone else, anyone else. Even Billy Bush.

We can’t know if Trump has ever considered getting help after his brother’s death, but it’s statistically unlikely. Al-Anon doesn’t keep hard numbers, but its membership is reportedly 85 percent female. That doesn’t mean men like Trump wouldn’t be welcomed there. In fact, if he was serious about changing his behavior, it might just be the perfect place for him to drastically change his relationships with others, especially women.

“All of the worst parts of his personality would actually become assets if he worked on them,” Jess A., an Al-Anon member, told me, explaining in the Twelve-Step philosophy all “defects of character” are actually positive traits when brought down to the right size. “He’d fit right in.”

Calling Donald Trump an untreated Al-Anon isn’t a joke meant to ridicule him. It’s a way to finally understand his behaviors and how other people, sometimes for good, but more often not, continue to manipulate him.

It’s a way to move beyond the cries of racism, sexism, or undiagnosed mental illness that makes us feel better in the moment, but does nothing to change our reality.

I’m not writing this to get Trump into treatment. A cry for help for a man unwilling and incapable of asking for help himself accomplishes nothing. I wrote it because it helped me understand where I believe he’s coming from, and maybe it will help you, too. This isn’t for him, it’s for us.

If his presidency doesn’t end with impeachment or resignation, it should start with an intervention.

  • New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years
    Photo credit: CanvaResearchers found what's preventing us from living longer.
    ,

    New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

    Humans can live much longer if certain barriers are addressed.

    According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the oldest person lived to the ripe age of 122 years old. Such a lifespan is an incredible feat, but what if the average person could beat that record by 34 years? Recent research done in Russia has led scientists to believe that the average human lifespan could be up to 156 years.

    The researchers at Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center developed a mathematical model that allowed them to “switch on” a variety of aging mechanisms. This allowed them to calculate a human’s lifespan where mortality risk never increased with age. After experimenting with different scenarios and conditions, they found the biggest barriers to longevity were caused by non-renewable tissues and somatic mutations.

    What are these barriers against longer life?

    Somatic mutations are DNA changes within a cell. They accumulate over time during a human’s life and cannot be reversed with any existing therapy. These DNA errors that pile up in our cells contribute to the aging process.

    Many human organs like the liver and skin continually replace cells and regrow damaged portions of themselves. However, there are two organs that can’t do this: the brain and the heart. Brain tissue (neurons) and heart tissue (cardiomyocytes) cannot regenerate. This proves to be the most prominent biological limit that shortens our lifespans. This explains why issues like dementia and heart disease are prominent causes of death and morbidity later in life. Since those organs’ tissues don’t replace damaged cells, they’re prone to irrevocably decline over time.

    “The key finding of the study is the discovery of substantial differences between tissue types. Neurons and cardiomyocytes, which lack the ability to divide, turned out to be the main limiting factors: when all other causes of aging are eliminated, somatic mutations alone reduce the theoretical median lifespan from 1,759 years (for a hypothetical non-aging human organism) to 156 years,” said Evgeny Efimov, a research intern at the Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center, researcher at AIRI, and one of the key authors of the study.

    This suggests that somatic mutations and DNA damage is what ultimately prevents humans from living indefinitely, even if our brains and hearts regenerated cells like other organs.

    So what’s next?

    Now knowing these biological limitations, the researchers hope to study other areas of aging impacting the human lifespan that could plausibly be reversed. This includes mitochondrial dysfunction, telomere shortening, epigenetic drift, and loss of proteostasis. 

    The hope is to have a clearer priority list of issues for future therapies to tackle. This is not just to possibly extend life, but to improve lives in general. By developing a fully comprehensive theory of aging, Skoltech hopes to pinpoint which aspects of aging are within our scope to address. After all, thoroughly studying each puzzle piece that makes up human life gives us a better understanding of the whole.

    Of course, other impactful factors in a person’s lifespan can be addressed today. As most know, things like diet, sleep, and exercise are among them. A person’s living environment can also negatively impact their lifespan if it doesn’t have clean air, access to clean water, and so on.

    For now, the best method for living long is to follow instructions from your physician. Whether you make it to 156 years or not, living well is best for whatever time you’re given.

  • Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture
    Photo credit: PeopleImages/iStock via Getty ImagesWhat kids are doing on tablets seems to matter more than how long they use them.

    Concerns surrounding young people’s screen time are widespread.

    Australia became the first country to ban social media for users under 16 in December 2025, and DenmarkFrance and the U.K. have since announced similar restrictions to begin this year.

    In the U.S., as of mid-2026, more than 30 states have passed laws banning or restricting cellphones in K–12 classrooms; in 2023, the U.S. surgeon general issued a formal advisory on social media and children’s and adolescents’ mental health; and bestselling books tell parents that smartphones are “rewiring” their children’s brains.

    These concerns and policies are part of a quickly changing national and international conversation around how young people spend time on screens and its relationship to their overall health and development. My reading of the mounting research on this issue across disciplines is that the popular narrative blaming screens and smartphones for an adolescent mental health crisis runs well ahead of the current evidence.

    I study adolescent digital media use and its influence on social, emotional and academic outcomes. A growing body of research suggests that one-size-fits-all solutions are not the answer and that managing appropriate use of digital media needs to take into account a child’s developmental milestones, how parents and adults around them use media, and the ways kids use it to connect and learn with friends and family.

    Screen time: From monolith to multifaceted

    Wide adoption of digital media and the internet broadened the range of experiences young people could have online. At the same time, the digital age introduced newfound uncertainties. As with the advent of radio, comic books and arcades, adults worried about how children might interact with or be affected by internet use.

    In response, the American Academy of Pediatrics first recommended in 1999 that parents and caregivers keep children under 2 away from screens. In the decades since, professional guidance largely treated children’s media use as a behavior to be mitigated.

    Policies introduced by the academy in 2013 and 2016 continued to advise that school-age kids and adolescents – those ages 5 to 18 – be restricted to no more than two hours of “entertainment” screen time a day. The goal was to curb risks associated with heavy media use, among them disrupted sleep, online safety, cyberbullying and physical inactivity.

    Originally created for young people’s engagement with stationary media that tend to be confined to one room or context – for example, watching television – these hourly limits became outdated with the integration of smartphones and other digital devices into everyday life. Compared with watching television, online media was far more difficult to track and define, and more nuanced in its use.

    Developmentally beneficial activities such as educationsocializing and leisure have come to rely on the internet to extend and maintain face-to-face connections. Remote schooling and social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic only accelerated this digitization of daily life.

    In my view, adopting strict time limits and restrictions could pose risks to children’s well-beingautonomy and development, for example, by harming adolescent self-esteem.

    The latest guidelines

    In January 2026, the American Academy of Pediatrics retired its decade-old framework that had largely organized its advice around hourly screen limits. The new policy statement on children, adolescents and digital media diverges from this blanket approach. Instead, it suggests parents consider the larger picture in which this media use exists rather than lumping all screen use together.

    Similar to the World Health Organization’s 2019 guidance for children under 5, the American Academy of Pediatrics still advises that parents avoid screen media for children younger than 18 months. This recommendation is largely because extended use by children by themselves can be problematic for many young children, crowding out important developmental milestones.

    Both the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics also recommend that when children under 24 months use screens, they should be limited to content and devices that encourage children and caregivers to interact. For ages 2 to 5, screen time – including TV and interactive apps on devices – may be extended to more solo use, provided it’s high-quality digital media designed around learning goals in mathematics and reading. But recreational use should be limited to roughly an hour per day.

    For school-age children and teens, the newest guidance has begun to step away from fixed screen time limits and asks families to weigh online activity in the context of everyday life.

    Doing so recognizes that a child’s digital experiences are shaped by diverse factors rather than the hours spent online. Current guidelines call on caregivers to distinguish among types of media, from television and social media to video games and interacting with artificial intelligence chatbots. They also call for taking into account a child’s individual characteristics, such as their interests and personality, family members’ own use of screens, and the type of content children are spending time on.

    Rethinking screen time

    Moving beyond strict screen time limits includes questioning the kind of digital activities kids and adolescents participate in. Do the activities encourage time spent interacting with others online, which can help young people develop important skills and competencies?

    Scrolling an algorithm-based, auto-playing video feed likely does not equate to the same opportunities as video-chatting with friends, creating digital art or working with teammates in a multiplayer game. Research suggests these different uses relate to development in different ways and can help kids develop varying skill sets pertaining to everyday life and schooling.

    Indeed, a large review of current research found that young people who take part in a range of digital activities, such as browsing the web, online gaming or interacting on social media, show positive associations with social connection, identity exploration, civic participation and learning.

    A woman and two small children look at tablet screen
    Parental involvement in young children’s screen time has developmental benefits. Cultura Creative/Tetra images via Getty Images

    Using these guidelines at home

    The current evidence suggests parents and caregivers are best positioned to be digital instructors. Cutting children off altogether can carry its own risks for social and emotional development. Caregiver mediation of children’s screen time can produce widely different outcomes and effects, depending on whether the guidance is supportive or controlling.

    Considering your own digital media use is the first step: Are family members engaging in problematic or heavy media use that children in the household might emulate? What applications and uses are most common in the family, and what positive or negative effects might they have, depending on the child’s age? How could these digital activities be safely integrated with other everyday experiences to increase their benefit for children? Conversely, what online time might be better spent on face-to-face experiences?

    The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Family Media Plan tool turns these ideas into concrete questions. For example, it recommends working out what each child needs from digital technology, what activities screens might be crowding out, and where their family or household can build in screen-free time. The recommendation is to talk with each child about why they are drawn to particular apps or online activities, what they encounter while browsing, and what might be lost when kids bring phones to gatherings such as mealtimes.

    The debate over young people’s screen time is not going away. But the most up-to-date guidelines, and the growing body of research behind them, make a strong case for a more holistic approach. The guidelines treat digital media as a complex, diverse and evolving environment that children need to learn to navigate in the digital age. The risks and rewards depend, as with any developmental setting, on the child, the content and what online time might be crowding out.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • ER doctor and mom sets the record straight for parents of kids with e-bikes and e-scooters
    Photo credit: CanvaA boy rides an e-scooter, left, while a girl is examined in an emergency room.

    An emergency room doctor and fellow mom has been noticing a troubling trend: Many parents are giving their kids something more powerful than bicycles to get around the neighborhood. As a result, she’s seeing more children come into the ER with injuries sustained in e-bike and e-scooter crashes. She recently went online with a plea to parents and young riders.

    Dr. Meghan Elizabeth Beach Martin, known online as Dr. Beachgem, posted a video in her scrubs discussing her concerns after seeing so many children come into the hospital with e-bike injuries during the summer months. She’s worried that too many kids and parents don’t understand the proper safety precautions. As a mother herself, she even questions why children are allowed to ride these devices at all.

    In the video, the doctor explains that some e-bikes can reach speeds of up to 28 mph. She says that if an e-bike goes any faster than that, it’s technically classified as a motorcycle. At those speeds, she regularly sees children with traumatic injuries and broken bones after hitting bumps, cracks in the road, or other vehicles. Many of them aren’t wearing helmets or protective pads, and some are even riding barefoot, making their injuries even more severe. Martin’s video has gained traction on Reddit and elsewhere online.

    E-bikes and e-scooters, examined

    Martin isn’t the only professional seeing a growing problem. The American College of Surgeons reports that there are more than 20,000 e-bike-related injuries each year. Meanwhile, a University of California, San Francisco study found that e-bike injuries doubled annually from 2017 to 2022. The same study found that e-scooter injuries increased by 45% each year during the same period.

    Before riding an e-bike, it’s important to follow proper safety procedures. Make sure you and your child understand your area’s laws regarding e-bikes, including any minimum age requirements. Always wear a helmet and other protective gear when riding. Consider choosing an e-bike with safety features such as motor-interrupt brake levers and disc brakes. These are just a few of the many safety tips experts recommend.

    The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has similar safety tips for e-scooter riders. Wearing a helmet is one of its top recommendations, along with taking other basic precautions. The agency also recommends checking the brakes before riding and slowing down for bumps, cracks, and other road hazards.

    The vast majority of e-scooters and e-bikes are designed for only one rider, so avoid doubling up. Although laws vary by state and locality, wearing more protective gear is always the safer choice. Riders should also review local e-bike and e-scooter laws to make sure they are operating the vehicles safely and legally.

    A little research goes a long way toward making sure you and your children can ride safely. It’s also important for parents to understand that many e-bikes and e-scooters can travel at speeds that make them very different from a traditional bicycle. The last thing you want is for you or your child to become another emergency room statistic.

Explore More Health Stories

Health

Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture

Care

ER doctor and mom sets the record straight for parents of kids with e-bikes and e-scooters

Health

May cause joy: The full-spectrum health benefits of dance 

Research

Why we crave company