The Dangerous Normalization of Government Opacity: Leavitt's Non-Answer on Trump's MRI

The Facts of the Case

On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt faced a straightforward question regarding a commitment she had made earlier in the month. She had previously promised to follow up with former President Donald Trump to ascertain why he underwent an MRI during his October physical examination at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. When confronted with this unmet commitment during the press briefing, Leavitt expressed that she was “glad” for the question but proceeded to avoid providing any substantive answer.

According to the available information, Trump “received advanced imaging” as part of his routine physical examination. Leavitt specifically declined to specify which part of Trump’s body was imaged during the scan. She did note that “the full results were reviewed by attending radiologists and consultant and all agreed that President Trump remains in exceptional physical health.” This vague reassurance, however, failed to address the core question about why the MRI was necessary in the first place.

The Context of Government Transparency

This incident occurs within a broader historical context of presidential health transparency—or the lack thereof. Throughout American history, the medical health of presidents has often been shrouded in secrecy, from Woodrow Wilson’s debilitating stroke hidden from the public to John F. Kennedy’s extensive medical issues that were not fully disclosed. The modern era, with its 24-hour news cycle and heightened public scrutiny, has theoretically created greater pressure for transparency regarding the health of those who hold the most powerful office in the world.

The press secretary’s role, in particular, carries immense responsibility in this transparency ecosystem. This position serves as the primary conduit between the administration and the American public, tasked with providing accurate, timely information about the executive branch’s activities. When a press secretary makes a specific commitment to follow up on a matter of public interest, that promise represents a covenant with the American people—a commitment that should be honored with the seriousness it deserves.

The Erosion of Public Trust

What makes Leavitt’s non-response particularly concerning is not merely the evasion itself, but what it represents in the broader degradation of democratic norms. Democratic governance depends fundamentally on the consent of the governed, and that consent must be informed consent. When government officials demonstrate casual disregard for their commitments to provide information—especially about something as basic as the health of a former president who is again seeking office—they undermine the very foundation of public trust.

The pattern of evasiveness regarding Trump’s health is not without precedent. During his presidency, there were numerous instances where medical details were obscured or presented in misleading ways. The current administration’s press secretary continuing this pattern suggests a normalization of opacity that should alarm every citizen who values accountable government.

The Principle of Governmental Transparency

Governmental transparency is not merely a political preference; it is a democratic necessity. The American system of government was founded on the principle that those in power are servants of the public, and as such, must operate with openness and accountability. This principle finds expression in numerous aspects of our governance structure, from Freedom of Information laws to mandatory disclosure requirements for public officials.

The health of current and former presidents matters significantly to the public interest. These individuals wield enormous influence over national policy and global affairs. Their physical and mental capacity to execute the duties of office—or to continue influencing political discourse after leaving office—directly impacts the welfare of the nation. The public has a legitimate interest in understanding whether health issues might impair a leader’s judgment or capacity.

The Dangerous Precedent of Selective Transparency

What makes Leavitt’s evasion particularly troubling is its selective nature. The administration appears to be embracing a model of transparency that provides information only when it serves a political purpose—offering glowing reports about “exceptional physical health” while withholding the contextual information that would allow the public to assess the credibility of such claims. This creates a dangerous asymmetry where the government gets to define reality without providing the evidence that would allow independent verification.

This selective approach to transparency represents a form of information control that is more characteristic of authoritarian regimes than democratic governments. In healthy democracies, the default position is disclosure, with exceptions made only for genuinely compelling reasons such as national security or personal privacy. The reversal of this presumption—where opacity becomes the default and transparency the exception—fundamentally alters the relationship between the government and the governed.

The Role of the Press in Holding Power Accountable

The press corps’ responsibility in this dynamic cannot be overstated. When officials evade questions or break commitments to provide information, journalists must persistently follow up and highlight these evasions rather than simply moving on to the next topic. The failure to hold officials accountable for unmet promises creates a permission structure for further opacity.

In this specific instance, the press has an obligation to continue pressing for answers about why the MRI was conducted. This isn’t about prurient interest in a former president’s medical details; it’s about establishing whether this administration will honor its commitments to transparency or whether it will continue the pattern of obfuscation that has characterized too much of modern political communication.

The Way Forward: Reclaiming Transparency Norms

Restoring proper transparency norms requires both institutional and cultural change. Institutionally, we need stronger mechanisms for ensuring that government officials honor their commitments to provide information. This might include more systematic tracking of unanswered questions and unmet commitments during press briefings, with regular follow-ups until proper answers are provided.

Culturally, we must reject the normalization of government opacity. The public should express through electoral channels and civic engagement that transparency is not negotiable—that officials who evade legitimate questions about government activities have failed in their fundamental responsibilities. The media must amplify rather than minimize these evasions, clearly communicating to the public when they are being denied information they have a right to know.

Conclusion: Democracy Dies in Darkness

The phrase “democracy dies in darkness” has become something of a cliché, but it contains an essential truth. Democratic governance cannot survive when government operations become increasingly opaque to the people whose consent gives that government its legitimacy. Karoline Leavitt’s evasion on a straightforward question about a previous commitment may seem like a small matter in isolation, but it participates in a larger pattern that gradually undermines the foundations of our republic.

Those who believe in democratic principles must respond to such evasions with clear condemnation and renewed commitment to transparency. We must demand that our public officials honor their commitments to provide information, and we must hold them accountable when they fail to do so. The health of our democracy depends not just on grand constitutional principles, but on the daily practice of transparency, accountability, and integrity in governance. When these practices deteriorate, so too does the democratic system they sustain.