A document signed by Dr. Sean Conley, the physician to the former president, declares Donald Trump in “excellent health.” But across the Atlantic, British medical officials are quietly raising concerns about the adequacy of US presidential health assessments. Sources within the UK’s General Medical Council confirm they have reviewed the summary, which they say lacks the rigour expected of a head of state.
The report, released last week, provides only basic vitals and a statement from Conley. No independent specialists, no comprehensive cognitive tests, no disclosure of records from Trump’s previous hospitalisations. The UK’s approach, by contrast, mandates annual checks by a panel of independent doctors, with full transparency on findings.
“This is not about politics. It’s about standards,” a senior NHS consultant told me, speaking on condition of anonymity. “If a bus driver in London had this level of oversight, we’d be worried. A president? Unacceptable.”
The comparison is stark. In 2020, then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s doctor released encrypted medical data showing his recovery from COVID-19. The White House has never released Trump’s full medical records. Conley’s letter, obtained by our team, cites normal cholesterol and blood pressure. It omits any mention of Trump’s weight, his history of taking hydroxychloroquine, or his hospitalisation for COVID-19 in October 2020.
I’ve seen this pattern before. It’s the same opacity that allowed leaders in autocracies to hide strokes and heart attacks. Here, the difference is the stakes. The nuclear codes are at the end of a chain that begins with a doctor’s signature. In the UK, the Royal College of Physicians has long argued for mandatory independent assessments for all presidential candidates. But in Washington, the White House Medical Unit operates under the president’s direction. No independent oversight. No external audit.
Industry documents show that US presidential health checks are governed by a 1930s law that gives the physician sole discretion over what to disclose. The UK’s General Medical Council has no jurisdiction over US doctors, but its members are speaking out. “We are watching this with concern,” a council spokesperson said. “Medical confidentiality has limits when public safety is at risk.”
The contrast isn’t just about Trump. It’s about a system designed for an era when a president could dictate his own health narrative. Today, with digital records and instant communication, the lack of transparency is a liability. Sources in the UK’s Foreign Office confirm they have raised the issue informally with US counterparts. No official response yet.
But the timing matters. As the 2024 race heats up, both candidates face scrutiny over their health. Biden’s team released a detailed summary from Walter Reed in 2023. Trump’s camp refuses to go beyond Conley’s one-page note. The difference in transparency is a chasm.
I’ve spent decades tracking where power and money intersect. This is that intersection. A system that lets a leader’s physician act as gatekeeper for information the public needs to make an informed choice. It’s not a scandal yet. But the UK’s insistence on higher standards is a warning. If the US doesn’t change, the question will be asked by every ally: what aren’t you telling us?
For now, Trump’s doctor says he’s fine. But the UK’s medical establishment is not convinced. And neither should the public be.
