Results of President Trump's physical released, here's what they say
President Donald Trump "remains in excellent health," according to a release from the White House physician following the president's annual physical.
"President Trump remains in excellent health, exhibiting robust cardiac, pulmonary, neurological, and general physical function," read the release by Navy Capt. Sean P. Barbabella, the physician to the president.
Trump underwent the physical on Friday morning at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, the release noted, which included "diagnostic and laboratory testing" and "consultations with fourteen specialty consultants."
The release included Trump's vital statistics, noting that the president is 75 inches tall, weighs 224 pounds, has a resting heart rate of 62 beats per minute, a blood pressure of 128/74 mmHg, a pulse oximetry of 99% on room air, and a temperature of 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
Trump's physical examination raised no red flags or significant abnormalities, though the physician noted that the president has "scarring on the right ear from a gunshot wound."
The president's lab results also came back normal and Trump's "lifelong abstinence from tobacco and alcohol" was noted in his medical history.
Trump is currently on four medications, the release notes, including Rosuvastatin and Ezetimibe for cholesterol control, aspirin for cardiac prevention, and Mometasone cream as needed for a skin condition.
The release also credits Trump's "active lifestyle" for contributing "significantly to his well-being."
"President Trump's days include participation in multiple meetings, public appearances, press availability, and frequent victories in golf events," the release reads. "President Trump exhibits excellent cognitive and physical health and is fully fit to execute the duties of the Commander -in-Chief and Head of State."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israeli attack near aid delivery point kills 31 in Gaza as truce talks falter
An Israeli attack near an aid distribution point run by a private U.S.-based group killed at least 31 people in Gaza on June 1, local health authorities said, as Hamas and Israel exchanged blame over a faltering effort to secure a ceasefire. The incident in Rafah in the south of the enclave was the latest in a series underscoring the volatile security situation that has complicated aid delivery to Gaza, following the easing of an almost three-month Israeli blockade last month. "There are martyrs and injuries. Many injuries. It is a tragic situation in this place. I advise them that nobody goes to aid delivery points. Enough,' paramedic Abu Tareq said at Nasser Hospital in nearby Khan Younis city. The Palestinian Red Crescent, affiliated with the international Red Cross, said its medical teams had recovered bodies of 23 Palestinians and treated another 23 injured near an aid collection site in Rafah. The U.S.-based Gaza Humanitarian Foundation operates the aid distribution sites in Rafah. More: Chaos and criticism for Trump-backed Gaza aid plan as 47 are injured The Red Crescent also reported that 14 more Palestinians were injured near a separate site in central Gaza. GHF also operates the aid distribution site in central Gaza. Earlier, the Palestinian news agency WAFA and Hamas-affiliated media put the number of deaths at 30. Local health authorities said at least 31 bodies had so far arrived at Nasser Hospital. Israel's military said in a statement it was looking into reports that Palestinians had been shot at an aid distribution site but it was unaware of injuries caused by military fire. GHF denied anyone was killed or injured near their site in Rafah and that all of its distribution had taken place without incident. The U.S. company accused Hamas of fabricating "fake reports". Residents and medics said Israeli soldiers fired from the ground at a crane nearby that overlooks the area, and a tank opened fire at thousands of people who were en route to get aid from the site in Rafah. Reuters footage showed ambulance vehicles carrying injured people to Nasser Hospital. More: Pope Leo calls for ceasefire in Gaza, laments 'cries' of parents of dead children The Hamas-run Gaza government media office said Israel has turned the distribution sites into "death traps" for people seeking aid. "We affirm to the world that what is taking place is a deliberate and malicious use of aid as a 'weapon of war', employed to exploit starving civilians and forcibly gather them at exposed killing zones, which are managed and monitored by the Israeli military," it said. Reda Abu Jazar said her brother was killed as he waited to collect food at an aid distribution centre in Rafah. "Let them stop these massacres, stop this genocide. They are killing us," she said, as Palestinian men gathered for funeral prayers. Arafat Siyam said that his brother had left at 11:00 p.m. the previous evening to collect food for his wife and eight children from the same distribution site in Rafah, south Gaza. Siyam accused the Israeli military of killing his brother. "This is unfair. What they are doing is unfair," he said. GHF is a U.S.-based entity backed by the U.S. and Israeli governments that provides humanitarian aid in Gaza, bypassing traditional relief groups. It began work in Gaza last month and has three sites from where thousands have collected aid. GHF has been widely criticised by the international community, with U.N. officials saying its aid plans would only foment forced relocation of Palestinians and more violence. The group's executive director resigned in May, citing what he said was the entity's lack of independence and neutrality. It is not clear who is funding the company. Israeli officials have said that Palestinians collecting aid would be screened to exclude anyone linked to Hamas. Sunday's incident happened as Israel and Hamas traded blame for the faltering of a new Arab and U.S. mediation bid to secure a temporary ceasefire and the release of Israeli hostages held in Gaza by Hamas, in exchange for Palestinians in Israeli jails. Hamas said on Saturday it was seeking amendments to a U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal, but President Donald Trump's envoy rejected the group's response as "totally unacceptable." The Palestinian militant group said it was willing to release 10 living hostages and hand over the bodies of 18 dead in exchange for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons. But Hamas reiterated demands for an end to the war and withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, conditions Israel has rejected. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that his government had agreed to Witkoff's outline. Israel began its offensive in Gaza in response to the Hamas-led attack on communities in southern Israel on October 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 people, mostly civilians, according to Israeli tallies, and saw 251 taken as hostages into Gaza. Israel's campaign has devastated much of Gaza, killing over 54,000 Palestinians and destroying most buildings. Much of the population now live in shelters in makeshift camps. Gaza health officials report that most of the dead are civilians, though the number of militants killed remains unclear. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Israeli attack near aid point kills 31 in Gaza, truce talks falter
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new budget bill hides an assault on hospice
President Trump's 'big beautiful bill,' which passed the House with almost unanimous Republican support on May 22, mandates $500 billion in cuts to Medicare. This is a cruel assault on some of the most vulnerable Americans that will strip them of vital health care services. It will also take an axe to hospice, which relies on Medicare reimbursement to function. Since 1982, when Medicare first began covering hospice, Americans have turned to it for essential end-of-life services that address the specialized needs of the dying and allow for death with dignity. Our current system doesn't always run perfectly and would benefit from greater funding and support. I know this because when my mother was 99.5 years of age and less than six months away from her death, medical staff at our local hospice agency determined she was not, in fact, dying soon enough. Presumably adhering to Medicare guidelines, they callously discontinued our hospice services. The abrupt cessation of care prompted my debilitated mom's eviction from an assisted living facility. The chaotic aftermath necessitated medicine, schedule and equipment adjustments for her and delivered a massive blow to me, her primary caregiver. Fewer resources means this financially draining and emotionally wrenching situation will become more common — perhaps even the norm. The shifting demographics make the picture even bleaker. The U.S. is a rapidly aging population, with the number of Americans ages 65 and older expected to more than double over the next 40 years. At a time when we should be buttressing hospice services, our government is threatening to starve them. According to the Office of the Inspector General, 'About 1.7 million Medicare beneficiaries receive hospice care each year, and Medicare pays about $23 billion annually for this care.' Hospice is an interdisciplinary service that provides everything from pain relief to spiritual support to medication management to dietary consulting to mobility equipment to bereavement counseling. While the price tag may sound hefty and our current administration would like us to believe that public services are an unbearable financial burden, an investigation published in the Journal of American Medical Association Health Forum found that hospice saves Medicare money. Research shows that hospice significantly benefits dementia and cancer patients at the end of their lives. On May 19, 2025, the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society published a study of 51,300 assisted living residents that concluded, 'Higher frequency of hospice staff visits was associated with better perceived hospice quality. Policies supporting greater hospice staff engagement, including nonclinical staff, may enhance end-of-life care experiences for assisted living residents.' The report matters because the findings illuminate the humane need for both clinical and nonclinical treatment that provides for medical and emotional support as life ends. We all heard President Trump campaign on promises to protect Medicare, but Richard Fiesta, executive director of the advocacy group Alliance for Retired Americans, describes the ongoing national budget scene as 'an all-out assault on Medicare and Medicaid that will hurt older Americans in every community across the country.' And Shannon Benton, the executive director of the Senior Citizens League, another advocacy group, now warns that the potential Medicare cuts could lead to lower reimbursement rates. This would be disastrous for millions of Americans and would threaten to eradicate end-of-life care as we know common belief, hospices are not run by volunteers. Volunteers might become part-time visitors or assistants for a variety of tasks, but hospice administrations are led by professionals who are evaluated on financial performance and organizational viability. Palliative care is free to recipients and families and available at all income levels, but hospices are businesses, and they must raise sufficient funds through donations, gifts, bequests and reimbursements to compensate employees, repay loans, cover operating costs, and plan for exigencies. Simply put, much of that money comes from Medicare. Specialized care for the dying was introduced to the U.S. in 1963, when Yale University's then dean Florence Wald invited Dame Cicely Saunders of the U.K. to participate in a visiting lecture at Yale. At that time Saunders said, 'We will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die.' Four years later, in 1967, Saunders created St. Christopher's Hospice in the U.K. Later, in 1974, Florence Wald founded Connecticut Hospice in Branford, Connecticut — America's first hospice. Within five years and after several national conferences, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare acknowledged that hospices provided alternative care programs for Americans losing their lives to terminal illnesses. Federal hospice regulations were drafted. In 1982, Medicare added hospice care to its benefits, and in 1985, Medicare hospice coverage became permanent. With that, the U.S. recognized the right of its citizens to die with dignity. Forty years later, our government has signaled that a rollback of that right may be on the horizon. Eventually, my mother died in a highly regarded long-term care complex without hospice support and with no prescribed opioids. It was an unnecessarily excruciating death that exacerbated my and my family's grief. The trauma we suffered was destabilizing and healing from it was slow and difficult. If Trump's Orwellian-named 'big beautiful bill' passes the Senate, I fear our experience will have been an ugly preview of what is to come.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump just made healthcare more dangerous for pregnant women | Opinion
