Axios-Ipsos poll: Americans want to force presidents to share health records
Eight in 10 Americans want legally required and publicly released cognitive tests and disease screenings for U.S. presidents — and age limits on the presidency, according to the latest Axios-Ipsos American Health Index.
About 3 in 4 say politicians aren't honest about their health, and that presidents should be legally required to share their medical records with the public.
Why it matters: The issue of presidents' health has become particularly poignant in light of the decline of Joe Biden, who was 82 when he left office, and the return of Donald Trump, who's now 79 and was the oldest president to be inaugurated in U.S. history.
Trump rarely has offered glimpses into his health records. His team released a memo after his physical in April that pronounced him in "excellent health," but political foes such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom have questioned Trump's mental fitness and whether he's up to the job.
Biden's White House physician had claimed that Biden was in great shape for a man of his age. But during his presidency, Biden's staff tried to conceal his declining health.
Biden's recent cancer diagnosis has drawn new attention to the lack of legal requirements for public officials to disclose their medical status.
What we're watching: Democrats surveyed in the poll appear to favor such disclosures slightly more than Republicans — and, overall, Americans are less interested in forcing past presidents to share their records than requiring current ones to do so.
What they're saying:"The American public is sending a very clear signal that they don't trust the information they're receiving, that it's not sufficient, and that public officials should be held to a higher standard when it comes to being forthcoming about their health," said Mallory Newall, Ipsos vice president for U.S. public affairs.
"Americans want more transparency about their elected officials' health. They're looking for a younger generation to serve."
The big picture: The balance between public officials' medical privacy and the public's right to know has swung sharply toward more disclosure, the poll showed.
It found strong bipartisan appetite for increased transparency about public officials' health, and for a maximum age at which officeholders and Supreme Court justices can serve. (Respondents were not asked what age the maximum age should be.)
By the numbers: 72% of Americans strongly or somewhat disagree with the idea that most elected officials are honest with the American public about their health.
74% overall agree that there should be a legal requirement for any current president to share their health records.
The public is much more divided on former presidents' health, with just 40% agreeing there should be a legal requirement to share their health records and 57% opposed.
About 8 in 10 Americans broadly favor age limits for Supreme Court justices and members of Congress, as well as for presidents.
More Democrats (83%) favor a legal requirement that the current president share health records than Republicans (70%) or independents (72%).
The same goes for age limits and for mandatory cognitive screening and disease testing with sharable results. But in each case, more than three-quarters of Republicans, Democrats and independents support those requirements.
Between the lines: Public officials aren't held to any legal standards for disclosing their medical status.
While America is getting older and life expectancies generally have increased, questions about aging politicians' fitness to serve and their ability to make critical judgements have moved to the forefront.
That's partly driven by a nonstop news cycle that keeps many in the limelight and can expose frailties. But the rules for talking about their health are mostly rooted in traditions like the president's annual physical.
Former White House physician Jeffrey Kuhlman has argued for a battery of cognitive tests, rather than a screening exam, to assess presidents' memory, language and problem-solving skills.
Methodology: This Axios/Ipsos Poll was conducted June 13-16, 2025, by Ipsos' KnowledgePanel®. This poll is based on a nationally representative probability sample of 1,104 general population adults age 18 or older.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
7 minutes ago
- Forbes
Why Smoking Is Making A Comeback — And What It Means For Your Health
Gen Z is picking up where past generations left off—with a cigarette in hand. A cigarette lit on screen once symbolized noir, danger and cool detachment — think Bogart or David Lynch. Then came the lawsuits, anti-smoking campaigns, bans and the rise of vaping. For a while, it seemed America had finally kicked the habit. But now, a smoking comeback is underway. Zendaya lights up in 'Euphoria'; Jacob Elordi does the same in 'Saltburn.' Celebrities like Dua Lipa, Charli XCX, Timothée Chalamet and Anya Taylor-Joy have been spotted puffing away, becoming modern-day "cigfluencers." In 2020, cigarette sales rose for the first time in decades — though still far below the 1981 peak of 636.5 billion. Even among teens, nicotine use is shifting from vapes back to traditional cigarettes. A recent report by Truth Initiative found that tobacco depictions in top films have increased for the first time since tracking began in 2002. So what can we do? From Trend to Relapse We've been here before. In the early 20th century, cigarette smoking was glamorized in Hollywood, normalized by doctors and deeply embedded in American life. By the 1960s, nearly half of U.S. adults smoked. Then came the fallout: emphysema, heart disease, stroke, lung cancer. The medical evidence caught up with the image. Public health campaigns, warning labels, advertising bans and billions in legal settlements helped turn the tide. Not to mention, the astronomical price for a pack of cigarettes and the fact that there's no longer any places to smoke in public. The 2020 Surgeon General's report marked a historic milestone: adult cigarette smoking in the U.S. had fallen to just 14% — the lowest rate ever recorded. It was one of the greatest public health wins of the modern era. But smoking never truly disappeared. It shape-shifted. First into cigars and hookahs, then into sleek USB-like vape devices. Vaping was marketed as a safer alternative — a harm-reduction strategy. But the reality is more complicated. Juul didn't kill the cigarette. It trained a new generation to inhale nicotine. Now, we're seeing a strange reversal: from vape to smoke. From digital detox to vintage, Instagrammable vice. And once again, public health is playing catch-up to pop culture. A Healthcare Advisor's Take: Why This Matters Now In my work advising families, executives and individuals navigating complex health decisions, I've learned one truth: the greatest threats aren't the ones making headlines. They're the silent resurgences — the risks we assumed were relegated to history. Like measles. For over 20 years, we nearly eradicated it. Vaccines turned a once-common childhood illness into a relic. But now, declining vaccination rates and global travel have breathed life back into this preventable disease. Outbreaks are flaring in communities we thought were protected. Same goes for whooping cough. The resurgence of smoking may look like an edgy accessory for Gen Z. But it has real consequences, especially for anyone with a family history of heart or lung disease. What makes this moment so dangerous is the normalization. When something taboo gets rebranded as a choice — even a form of rebellion — it catches many with their guard down. People start saying things like: 'I'm just a social smoker.' 'At least it's not vaping.' 'I don't inhale.' These are the same rationalizations we heard in the 1980s. We already know where they lead. Why the Anti-Smoking Playbook of the '90s Worked — and Why It's Not Enough Now Remember those visceral commercials from the Truth Initiative? Or the public testimonies from people with tracheostomies begging kids not to smoke? Those campaigns worked because they made the consequences impossible to ignore. They also had something else: funding, legislation and social momentum. Today, the cultural winds are different. Social media algorithms reward aesthetics, not public health. TikTok doesn't run public service announcements. And with vaping muddying the waters, many young people don't even understand what they're inhaling — or how much. Legislating Against the Cigarette Comeback Even as smoking regains cultural cachet, some states are pushing back with unprecedented measures. Nevada could soon make history by becoming the first U.S. state to outlaw cigarette sales to entire generations. A proposed law (AB 279) would permanently ban sales to anyone born after 2004 — a rising age restriction designed to phase out cigarettes entirely. What's Actually in a Cigarette For all the romanticization, cigarettes remain one of the deadliest consumer products ever marketed. A single cigarette contains more than 7,000 chemicals — 69 of which are known to cause cancer. Smoking contributes to 1 in 5 deaths in the U.S. each year. And it doesn't just affect the lungs. The one question I'll guarantee your doctor will ask for your next annual checkup is this: do you smoke? Smoking increases your risk of: It also accelerates aging, damages skin elasticity and reduces stamina — none of which pairs particularly well with the image of glamour it's trying to recapture. So Why Is Gen Z Smoking? There's no one answer. But here are a few forces at play: So What Can You Do? If you're a parent, provider or simply trying to keep yourself on a healthier path, here's what I advise: In healthcare, it's easy to focus only on diagnoses and prescriptions. But as advisors, we have to stay attuned to the cultural cues — the smoke signals — that precede behavior. When the smoking comeback starts trending again, it's not just an aesthetic choice. It's a public health flare. And if we don't speak up early, we may find ourselves fighting an old war with new casualties. So the next time someone says, 'It's just one,' don't ignore it. Intervene with empathy, context, and truth. Because this time, we know better.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Police are at my door. Do I need to answer? What to know if law enforcement knocks in Texas
Knock! Knock! Knock! There's a stranger at your doorstep. You rush to the peephole to see who's there. It's the police. They ask you to open the door. Your next move could be costly. Do you open the door, ask questions, or ignore them? Following what prosecutors have described as the "political assassination" of Minnesota State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband — part of an attack that also injured Sen. John Hoffman and his wife — many Americans are now questioning their legal and practical options in response to the incident. The suspect in the case, Vance Boelter, 57, was dressed in a police officer's attire, complete with a black tactical vest, and carried a flashlight, as an officer would, according to an affidavit filed in federal court and written by Special Agent Terry Getsch of the FBI. Boelter was also driving an SUV equipped with a fake "POLICE" license plate and "law enforcement-style emergency lights," the affidavit said. "This is the police. Open the door," Boelter shouted outside at around 2 a.m. on June 14, according to Hoffman's family members, Getsch wrote in the affidavit. Here's what to know about answering the door for law enforcement in Texas. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution offers safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, granting your home the greatest degree of protection. As a result, law enforcement officers cannot enter your residence without valid legal authority. If the police knock on your door, you're not obligated to answer or let them in. According to this tactic, known as a 'knock and talk,' is designed to begin a voluntary conversation, but your participation is entirely optional. Law enforcement knocking on your door can be intimidating. Most people's first inclination is to answer the door for them. However, that doesn't mean you have to. Here are five things to keep in mind if police officers knock on your door: You don't have to open the door unless they have a warrant. If officers don't present a search or arrest warrant, you're not legally obligated to let them in. Ask if they have a warrant — and see it. If they claim to have one, you can request to see it through a window or have them slide it under the door before opening up. Don't step outside your home or invite them in unless you want to. Once you open the door or step outside, you may unintentionally waive some of your Fourth Amendment protections. Stay calm and polite — but say little. You have the right to remain silent. You can simply say, 'I don't wish to speak without a lawyer,' and that's enough. If they don't have a warrant, they can't enter unless there's an emergency. This includes things like hearing screams, seeing someone in danger, or suspecting a crime is actively happening inside. According to the Texas Constitution Search & Seizures §9, the law says the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. According to Texas law, there are situations of "exigent circumstances," also known as warrantless search and seizure in Texas. Under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the law authorizes officers to enter homes without a warrant in exigent circumstances. Examples of this include: Protection of life (first aid, extracting children who appear to be in danger, protecting an undercover officer or informant). Protection of property (such as extinguishing a fire or stopping a burglary). Preventing destruction of evidence. Pursuing a fleeing felon ('hot pursuit'). According to the Texas District & County Attorneys Association, exigent circumstances can justify an officer's initial entry into a residence, especially when the goal is to help someone in danger or ensure public safety. However, once the immediate emergency is under control, officers are no longer permitted to continue searching without legal authority. A warrant or another specific exception must be in place to allow further examination of the premises, though officers may secure the location while obtaining one. Notably, the exigent circumstances rule does not create a blanket exception for murder scenes that would permit unrestricted searches; entry is only permitted to assist victims or locate an attacker. -USA TODAY Network Amanda Lee Myers contributed to this report. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: If police knock on your door, do you need to open? What Texas law says
Politico
11 minutes ago
- Politico
Pope Leo XIV warns of the dangers of AI on youth
Pope Leo XIV criticized the potential negative consequences of growing AI use in a message this week — an emerging through line of his papacy. The message, released by the Vatican this week , was directed to participants of an annual conference on artificial intelligence and its ethics in Rome. Despite noting AI's potential for good, the pope also said there is a possibility for 'misuse for selfish gain' and as a way to 'foment conflict and aggression.' 'All of us, I am sure, are concerned for children and young people, and the possible consequences of the use of AI on their intellectual and neurological development. Our youth must be helped, and not hindered, in their journey towards maturity and true responsibility,' the first American pontiff said. The pope's message on AI is part of a growing theme of his pontificate. In his first address to cardinals one month ago, he warned of the dangers of AI to 'human dignity,' POLITICO reported earlier this month. Even his choice of papal name — after Pope Leo XIII, who championed workers rights during the industrial revolution — was 'not a casual reference,' a Vatican spokesperson said shortly after the conclave ended. Leo's stance on AI is similar to that of his predecessor, Pope Francis, who warned in 2024 that our societies were experiencing a loss 'of the sense of what is human.' 'Access to data — however extensive — must not be confused with intelligence, which necessarily 'involves the person's openness to the ultimate questions of life and reflects an orientation toward the True and the Good,'' Leo said in his message.
