Editorial: Gluesenkamp Perez on right track with cognitive testing for lawmakers

The Seattle Times, The Seattle Times on Aug 7, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

When Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell publicly experienced episodes in which he appeared to freeze during news conferences, there were calls for him to vacate his seat.

When the late California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein twice read the same long-winded question to Twitter’s CEO during a hearing in 2020, there were calls for her to step aside.

And most recently, when former President Joe Biden had a disastrous performance during a debate against President Donald Trump on live TV, Biden supporters and detractors cited apparent cognitive decline as a reason for him to bow out of the race.

In all three cases, and others not so publicized, constituents, political pundits and Washington, D.C., insiders have called for more transparency when it comes to the mental fitness of elected officials.

Finally, a Washington lawmaker has mustered up the guts to try to address the problem, with a focus on transparency.

U.S. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Washougal, tried in June to get an amendment to the House Appropriations Committee’s funding bill passed that would have created a pathway to possibly remove House members whose cognitive abilities keep them from fully serving their constituents.

Had it passed, it would have directed the Office of Congressional Conduct to develop criteria for the Ethics Committee to evaluate any complaint about a lawmaker’s cognitive deficiency. The amendment failed but Gluesenkamp Perez said she’s not giving up. She plans to reintroduce the issue next year, possibly as a bill. She has been gauging potential support from both Democrats and Republicans.

“You sit in the right part of the House and you see people get confused about what’s going on,” Gluesenkamp Perez said.

Her proposal would be bipartisan in practice since the Ethics Committee’s 10 members are evenly split among Republicans and Democrats. It also doesn’t discriminate based on age.

“This can happen at any point in life,” she said of cognitive decline.

Gluesenkamp Perez said a poll of subscribers to her constituent newsletter showed that 90% of respondents agreed with her proposal.

Gluesenkamp’s efforts reflect her no nonsense approach to governing, and her ability to attract support from both parties, which is reflected in the fact that Trump won in her district in all three of his elections.

In the private sector, if an employee whose cognitive abilities have diminished to the point where they can’t perform the basic duties of their job, an annual review or colleagues would likely send up red flags that something is wrong. That should be the case in Congress. Unfortunately, loyalty to individuals keeps lawmakers from tapping their colleagues on the shoulder when they notice serious problems. With an elected official compromised, others could exert undue influence on their decisions.

Gluesenkamp Perez’s proposal would place loyalty where it should be – with the constituents.

_____