Wendy Williams Doesn't Have Dementia—So Who's Been Controlling Her Life?

Wendy Williams does not have frontotemporal dementia, according to new medical findings reported by TMZ. The reversal comes nearly two years after the former talk show host was placed under court-ordered guardianship following a diagnosis that now appears to be incorrect. The updated results, based on recent neurological testing, have reignited scrutiny over who has been making decisions for Williams, and why.

A Diagnosis That Changed Everything

In February 2024, Williams' team publicly announced she had been diagnosed with frontotemporal dementia and aphasia. The news followed months of concern about her health, including memory loss and erratic behaviour. At the time, Williams was reportedly in an undisclosed treatment facility, and her family claimed they were unable to reach her.

The diagnosis was widely accepted as the justification for her court-ordered guardianship, which began in 2022 after Wells Fargo raised alarms about her well-being. The bank sent a letter to New York Supreme Court Judge Arlene Bluth, stating it had 'strong reason to believe' Williams was a 'victim of undue influence and financial exploitation.'

New Tests, New Questions

Now, sources tell TMZ that Williams has undergone a new round of neurological testing by a New York-based specialist. The results reportedly conflict with the earlier diagnosis and have been submitted to her legal team. Her lawyers are expected to file documents in court seeking to terminate the guardianship.

If Williams does not have dementia, the legal and ethical implications are profound. Who authorised her confinement? Who benefited from the guardianship? And why did it take nearly two years to revisit the original diagnosis?

Guardianship Under Fire

The guardianship, overseen by New York judge-appointed attorney Sabrina Morrissey, has faced mounting criticism. In June 2025, Williams' ex-husband, Kevin Hunter, filed a $250 million lawsuit seeking to end the arrangement. In court documents, Hunter alleged that Williams was being 'confined against her will' at a Coterie assisted living facility, with limited access to her phone and restricted contact with friends and family.

Hunter's suit described the guardianship as 'a weapon, not a shield,' claiming it served 'no therapeutic purpose, no protective function. It is punishment—pure and simple.'

A Pattern of Control?

Williams' case echoes broader concerns about celebrity guardianships, where medical diagnoses can become legal tools for control. The reversal of her dementia diagnosis raises the possibility that her autonomy was compromised based on flawed or incomplete information.

While her legal team has yet to publicly comment, the implications are clear: if Williams was misdiagnosed, then the systems meant to protect her may have instead isolated her, financially restricted her, and silenced her voice.

What Happens Next?

As Williams' lawyers prepare to challenge the guardianship in court, the public is left to reckon with a troubling question: if Wendy Williams doesn't have dementia, who's been controlling her life—and why?

The outcome of this case could reshape how medical evidence is used in guardianship proceedings, especially for high-profile individuals. For now, Williams remains under legal supervision, but the foundation of that arrangement is rapidly eroding.