What medical evidence supports Trump's bone spur diagnosis?
Executive summary
Donald Trump received a 1968 medical deferment from the Vietnam draft attributed to "bone spurs" in his heels; contemporaneous records are scarce because much draft medical paperwork no longer exists and Trump has not produced detailed medical records to substantiate the diagnosis [1] [2]. Media reporting and later accounts include assertions from a podiatrist’s family that the diagnosis may have been a favor to Trump’s father, but those family claims are not corroborated by surviving official documentation [3] [1].
1. The basic claim: a bone-spur deferment in 1968
Public reporting and Trump’s own statements say he was found medically ineligible to be drafted in 1968 because of heel bone spurs, a deferment that has been repeatedly cited by journalists and critics when discussing his Vietnam-era draft status [1] [2].
2. What contemporary records show — and what they do not
Researchers and news outlets note a critical limitation: many government medical records related to draft classifications from that period no longer exist, and the physician who reportedly diagnosed Trump left no known records with relatives, so there is little surviving official paperwork to independently verify the diagnosis [1]. Available sources do not mention any surviving X-rays, imaging, or detailed physician notes confirming the heel spurs.
3. Secondary evidence and family recollections
Reporting has relied on interviews and family recollections tied to the doctor who purportedly made the diagnosis. Newsweek and People reported that the podiatrist’s daughter said the diagnosis may have been a favor to Trump’s father and questioned whether a full exam occurred; those claims come from family statements rather than contemporaneous medical files [3] [1].
4. Trump’s own statements and the absence of paperwork
Trump has told interviewers he received “a very strong letter on the heels,” but he has not produced detailed medical records to back the claim; commentators and independent analysts point to that lack of documentation as the root of ongoing skepticism [4] [2].
5. How experts and critics interpret the gap
Commentators note that bone spurs can be genuine and sometimes debilitating, while others argue the condition as described would be unlikely to explain a long or complete exemption, especially given Trump’s reported athletic activity in college; in the absence of primary medical records, both interpretations remain plausible and contested [2] [5].
6. Political uses and the ad hoc evidence trail
Campaign materials and political opponents have used the uncertainty to raise questions about legitimacy and timing; for example, a Nikki Haley campaign release framed the "mystery" of the spontaneous bone spurs as politically relevant and questioned why a condition that allegedly kept him out of the draft did not affect later activities — a rhetorical point based on the same incomplete record [5].
7. What would constitute solid medical evidence — and whether it exists
Verification would require contemporaneous medical documentation — exam notes, radiographs or X-rays, a dated physician’s letter — showing heel spurs and assessing functional limitation. Current reporting says those types of records are either lost or were never publicly produced, and the sources explicitly note the absence of such documentation [1] [2].
8. Competing narratives: favor, error, or legitimate diagnosis
Reporting presents three competing narratives: (a) a legitimate medical diagnosis that produced a valid deferment; (b) a misdiagnosis or opportunistic labeling that became a de facto avoidance of service; and (c) an administrative or familial favor enabling the deferment. Sources report the family- favor claim but also stress that it is not corroborated by contemporaneous paperwork [3] [1] [2].
9. Limitations of current reporting and open questions
The central limitation is documentary: National Archives gaps and the doctor’s lack of retained records mean that modern accounts rely on interviews, recollections and secondary reporting rather than archival medical proof; consequently, firm medical conclusions cannot be drawn from the available reporting [1] [2].
10. What to watch for if you want further proof
A definitive resolution would require locating contemporaneous medical records, radiology images, or a preserved dated physician letter. Absent that, expect continued political and journalistic dispute grounded in the differing interpretations of fragmentary evidence and family recollections [1] [3].