What evidence exists about podiatrist Larry Braunstein's alleged role in issuing bone-spur diagnoses during the Vietnam draft era?
Executive summary
The publicly available evidence that Dr. Larry Braunstein played a role in President Donald Trump’s 1968 bone‑spur diagnosis rests primarily on interviews with Braunstein’s two daughters and reporting by The New York Times, which relayed their account and related property records tying Braunstein to the Trump family’s buildings [1] [2]. Investigative outlets repeatedly note there are no contemporaneous medical records or draft‑board documents uncovered to corroborate the daughters’ recollection, leaving the claim credible but unproven [1] [2] [3].
1. The core claim: family lore from Braunstein’s daughters
Elysa Braunstein and Sharon Kessel told The New York Times that their late father, Dr. Larry Braunstein, often recounted diagnosing a 22‑year‑old Donald Trump with heel bone spurs in 1968 as a “favor” to Fred Trump, the landlord of Braunstein’s Queens office, and that Braunstein implied Trump did not actually have a foot ailment [1] [2] [4]. Multiple outlets picked up that interview, repeating the daughters’ description of the diagnosis as a quid‑pro‑quo: preferential landlord treatment in exchange for the medical note that became part of Trump’s deferment history [5] [4].
2. Documentary trail: what reporters found and did not find
Reporting linked Braunstein to Trump real estate records showing he rented office space in a Fred Trump‑owned building in Jamaica, Queens, which forms the material basis for the daughters’ account [1] [4]. Crucially, The New York Times and subsequent coverage explicitly report that journalists were unable to locate contemporaneous medical records, draft‑board files, or other direct paperwork to verify Braunstein’s role—the story rests on family memory and property records rather than primary medical documentation [1] [2] [3].
3. Inconsistent public narratives about how Trump avoided Vietnam
Trump’s own explanations have varied: at times he credited a high draft‑lottery number, even though the lottery that determined many deferments did not start until December 1969; at other times he referred to “a very strong letter” about his heels from a doctor whose name he could not recall [1] [2]. Reporters and biographers note these inconsistencies, and one biographer said he was shown Trump’s feet years later and “didn’t see anything” obviously consistent with prominent bone spurs [6].
4. Legal and procedural context: classification and limits on proving illegality
Legal analysis describes how Trump’s 1‑Y medical classification—later changed to 4‑F—was the administrative result that kept him from service, and commentators note that even if a fraudulent diagnosis occurred, criminal prosecution would be impossible today because the Selective Service statute of limitations has long expired and key principals have died [7]. Reporting did not uncover evidence tying Braunstein to the draft board or proving intentional fraud; the allegation centers on the diagnosis itself and the exchange with Fred Trump [7] [3].
5. Corroboration, motive and potential bias in sources
News organizations flag that Braunstein’s daughters described themselves as Democrats who disliked Trump and that their account is “family lore,” which reporters treat as a potentially biased but newsworthy lead to investigate [2] [3]. The Times cited an anonymous tip that prompted the reporting; other contemporaneous witnesses offered mixed recall—some remembered Braunstein’s relationship with the Trumps but not the bone‑spur story—so corroboration beyond the daughters remains thin [1] [8].
6. Bottom line: credible allegation, limited proof
The accumulated evidence establishes a plausible scenario—Braunstein rented from Fred Trump, his daughters recall a favor‑based diagnosis that facilitated Trump’s medical deferment, and multiple outlets have reported the account—but it does not produce contemporaneous medical or draft‑board records that would definitively prove Braunstein issued the diagnosis or that it was knowingly fraudulent [1] [2] [7]. Alternative explanations—true medical condition, different diagnosing physician, or incomplete memory—are acknowledged by reporters and by Trump’s varying statements, so the claim remains unresolved in the public record [6] [2].