What evidence exists about the Queens podiatrist's role in drafting bone‑spur letters for wealthy clients during the 1960s?
Executive summary
Reporting identifies a single, specific thread of evidence tying a Queens podiatrist, Dr. Larry Braunstein, to the 1968 bone‑spur diagnosis that exempted Donald Trump from Vietnam‑era service: the recollections of Braunstein’s two daughters and property records showing he rented office space from Fred Trump [1] [2]. That testimony is corroborated across multiple news outlets but is not the same as contemporaneous, public medical or draft‑board documents proving Braunstein wrote the actual letter, and critics have challenged the sufficiency and motive of the sources [1] [3].
1. The core claim: daughters’ recollection that Braunstein did Trump a “favor”
The New York Times reported that Braunstein’s daughters, Elysa Braunstein and Sharon Kessel, said their father frequently told the family story that he had provided the bone‑spur diagnosis as a favor to Fred Trump, who owned the building where Braunstein rented his Jamaica, Queens office in the 1960s [1] [2]. CNN and other outlets summarized the same account, repeating the daughters’ assertion that the diagnosis was a courtesy to the elder Trump rather than the result of prolonged clinical treatment [4] [5].
2. Documentary anchors: rental records and timing of the 1968 diagnosis
News reports point to property records showing Braunstein practiced from an office beneath the Edgerton Apartments, a Trump‑owned building, which anchors the daughters’ claim in documentary fact that Braunstein was a Trump tenant in that era [1] [2]. The chronology is also uncontested in reporting: Trump received the bone‑spur diagnosis in the fall of 1968 after exhausting education deferments, a timing that made a late medical exemption consequential [1] [4].
3. Corroboration, secondary figures, and anecdotal details
Beyond the daughters’ reminiscences, reporting cites a second podiatrist, Dr. Manny Weinstein, alleged by the daughters to have been “involved” in testifying to Trump’s condition, and Braunstein’s own posthumous reputation for recounting the episode—both anecdotal supports but not contemporaneous proof of the specific draft‑board letter [5] [6]. The Daily Beast published an anecdote that Braunstein received preferential landlord attention from Fred Trump after the episode, which the daughter framed as the small favor her father received in return, adding texture to the allegation of reciprocal accommodation [7].
4. Limits of the evidence: what is and is not proven by the sources
No source in the reporting supplies a contemporaneous, signed draft‑board letter or medical record publicly attributing Trump’s 1968 exemption specifically to Braunstein; the New York Times frames the daughters’ account as an explanation that “has emerged,” not as a definitive, document‑backed conclusion [1]. Trump himself told reporters in 2016 that he could not recall who signed the letter he presented to draft officials, leaving a gap the daughters’ memories attempt to fill but do not fully bridge [1]. Critics and partisan outlets have therefore labeled the story as unsubstantiated or politically charged, pointing out the difference between family lore and archival proof [3] [8].
5. Alternative interpretations and the stakes of the narrative
The competing interpretations are clear in the coverage: journalists who report the daughters’ account present it as plausible circumstantial evidence given the tenancy relationship and timing [1] [4], while commentators skeptical of institutional or partisan bias characterize the claims as unproven and potentially weaponized in political debate [3]. Reporting also acknowledges that even if Braunstein or Weinstein played a role, the implications depend on whether the diagnosis reflected clinical judgment or an accommodation, a determination the available public reporting cannot conclusively make [1] [9].