What reporting has The New York Times and CNN published specifically about the podiatrist who diagnosed Trump with bone spurs?
Executive summary
The New York Times published a detailed report recounting interviews with the daughters of a Queens podiatrist, saying their late father, Dr. Larry Braunstein, told family members he had diagnosed Donald Trump with bone spurs as a favor to Fred Trump, the building’s landlord, a claim the Times supported with rental records and recollections [1] [2]. CNN reported on and amplified the Times’ reporting, summarizing the daughters’ allegations, noting the doctor’s death in 2007, and contributing reporting context about Trump’s own past statements about a doctor’s “strong letter” excusing him from Vietnam-era service [2].
1. The New York Times: the origin, the sources and the specifics
The Times’ story relied on interviews with Dr. Larry Braunstein’s two daughters, who described “family lore” that their father provided a bone‑spur diagnosis that helped the then‑22‑year‑old Trump avoid Vietnam‑era military service, and the paper documented that Braunstein rented office space from Fred Trump in Jamaica, Queens—an arrangement the daughters say created the favor dynamic [1] [2]. The Times reported that Braunstein “often told the story” about diagnosing Trump and that his daughters were not sure their father ever even examined Trump, framing the account as recollection rather than contemporaneous medical documentation [1] [2].
2. CNN: restating the Times and adding context on Trump’s own account
CNN’s political team summarized the Times’ reporting, identifying the podiatrist by name and relaying that he died in 2007, and noted that the daughters characterized the diagnosis as a courtesy to Fred Trump; CNN also credited Dan Merica as a contributor to that report, indicating collaborative sourcing with the Times’ findings [2]. In its coverage and subsequent segments, CNN and guests referenced Trump’s earlier comments that “a doctor gave me a letter — a very strong letter — on the heels,” while observing Trump could not name the physician, which CNN used to place the Braunstein account alongside Trump’s prior public statements [2].
3. What Braunstein’s daughters actually told reporters
Elysa Braunstein and Sharon Kessel told investigators and reporters that their father spoke about giving a bone‑spur diagnosis to the younger Trump and implied the diagnosis may have been fabricated or given without a full exam; they described the exchange as a favor tied to rental and landlord relations with Fred Trump, but they framed the story as family lore and expressed uncertainty about specifics, including whether Braunstein personally examined Trump [1] [2]. The Times and outlets that republished its reporting made clear these are retrospective family recollections, not contemporaneous medical records, and that the daughters are Democrats and not fans of Trump—context the Times included and other outlets repeated [3].
4. Additional reporting threads CNN carried: biographer observations and public reaction
CNN’s coverage incorporated commentary from Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio, who said on the network that Trump once tried to show him purported bone spurs and that D’Antonio “didn’t see anything,” a detail used by CNN and other outlets to question the physical reality of the condition while distinguishing anecdote from proof [4]. Multiple news organizations followed the Times’ initial piece; CNN centered its story on the Times’ allegations and supplementary commentary rather than presenting new documentary evidence that confirms or denies the historical medical diagnosis [2] [4].
5. What these outlets established — and what remains unproven
Taken together, The New York Times established the provenance of the claim—interviews with Braunstein’s daughters and rental records linking the podiatrist to Fred Trump’s building—and CNN reported and contextualized those claims while connecting them to Trump’s long‑standing public claim about a doctor’s letter; neither outlet produced contemporaneous medical records proving fabrication, and both presented the daughters’ recollections as the central, but not definitive, evidence [1] [2]. Neither source, based on the reporting available here, offers conclusive medical documentation that the bone‑spur diagnosis was fabricated; instead, they report an allegation grounded in family memory and corroborated circumstantially by landlord‑tenant records [1] [2].