Could a bone spur plausibly explain military medical deferments like Trump's in 1968?
Executive summary
Donald Trump received five draft deferments during the Vietnam era — four student deferments and a 1968 medical reclassification to 1‑Y tied to a diagnosis of heel bone spurs — a history confirmed in Selective Service records and reporting [1] [2]. Questions about plausibility center on who made the diagnosis (daughters of a deceased podiatrist say it was a favor to Trump’s father) and whether contemporaneous records or surviving evidence explain the timing; reporting documents the claim and the family account but notes limited direct medical records remain [3] [4] [5].
1. The paper trail: what the records say
Contemporary Selective Service entries and multiple news accounts show Trump had four educational deferments through January 1968, was reclassified 1‑A after graduating in July, underwent an armed forces physical in September 1968 listed as “DISQ” (disqualified), and was reclassified 1‑Y (fit only in wartime emergency) in October 1968 — the last reclassification tied by the campaign and later reporting to heel bone spurs [1] [2] [5].
2. The diagnosis narrative: family lore and two podiatrists
The New York Times reported, and several outlets summarized, that two podiatrists wrote letters saying Trump had bone spurs; the daughters of one podiatrist, Larry Braunstein, later told reporters their father sometimes said he provided the fall 1968 diagnosis as a “favor” to Fred Trump to gain building access — an account the daughters described as family lore [5] [3] [6].
3. Medical plausibility: bone spurs as a reason for a 1‑Y rating
Podiatrists’ letters and the campaign’s statements linked the 1‑Y classification to bone spurs in both heels; reporting describes heel spurs as a condition that can cause pain and, at times, limit physical activity. News coverage frames the medical deferment as plausible on its face because the military accepted such diagnoses during the draft era [5] [7].
4. Timing and motive: why skeptics find the sequence suspicious
Skeptics note the medical deferment arrived immediately after college deferments ended and after Trump’s reclassification to 1‑A, creating a sequence that looks convenient; critics and some reporters find the timing — plus the later family account of a “favor” — grounds to question whether the diagnosis was medically necessary or socially arranged [8] [3] [6].
5. Evidence gaps: what reporting says is missing
Multiple outlets and fact‑checkers emphasize that most draft‑era medical records were not preserved and Trump has not released detailed contemporaneous medical documentation, leaving only Selective Service ledger entries, campaign statements, podiatrists’ letters (now from deceased doctors) and later recollections to reconstruct events [2] [1] [5]. Reporters explicitly flag these gaps [3].
6. Alternative views: supporters, critics, and political messaging
Supporters cite the letters from podiatrists and the Selective Service reclassification as legitimate proof the military accepted a medical reason [5]. Critics and political opponents stress the anecdotal “favor” claim from Braunstein’s daughters and the lack of preserved medical evidence, using the story for political attack lines such as “Cadet Bone Spurs” [3] [7] [8].
7. How common was this kind of deferment? Historical context
Reporting places Trump’s pattern in a broader Vietnam‑era context: student deferments and medical exemptions were common routes by which many young men, especially those with means or connections, avoided service — a structural fact that makes an individual medical deferment both plausible and politically sensitive [7] [2].
8. Bottom line — plausibility and probative value
Available reporting establishes that a bone‑spur diagnosis could, and historically did, justify a 1‑Y classification and that Selective Service entries record such a reclassification for Trump in 1968 [1] [5]. But significant evidentiary gaps remain: the doctors who provided letters are deceased, detailed medical records were not preserved or released, and family recollections describing the diagnosis as a “favor” create an alternate explanation that is consistent with, but not proven by, the surviving documentation [3] [4] [6].
Limitations: available sources do not include contemporaneous medical charts proving heel spurs, and reporting relies on Selective Service entries, campaign statements, podiatrists’ letters and later recollections [2] [5] [3].