Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Did Trump's bone spur condition meet the medical standards for a draft exemption in 1968?
Executive Summary
Donald Trump’s 1968 medical deferment for “bone spurs” remains contested: contemporaneous reporting and later accounts show a legitimate-seeming diagnosis on official Selective Service records, but later testimony from the family of the diagnosing podiatrist alleges the diagnosis was given as a favor to Trump’s father. The public record includes both official deferment documentation and post facto claims that cast doubt on the medical necessity of the deferment, leaving the question of whether it met 1968 medical standards unresolved in the absence of contemporaneous clinical records and independent medical review [1] [2] [3].
1. How the official record looked then — a paper trail that granted exemption
The contemporaneous public record shows that Donald Trump received multiple draft deferments in the late 1960s and a medical deferment in 1968 for bone spurs on Selective Service documentation, a formal basis at the time for exemption from induction. Reporting that summarizes those records indicates the diagnosis appeared sufficient on its face to meet the Selective Service’s administrative criteria for medical non-deferability, and it resulted in Trump avoiding induction during the Vietnam War era. News outlets compiling the historical record note that the deferment process relied heavily on physician certification and local draft board decisions, meaning that a podiatrist’s written diagnosis could produce a legally effective exemption even if questions later arose about the underlying clinical validity [3].
2. The bombshell claim — the podiatrist’s daughters say it was a favor
In 2018 the daughters of the deceased Queens podiatrist, Dr. Larry Braunstein, publicly alleged that their father told them he diagnosed Trump with bone spurs as a favor to Fred C. Trump and that he rented his office from the Trump family. They framed the account as “family lore,” asserting that the diagnosis may not have reflected a genuine, debilitating foot condition, and that the diagnosis produced the medical deferment that kept Trump out of service. These claims were reported by multiple outlets and hinge on the daughters’ recollections of their father’s statements rather than contemporaneous medical notes or records; no contemporaneous documentation has been produced to independently corroborate the daughters’ account [1] [2].
3. Journalistic reconstruction — patterns, timing, and inconsistencies that matter
Investigative reporting has emphasized timing and inconsistency in Trump’s own retellings as a reason for skepticism: news reconstructions note that Trump’s public statements about the deferment have varied, and reporters flagged the relationship between the podiatrist and the Trump family as a potential conflict of interest that could explain preferential treatment. Journalists have also pointed out that, under the draft system then in place, physician certification and draft board acceptance were the operative standards, so the appearance of a valid diagnosis on official forms often sufficed to exempt a registrant; disputes about whether the diagnosis reflected a true medical impairment do not, by themselves, reverse the legal effect of the contemporaneous documentation [3] [1].
4. What is not on the public record — the missing clinical details that decide legitimacy
Crucially, the public record lacks contemporaneous clinical notes, imaging, or independent medical evaluations that would allow retrospective adjudication of whether Trump’s bone spurs met prevailing medical criteria in 1968. The daughters’ recollections, while potentially informative about motive and context, do not constitute clinical evidence, and attention from multiple outlets has emphasized the absence of medical charts or draft-board deliberations released publicly that would either confirm or contradict the diagnosis’ clinical substance. Without those materials, any conclusion about whether the diagnosis “met medical standards” must rest on the fact that it met administrative standards documented in Selective Service records and on contested testimonial claims reported decades later [4] [5].
5. Competing narratives and motives — why sources diverge and what that implies
The competing narratives reflect distinct evidentiary bases and possible motives: the official documentation and past reporting demonstrate that a diagnosis formally produced an exemption consistent with draft-board procedures, while the Braunstein family’s retrospective account suggests potential nepotism or reciprocal favors tied to rental arrangements with Fred Trump, implying motive to fabricate or embellish. Media outlets reporting the daughters’ story present it as an allegation and note its provenance as family recollection, which can both illuminate potential conflicts of interest and risk being influenced by personal memory or retrospective framing. The public record therefore contains both administrative fact and contested testimonial claims, and the absence of contemporaneous clinical records prevents a definitive medical determination based solely on available sources [1].