What medical records exist about Donald Trump's 1968 draft classification and bone spurs claim?
Executive summary
The contemporaneous Selective Service ledger entries and later public statements provide proof that Donald Trump was reclassified 1‑Y in 1968 after an armed forces physical, but the actual medical records documenting a diagnosis of heel bone spurs do not survive in the public record — Selective Service medical files from that era were largely destroyed and no physician records tied conclusively to Trump have been produced or independently verified [1] [2] [3]. Reporting by The New York Times, contemporaneous Selective Service summaries, campaign statements and testimony from Trump associates paint a consistent administrative picture but leave the medical diagnosis itself contested and undocumented [4] [5] [6].
1. The archival paper trail: Selective Service ledger entries and classifications
Publicly available Selective Service records obtained and published over the years show Trump underwent an armed forces physical in September 1968 that resulted in a disqualification entry and a subsequent reclassification to 1‑Y (qualified for service only in time of war or national emergency), and those ledger summaries are held at the National Archives in Missouri and have been cited by multiple outlets [1] [5] [3].
2. The missing medical files: destruction of draft-era clinical records
Most of the detailed medical files and individual Selective Service medical records from the Vietnam draft era were not preserved — the agency destroyed many medical records after the draft ended in 1973 and when the military moved to an all‑volunteer force — which means there is no surviving Selective Service medical paperwork in the public archives that spells out a diagnostic exam for Trump [1] [2].
3. The contested diagnosis: campaign claim versus independent proof
The Trump campaign and Trump himself have said the 1‑Y classification stemmed from bone spurs in both heels, language echoed in repeated media accounts, but no contemporaneous physician’s report, hospital chart or signed medical record from 1968 has been produced publicly to corroborate that precise clinical diagnosis [3] [5].
4. The New York Times reporting and the podiatrist-daughters allegation
A New York Times investigation reported that daughters of a Queens podiatrist later said their father diagnosed Trump with heel bone spurs as a favor to Fred Trump; the Times also noted it did not find documentary corroboration that the doctor examined Trump and that rental records link the doctor’s office to Fred Trump — the Times presented the daughters’ account as family lore rather than independently verified medical documentation [4] [7].
5. Testimony, denials and the politics of absence
Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen testified he never received medical records substantiating a bone‑spur claim when he asked for them, and journalists and fact‑checkers have repeatedly noted the absence of primary medical paperwork even as archival Selective Service entries show the administrative exemption, leaving the medical claim open to interpretation and political critique [6] [8] [3].
6. What can and cannot be concluded from available evidence
Factually, archival draft-board ledger entries confirm Trump’s physical, disqualification notation and 1‑Y reclassification in 1968; factually, no surviving Selective Service medical or contemporaneous physician records identifying the specific diagnosis have been produced or located in public archives; beyond that, reporters and historians rely on personal recollections, campaign statements and secondary documentation — which means the precise medical basis (clinical exam, imaging or physician chart) for the 1968 classification cannot be definitively proven from the available public record [1] [4] [3].
7. Why this matters: record gaps, privilege claims and historical context
The absence of preserved clinical records leaves space for competing narratives — that a legitimate minor foot ailment led to reclassification, that a favor or influence was involved, or that the draft lottery number and deferments together explain non‑service — and those interpretations are shaped by wider debates about privilege during the Vietnam draft era; reporting from outlets like The New York Times, CNN and fact‑checkers documents the archival facts while acknowledging the evidentiary gaps that keep the medical claim contested [4] [7] [9].