What were the reasons for Donald Trump's draft deferments during the Vietnam War?

1. How the official record describes the deferments — the straightforward, documented account

Selective Service records and contemporary reporting state that Donald Trump obtained four student deferments while attending Fordham University and the Wharton School, followed by a medical classification (4‑F) due to bone spurs in both heels that made him ineligible for military service. Those records and summaries are the basis for the commonly cited count of five deferments and the final medical disqualification; this version is presented in fact‑checking summaries and archival documentation that historians and journalists reference when describing Trump’s draft history ^{[1] [2]}. The medical classification is listed in the same public record trail that notes the earlier student deferments, making the sequence—education deferments, then medical 4‑F—the core, documentable timeline.

2. The allegation of fabrication — a key witness and his claim

Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney, testified that Trump told him he faked an injury to avoid Vietnam, saying “I wasn’t going to Vietnam,” and Cohen asserted that the bone‑spur claim lacked medical documentation from Trump’s side. This testimony presents a direct accusation from a former insider that the medical deferment was not a legitimate disability but rather a self‑created explanation to evade service. Cohen’s claim is a high‑profile allegation that complements broader skepticism about draft avoidance among wealthy or well‑connected men of that era, but it relies on Cohen’s recounting rather than independent medical or Selective Service records provided by Trump ^[3].

3. The family‑favor narrative — a podiatrist’s daughters weigh in

A separate line of reporting recounts that the daughters of a podiatrist, Dr. Larry Braunstein, say their father diagnosed Trump with bone spurs as a favor to Fred Trump, Donald’s father. That account suggests the medical disqualification may have been arranged through personal connections rather than reflecting an organic medical condition. The newspaper coverage relayed these family recollections but also noted a lack of contemporaneous documentation substantiating the favor claim, and reporters found no direct paper trail conclusively proving the diagnosis was granted as a special accommodation ^[4]. The story raises questions about the role of social influence in draft outcomes but is limited by gaps in documentary corroboration.

4. Context: draft practices and patterns during the Vietnam era

Avoidance of Vietnam service via student deferments or medical classifications was a commonly used route among young men, particularly those from affluent or well‑connected families. Historical analyses and how‑to lists from the era document many legal pathways to deferment, and observers note that deferment patterns often reflected socioeconomic status and access to medical or educational avenues. The broader historical context helps explain why Trump's pattern—multiple student deferments followed by a medical 4‑F—mirrored experiences of other men who did not serve, and why claims about favoritism or fabrication resonate in discussions about inequality in draft outcomes ^{[5] [6]}.

5. Contrasting evidence and outstanding uncertainties — what is settled and what is not

What is settled: Trump received four student deferments and a medical 4‑F classification for bone spurs, as reflected in public records and mainstream fact‑checks. What remains disputed: whether the medical deferment reflected a bona fide condition or was fabricated or obtained through favoritism, as alleged by Michael Cohen and recounted by a podiatrist’s family. Documentation corroborating Cohen’s claim or the favor narrative is incomplete in the public record, leaving room for competing interpretations. The different sources include official record summaries, contested personal testimony, and retrospective family recollections—each carrying differing levels of evidentiary weight and potential institutional or personal agendas influencing how the story has been told ^{[1] [3] [4]}.