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.
What did Dr. Harold Bornstein report about Donald Trump’s height and weight?
Executive Summary
Dr. Harold Bornstein’s widely circulated 2015 physician’s letter listed Donald Trump as 6 feet 3 inches tall and roughly 236–239 pounds and described him as being in “astonishingly excellent” health, but Bornstein later acknowledged that the letter was dictated by Trump and written hastily, casting doubt on the independent veracity of the height and weight figures and other claims [1] [2] [3]. Multiple reports note specific clinical details—blood pressure 110/65, low PSA, use of aspirin and a statin—but the circumstances of the letter’s creation and small discrepancies in reported weight have produced ongoing scrutiny and competing interpretations [4] [2].
1. What the 2015 note boldly declared — height and weight on record
The 2015 physician’s note widely attributed to Dr. Harold Bornstein gives a clear, numerical snapshot: Trump’s height was recorded as 6′3″ and weight was recorded around 236–239 pounds, numbers that were repeated in media coverage and used to calculate a body‑mass index near the overweight threshold [1] [2]. The document’s plain presentation of those figures made them easy to cite in debates about the former president’s physical stature and fitness. The height‑and‑weight pair, when combined with other data in the note, was treated as clinical information, not mere commentary, which amplified its influence in public discussions about presidential fitness and media reporting about relative height in photographs [2].
2. The confession that rewrote the context — Trump dictated the letter
A subsequent admission from Bornstein that Trump dictated the physician’s letter and that it was completed very quickly changed how journalists and clinicians assessed the note’s reliability. Bornstein said the piece was written in about five minutes and used Trump’s language style, a revelation reported in multiple outlets that reframed the document as potentially self‑authored content rather than an independent clinical summary [3] [4]. That disclosure directly affects how one weighs the listed height and weight: the numbers remain on record, but the provenance matters because a physician’s independent measurement and documentation carry different evidentiary weight than patient‑dictated claims [3].
3. The medical bits that accompanied the numbers — tests, meds, and BMI
Beyond height and weight, Bornstein’s note touted specific clinical findings: blood pressure of 110/65, low prostate‑specific antigen, “extraordinary” strength and stamina, and notation of low‑dose aspirin and statin use. Those details were presented alongside the numerical height/weight figures to create an overall picture of robust health [4]. Analysts used the 6′3″/236–239 lb figures to compute a BMI around 29–30, which places an individual in the “overweight” category, an observation that has been cited as evidence that the note’s praise did not align with standard weight‑status categorization [2]. The tension between glowing language and an overweight BMI became a focal point for critical reporting.
4. Small numerical disagreements and visual skepticism — 236 vs. 239 and photos
Published accounts do not settle precisely on one weight figure: some sources cite 239 pounds while others list 236 pounds, a minor numerical divergence that nevertheless feeds scepticism about accuracy when combined with Bornstein’s admission about dictation [1] [2]. Media commentators and image analysts have pointed to photographs in which Trump appears shorter than other public figures, prompting questions about whether the 6′3″ claim matches visual evidence; these observations do not disprove the recorded height but do underline why the numbers were scrutinized after revelations about the letter’s authorship [5]. The combination of small internal discrepancies and photographic-based doubt magnified public curiosity about the note’s trustworthiness.
5. Why provenance matters — trust, politics, and medical ethics
The core issue is not only the specific figures but who produced them and under what conditions. A physician’s independent assessment is expected to reflect measured vitals and clinical judgment; a patient‑dictated letter that reads like promotional text invites questions about conflict of interest, accuracy, and medical documentation standards [3] [4]. Different outlets emphasize different angles: some stress the intact numerical record (height and weight remain on file), while others emphasize the compromised provenance and the possible political utility of a flattering note. That divergence reflects competing agendas—media scrutiny of presidential health versus political actors’ interest in favorable public portrayals—which is essential context for interpreting the original claim and its later controversy [3] [4].