What evidence have investigators and journalists produced regarding Trump’s bone‑spur diagnosis and its timing?
Executive summary
Reporting and investigator accounts about Donald Trump’s 1968 “bone‑spur” deferment converge on three facts: Trump was granted a medical deferment for heel spurs that year, the diagnosis has been linked in reporting to a Queens podiatrist with ties to Fred Trump, and no contemporaneous medical documentation made public has yet confirmed the specifics of the exam or treatment bone-spurs-deferment-vietnam-favor-fred-podiatrist-a8699666.html" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[1] [2] [3]. Journalists have produced interviews, family recollections and attempts to corroborate records; those sources offer suggestive but not definitive proof that the diagnosis may have been a favor rather than a straightforward medical finding [4] [2] [5].
1. The basic timeline: deferments, diagnosis and 1968
Public accounts place Trump’s sequence of deferments — multiple student deferments followed by a one‑year medical deferment for heel spurs — in 1968, when his student status ended and he received the medical exemption that kept him out of the Vietnam draft [1] [3]. Trump himself has publicly said he was given “a very strong letter on the heels” by a doctor and has not produced medical records tied to that claim [4] [6].
2. The Braunstein family’s claim: a favor for Fred Trump
Multiple outlets report interviews with the daughters of a Queens podiatrist, Larry Braunstein, who say their father spoke of diagnosing the young Donald Trump with heel spurs as a favor to Fred C. Trump, the family’s landlord and father of Donald Trump; one daughter told reporters “I know it was a favor” [4] [2] [5]. That familial testimony is central to the narrative that the diagnosis was not strictly clinical but instead influenced by family ties [2].
3. Journalistic corroboration and limits: no paper trail found
Investigations by major news organizations, as reported in the sources, attempted to find contemporaneous medical records or paperwork to corroborate the Braunstein daughters’ account and the specifics of the exam, but those searches did not uncover documentation that definitively proves whether an in‑person exam occurred or the exact basis for the deferment [2] [1]. Reporters explicitly note the absence of paper evidence in public records [2] [1].
4. Eyewitness and biographer observations complicate the picture
Trump’s biographer William D’Antonio reported examining Trump’s feet during interviews and “didn’t see anything,” and suggested Trump himself may have genuinely believed he had the condition even if the diagnosis is disputed — a point journalists use to explain the persistence of the claim despite doubts [6]. Other commentators and outlets have asserted more strongly that the spurs were “concocted,” but those claims rest on interpretation of family recollections and post hoc testimony rather than newly surfaced clinical records [7] [5].
5. Political context and motivations of sources
The Braunstein daughters have acknowledged political opposition to Trump, and outlets flag that their recollections derive from family lore rather than contemporaneous notes; the New York Times and subsequent reporting emphasized both the potential significance of the claim and the investigative limits in verifying it [2] [1]. Likewise, political campaigns and commentators have used the story rhetorically — for example, Nikki Haley’s campaign ad spotlighted the “mystery” of the bone spurs — demonstrating how the anecdote functions in political debate as much as medical history [8].
6. What the evidence supports and what it does not
Available evidence supports that Trump received a medical deferment for heel spurs in 1968 and that a Queens podiatrist who rented space from Fred Trump is claimed by relatives to have been involved; the strongest new evidence beyond Trump’s own statements is family recollection from the Braunstein daughters [1] [2] [4]. What the reporting does not supply is contemporaneous medical documentation, a signed clinical record publicly tied to the deferment, or a definitive chain of custody proving whether an exam occurred or whether the diagnosis was medically justified — limitations that investigators and journalists explicitly note [2] [1].