Fact check: Did Harold Bornstein later revise or comment differently about his earlier statements on Trump’s mental state after 2015?

1. How the story flipped: Doctor’s 2018 admission that Trump dictated the 2015 letter

In May 2018 Dr. Bornstein publicly stated that the famous December 2015 health letter, which characterized Donald Trump as in “excellent” or “extraordinary” health and even claimed he would be the “healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency,” was in fact dictated by Mr. Trump and not drafted independently by Bornstein, an account that directly contradicts earlier implications that Bornstein had written the letter himself; multiple outlets reported Bornstein saying he “just made it up as I went along,” and described the language as reflecting Trump’s own phrasing rather than a physician’s formal assessment ^{[1] [2] [5]}. This reversal is central to questions about the authorship and credibility of campaign-released medical statements and prompted broader scrutiny of how presidential candidates’ medical information is communicated to the public.

2. The emotional allegation: Bornstein’s account of records being taken and his reaction

Alongside the admission about authorship, Bornstein told reporters in May 2018 that two days after he publicly acknowledged prescribing a hair-growth medication for Mr. Trump, his office was visited by Trump’s bodyguard and a lawyer who removed medical records without what Bornstein called a proper release; Bornstein characterized the incident with strong language, saying he felt “raped, frightened and sad,” statements that several outlets highlighted when covering the controversy ^{[3] [4]}. The White House responded by denying a “raid,” framing the retrieval as “standard operating procedure” for a new president, illustrating the competing narratives about both the letter’s provenance and the propriety of how medical records were handled.

3. Consistency and corroboration across outlets: who reported what and when

Major news organizations published matching accounts in early May 2018 documenting Bornstein’s revised claim that Mr. Trump dictated the 2015 letter; CNN and NPR-style summaries captured Bornstein’s quote about dictation and his admission he “made it up,” while USA TODAY and other outlets emphasized both the dictation claim and the episode involving removal of records, reporting Bornstein’s emotional reaction and the White House denial the same week in May 2018 ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. The close temporal clustering of these reports in May 2018 shows contemporaneous corroboration among multiple newsrooms that Bornstein had changed his account, though each outlet emphasized different elements—some foregrounded the letter’s authorship and tone, while others foregrounded the records dispute and Bornstein’s personal description of the event.

4. What the admissions do and do not prove about Trump’s mental state or the medical record

Bornstein’s later statements address the authorship and handling of the December 2015 health letter and provide anecdotal detail about records retrieval, but they do not provide a formal clinical evaluation of Mr. Trump’s mental state; the reporting focuses on procedural and evidentiary questions—who wrote the letter, how it was presented to the public, and how records were accessed—rather than establishing new clinical findings about cognition or psychiatric health. The shift in Bornstein’s account undermines the veracity of the campaign-released letter as an independent medical assessment but does not substitute for clinical documentation or diagnostic evaluations that would be required to substantively answer questions about mental fitness.

5. Alternative perspectives and potential agendas to consider in the reporting

News coverage of Bornstein’s reversal included differing emphases that reflect potential organizational priorities: some outlets foregrounded the sensational phrasing about being “raped, frightened and sad” to highlight alleged intimidation or impropriety in records handling, while others emphasized the dictation admission to question transparency in campaign disclosures; the White House’s prompt denial frames its actions as routine, a response consistent with minimizing administrative irregularities and protecting the transition process narrative ^{[3] [4]}. Readers should note that Bornstein’s later account came years after the original letter’s release and that these reports represent his retrospective claims as reported in May 2018; the disclosures raise documentary and ethical questions but fall short of producing independent medical verification.