Were there any investigations into the legitimacy of Trump's draft deferments and what were their conclusions?
Executive summary
Multiple news outlets and records show Donald Trump received five Vietnam-era draft deferments—four educational and one medical for bone spurs—and those deferments have been the subject of media scrutiny, public comment and at least congressional testimony alleging misconduct [1] [2] [3] [4]. Available sources do not describe a formal criminal indictment or definitive government finding that the deferments were illegitimate; reporting instead documents Selective Service records, investigative journalism, and competing claims from allies and critics [5] [2] [4].
1. The documented record: five deferments, public records confirm the basics
Contemporary reporting and archival records show Trump registered with the Selective Service in 1964 and was granted four college (2-S) deferments plus one medical deferment for bone spurs; The New York Times and Selective Service records obtained by The Smoking Gun and summarized by Snopes corroborate that sequence [5] [2] [1]. Those records include a lottery number (356 of 365) that made actual induction unlikely even without the deferments, a fact reported in multiple articles [5] [2].
2. Media investigations probed how the medical deferment was obtained
Investigative outlets and reporters examined whether the medical deferment reflected a legitimate condition or represented an improper favor. The Smoking Gun and long-form newspaper reporting, cited by Snopes and others, tracked paperwork and interviews about the medical claim of bone spurs [5] [2]. These inquiries raised questions but did not culminate in a definitive public legal finding overturning the deferment in the available sources [5] [2].
3. Allegations from inside Trump’s circle: Cohen’s congressional testimony
Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, told a House panel that Trump “made up” a medical issue to avoid service and that Trump had no medical records proving surgery or treatment; this testimony was reported by Military Times and generated controversy [4]. That is an allegation by a witness with a clear adversarial posture toward Trump; reporting records the claim but does not equate it to an adjudicated fact in the sources provided [4].
4. Political response and public debate, not legal closure
Prominent critics—ranging from journalists to political figures like John McCain in earlier years—have used the deferments as political and moral evidence about draft-era inequities, arguing that wealthy or well-connected men found ways to avoid service [3]. Coverage shows sustained public and political scrutiny but, in the material here, no formal government conclusion that labeled the deferments illegal or reversed them [3] [1].
5. What investigators actually did (and did not) do, per the available reporting
Sources document journalistic probing, congressional testimony and archival document requests; they also reference Selective Service records released to reporters [5] [2] [4]. Available sources do not mention a federal criminal investigation that produced charges tied directly to the legitimacy of Trump’s deferments, nor do they report an administrative finding that the deferments were fraudulent [5] [2] [4].
6. Competing narratives: records vs. recollections
Records (Selective Service papers, lottery number) and journalistic reconstructions present a factual scaffold confirming the deferments [5] [2]. Personal recollections and accusations—Michael Cohen’s testimony—offer a sharply different account of intent and impropriety [4]. Reporting in the sources thus presents both documentary evidence and contested testimony; neither the documents nor the testimony alone settle every question in the public record [5] [4].
7. Limitations of the public record and what remains unreported
Available sources do not mention any definitive government adjudication, criminal charges, or a final administrative decision finding the deferments illegitimate [5] [2] [4]. They also do not provide full medical records or the original Selective Service adjudication files that might settle clinical questions about the bone-spur claim in isolation [4] [5].
8. Bottom line for readers
Public records and multiple news reports establish that Trump received five deferments during the Vietnam era and that journalists and at least one former insider have questioned the legitimacy of the medical deferment [5] [2] [4]. The sources provided show scrutiny, allegation, and archival confirmation—but they do not show a formal legal finding that the deferments were fraudulent or illegitimate [5] [4].