What evidence did The New York Times report about the Queens podiatrist and Trump’s bone‑spur deferment?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The New York Times reported that the key evidence linking a Queens podiatrist to President Trump’s Vietnam-era bone‑spur deferment consisted mainly of interviews with the podiatrist’s daughters and public records showing the doctor rented office space from Fred Trump, suggesting a possible favor rather than an independent medical finding [1] [2]. The Times’ package left core questions unresolved—there is corroborating anecdote and some documentary context, but no direct, independently verified proof that the diagnosis was fabricated [3] [4].
1. The central claims the Times published
The Times presented the account of Larry Braunstein’s daughters, who told reporters that their late father had long said he had “signed off” on Donald Trump’s heel‑spur diagnosis as a favor to Fred Trump rather than after a clinical examination, and that this family lore explained how Trump obtained a medical deferment in fall 1968 [1] [5]. The paper also reported records showing Braunstein rented his Jamaica, Queens, office from Fred Trump in the 1960s, a fact the Times used to establish the owner–tenant relationship that underlies the daughters’ contention that the diagnosis could have been a courtesy [2] [5].
2. Documentary and testimonial threads the Times used to build the narrative
Beyond the daughters’ recollections, the Times cited rental records linking Braunstein’s practice to properties owned by Fred Trump and included accounts from other local podiatrists who said Braunstein had discussed the Trumps and had benefited from favorable landlord treatment—details that the paper used to show motive and context for a potential favor [2] [3]. The Times also placed the 1968 medical deferment in its historical context—Trump had previously received four educational deferments and had been found fit for service in 1966—underscoring the timing questions that make the 1968 diagnosis notable [6].
3. What the Times did not and could not prove
The Times did not produce contemporaneous medical records showing Braunstein examined Trump and diagnosed heel spurs, nor did it obtain an admission from Braunstein (who died in 2007); the paper’s central factual thread rests on the daughters’ memory and the landlord–tenant records rather than on a smoking‑gun document proving the diagnosis was false [1] [4]. Critics pointed out the reliance on family testimony and argued the Times failed to definitively verify the allegation; defenders of Trump note there is no direct evidence in the story that the diagnosis was fabricated, only suggestive circumstances [4] [7].
4. Corroborating details and countervailing evidence in other reporting
Other journalists and sources amplified aspects of the Times report—CNN and Business Insider summarized the daughters’ claims and the rental‑records link to Fred Trump [5] [6], while Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio said he once inspected Trump’s feet and “didn’t see” obvious bone spurs, a detail cited in reporting that complicates the medical claim but does not prove fraud [8]. Media coverage also noted the broader pattern of deferments during the Vietnam era, emphasizing that draft avoidance was common among better‑connected men, which frames the Braunstein anecdote as plausible even if not conclusively proven [6].
5. How the Times framed uncertainty and why the story matters
The Times framed the piece as an investigative reconstruction that raised new questions about a long‑standing puzzle—how Trump’s medical deferment came about—while acknowledging gaps in direct proof and relying on interviews and public records to build its case [1] [2]. The story mattered because it reframed a decades‑old biographical detail as potentially the product of influence rather than pure medical fact, but the paper’s own sourcing limitations leave room for alternative interpretations and criticism about verification [4] [3].