Did Donald Trump claim bone spurs to avoid Vietnam draft and what evidence supports it?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Donald Trump received a medical deferment from the Vietnam draft in 1968 for “bone spurs” in his heels, a fact reported in contemporary and retrospective coverage [1] [2]. Multiple lines of reporting and testimony raise questions about whether that diagnosis was medically legitimate or arranged as a favor to his family: the daughters of the podiatrist who signed the diagnosis say he did it as a favor to Fred Trump [1], and Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen testified he was given no medical records to support the claim [3].
1. The basic timeline: how Trump’s draft deferments ended in a “bone spurs” exemption
Donald Trump accumulated draft deferments while in school and, after graduating in 1968, received a medical deferment for bone spurs in his heels that exempted him from Vietnam-era service; news outlets summarize that sequence and note the fifth deferment kept him out of the draft [2] [1].
2. The New York Times reporting and the podiatrist’s family claim
Reporting anchored to a New York Times investigation explains that Larry Braunstein, a Queens podiatrist who rented office space from Fred Trump, signed the bone-spur diagnosis in 1968; Braunstein’s daughters told the Times their father provided the diagnosis as a “favor” to Fred Trump [1]. Multiple outlets repeated that account, framing it as family lore and casting doubt on the impartiality of the diagnosis [4].
3. Contradictory or missing medical documentation
Trump himself in 2016 said a doctor “gave me a letter — a very strong letter — on the heels” for draft officials [1]. But Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, told congressional investigators that when he asked Trump for medical records to substantiate the bone-spur claim, Trump produced none and said there was no surgery — testimony used to argue Trump “made up” medical issues to avoid service [3]. Available sources do not provide any independent, contemporaneous medical records proving the severity of the bone spurs beyond the Selective Service file and the doctor’s note described in reporting [1] [2].
4. How contemporaries and commentators framed the practice
Journalists and historians note that deferments and medical exemptions were common during Vietnam and disproportionately benefited men with means or connections; critics used “Cadet Bone Spurs” as a derisive nickname for Trump, reflecting a broader cultural memory that some avoided service through influence or favorable diagnoses [2] [5]. That context does not prove misconduct in any single case but shows why the bone-spur exemption is politically and morally salient.
5. The competing narratives and their implications
There are two competing narratives in the sources: one accepts the factual record that Trump received a legitimate medical deferment and cites his own claim about a doctor’s letter [1]; the other — backed by the podiatrist’s daughters’ account and Cohen’s testimony — portrays the diagnosis as a favor and Trump’s avoidance as at least partly manufactured [1] [3]. Reporting outlets (The New York Times, CNN, Business Insider) present both strands: documentary record of the deferment and testimonial challenges to its legitimacy [1] [2].
6. What the evidence does — and does not — prove
The evidence in current reporting proves: Trump received a bone-spur medical deferment in 1968 [1] [2]. It does not incontrovertibly prove fraud committed by Trump; rather, it presents eyewitness family assertions about a favor and a former lawyer’s lack of medical documents, which together raise credible doubts about how the deferment was obtained [1] [3]. Available sources do not mention any contemporaneous medical records that confirm the clinical severity of the bone spurs beyond the note that appears in Selective Service files and later recollections [1] [3].
7. Why this still matters politically and historically
The bone-spur story resonates because it sits at the intersection of privilege, draft policy, and public claims about military service. Critics and satirists use the episode to highlight perceived double standards; defenders point to record that he was medically deferred. The reporting shows that the controversy rests less on whether a deferment occurred (it did) and more on whether that deferment was the product of nepotism or legitimate medical judgment [1] [2].
Limitations: this analysis relies only on the supplied reporting; no new medical records or additional contemporaneous documents are included in these sources [1] [3].