How do Trump's listed height and weight compare to those on previous medical records from his presidency?
Executive summary
Donald Trump’s most recent publicly released physical lists him at 75 inches (6 ft 3 in) and 224 pounds, numbers the White House physician presented in April 2025 as consistent with his earlier official tallies but modestly lower in weight than several past records from his presidency and candidacies [1] [2] [3]. That apparent pattern — the same listed height across years but fluctuating reported weights — has repeatedly sparked scrutiny and skepticism in media and on social platforms, partly because different documents and settings have recorded different figures and because observers note natural age-related height loss that the president’s records do not reflect [4] [5] [6].
1. What the new medical record says and how it lines up with recent reports
The Walter Reed physical released in April 2025 by White House physician Sean Barbabella lists Trump as 75 inches tall and weighing 224 pounds, language reproduced across Time, The Independent and other outlets describing the exam and the report’s conclusions about fitness for duty [1] [3] [2]. News coverage frames the 224-pound figure as a decrease from the end of his first presidency and from several prior public reports, and those news outlets also note the memo’s broader claims about activity level and test results that accompanied the height and weight numbers [7] [3].
2. How that compares to his past official and public records during the presidency
Public medical summaries from Trump’s prior years in office and campaign periods show a range: a 2020 White House physical cited him at 244 pounds, earlier physician statements listed him at about 239 pounds in 2018, and a 2016 report put him at roughly 236 pounds — while his height has repeatedly been reported as 6 ft 3 in across those documents [7] [3] [5]. In contrast, booking records from his 2023 surrender in Fulton County listed him as 6 ft 3 in and 215 pounds, a lower weight figure recorded in a law-enforcement context rather than a medical exam [4].
3. The pattern: steady listed height, variable weights, and why that matters
Across these sources the stated height is remarkably consistent at 6 ft 3 in (75 inches), even though clinicians and geriatric researchers commonly expect modest height loss with age — a fact commentators have flagged as fueling skepticism about the measurements’ precision or context [2] [5] [6]. Weight figures, by contrast, move over time: from the mid-230s in earlier years down to the low-220s in 2025, with a notably lower law-enforcement entry at 215 in 2023, illustrating that different measuring venues and possible timing differences (clothing, scale calibration, deliberate rounding) can produce divergent public numbers [4] [3] [7].
4. Sources of dispute and public skepticism
Skeptics point to photographs and side-by-side comparisons, social-media posts and historical surprises — for example, a 2018 debate when Dr. Ronny Jackson’s reported weight and an apparent “gain” in height prompted questions — to argue that publicly released figures can be misleading or inconsistent; news outlets have documented this recurring controversy and the public reaction to it [6] [4]. Media reporting also notes that BMI labels him “overweight” and that BMI itself is an imperfect yardstick, a nuance clinicians (and outlets like The Independent and Time) include when contextualizing the raw height-and-weight numbers [3].
5. Limits of the reporting and what remains unresolved
Available reporting shows clear numerical comparisons across years but cannot resolve whether differences stem from measurement error, rounding conventions, timing (clothed vs. unclothed scale), or other procedural choices because the public summaries omit methodological detail; therefore the records establish a factual pattern — consistent listed height and variable recorded weights — without allowing definitive conclusions about accuracy or motive [1] [4] [6]. Alternative viewpoints exist: White House physicians defend the exam methods and clinical conclusions, while critics highlight inconsistencies and visual comparisons that cast doubt on those numbers [8] [6].