Trump's ear injury fast recovery
Executive summary
Medical accounts from Trump’s campaign and reporting say a bullet grazed or pierced the upper part of his right ear, caused a roughly two-centimeter wound with heavy bleeding and swelling, and required no sutures; campaign physician Ronny Jackson reported CT imaging and follow-up care were done [1] [2] [3]. Photographs and expert commentary through 2024–2025 show a healed ear with some irregularity; plastic-surgeon commentary suggested no major reconstructive surgery and that topical concealment or natural healing likely produced the final appearance [4] [5].
1. What the campaign and medical notes say — immediate treatment and prognosis
The Trump campaign released a memo from Rep. Ronny Jackson saying the bullet “struck the top of his right ear,” produced significant bleeding and swelling, and was evaluated with a CT of the head; Jackson wrote that “no sutures were required” and that Trump would have follow-ups including hearing tests as needed [1] [3]. Independent news outlets summarized that the wound measured about two centimeters and that clinicians reported swelling that later resolved as the wound granulated and healed [2] [3].
2. Visual record and timeline — bandage, RNC appearance, and removal
After the July 13, 2024 shooting, Trump appeared publicly with a white gauze dressing and subsequently with a skin-colored bandage at the RNC; he later said he removed “the last bandage” at a July event, indicating a visible progression from acute dressing to healed skin over weeks [1] [6]. Media and fact-checkers also documented altered social clips and misleading images circulating about which ear was bandaged, underscoring that the public visual record was manipulated at times [7].
3. Expert reads on likely treatment — surgery, grafting or natural healing?
A board-certified plastic surgeon assessing photos a year later concluded the ear looked well healed without obvious signs of major reconstruction, noting subtle bumpiness and slight depressions that could reflect either healed tissue or local flap/graft work but expressing skepticism that major reconstructive surgery was performed [4]. Medical reporting similarly noted clinicians characterized the wound as a broad, blunt injury that did not require stitches, consistent with management by observation, dressing changes and possible minor outpatient procedures rather than extensive reconstruction [3] [2].
4. Prognosis and historical context — why the ear can heal comparatively well
Commentary in outlets like The New Yorker placed the injury in historical perspective, noting that ears bleed heavily but can tolerate partial loss and still yield an acceptable cosmetic result—Evander Holyfield’s post‑trauma appearance was cited as an analogue—so a high‑energy but superficial trajectory that spares deeper structures can leave a person functionally and cosmetically recovered [5]. Specialists quoted in reporting recommended follow-up for hearing and psychological evaluation, noting that even “minor” injuries with intent raise post‑traumatic stress considerations [1].
5. Misinformation and contested narratives — what claims circulated and how reporting responded
Social posts claimed Trump’s ear was “uninjured” using older photos; fact‑checks found those specific images were not contemporaneous and labeled claims that he had “zero damage” as demonstrably false [8]. Separately, edited videos circulated that flipped which ear was bandaged; Reuters’ fact check traced that to manipulation rather than a genuine error by the campaign [7]. These examples show both minimization and misdirection circulated online and various outlets corrected or contextualized the record.
6. What available sources do not mention or confirm
Available sources do not mention any official surgical operative report or hospital discharge summary that documents reconstructive surgery, nor do they provide audiology test results in the public record; the plastic‑surgeon commentary is based on photographic assessment rather than direct surgical notes [4] [3]. Claims about long‑term sensory deficits or formal reconstructive procedures are not documented in the cited reporting.
7. Bottom line for readers
Contemporary campaign medical statements and mainstream reporting consistently describe a grazing gunshot to the top of the right ear that bled and swollen but was treated without sutures and healed visibly over weeks; independent photographic analysis and expert commentary suggest the ear’s appearance is consistent with good healing and no publicly documented major reconstruction [1] [2] [4]. Watch for two categories of distortion in the record: images/videos altered to mislead [7] and social posts using out‑of‑date photos to claim “no injury” [8].