Are there any medical records of Trump having an ear injury?
Executive summary
The public record contains no independently verifiable, full hospital medical files proving Donald Trump suffered a specific ear wound that can be examined by journalists or the public; instead, the Trump campaign and former White House physician Ronny Jackson have issued letters and summaries asserting a gunshot graze to the right ear and describing treatment, while hospitals and treating physicians have not released the underlying records for independent review [1] [2] [3]. Independent outlets and fact-checkers have also debunked at least one purported “leaked” medical chart circulated on social media as inauthentic [4].
1. What has been released publicly: physician letters and campaign summaries
After the July 13 rally shooting, the Trump campaign published a memo and letters from Rep. Ronny Jackson asserting he reviewed records from Butler Memorial Hospital and describing the injury as a gunshot wound to the right ear with initial heavy bleeding, swelling of the upper ear, a CT scan of the head, daily wound evaluations, and healing without sutures; these campaign-provided summaries are the principal public medical statements to date [1] [2] [5] [6].
2. What has not been produced: raw hospital charts and official medical reports
Multiple news organizations reported that neither the campaign nor hospitals made full medical records, treating doctors, or an independent medical report available for public inspection, and several writers and newsrooms complained about the absence of an official, independently verifiable medical record detailing the injury and treatment [7] [8] [9]. Journalists and commentators have repeatedly noted that the campaign’s letters are summaries rather than release of original hospital documentation [7] [8].
3. Claims, context, and contested documents on social media
At least one document purporting to be a leaked medical record circulating online was investigated and found to contain clear errors and indications of fabrication—misspellings of family names and implausible entries—leading local fact-checkers to conclude the chart was not genuine [4]. That debunking underlines a broader environment in which assertions about the injury have been amplified without access to primary medical records [4] [8].
4. Legal avenues that could produce actual records
Litigation and discovery efforts may force production of medical records: the Pulitzer Board’s legal response in a defamation suit included a demand for Trump’s medical and psychological records dating back years, a request that—if upheld by courts or negotiated—could result in formal medical documentation being turned over in discovery [10] [11] [12]. Such compelled disclosure would be a different evidentiary class than voluntary campaign summaries and could allow independent verification of treatment notes and imaging referenced by campaign statements [12].
5. How to interpret the public evidence and remaining limits
Given the material available, the strongest public evidence that Trump sustained and received treatment for an ear wound consists of campaign-released letters by Ronny Jackson claiming review of hospital records and describing a gunshot graze and subsequent evaluation including CT imaging [1] [2] [5]. However, because those letters are not accompanied by the underlying hospital charts, imaging, operative notes, or independent physician statements, reporters and consumers of news cannot independently verify the details, severity, or precise clinical course from primary medical documentation [7] [8]. The reporting reviewed does not allow adjudication of unreported or private records; there is no public hospital medical file authenticated and released that can be cited as definitive proof beyond the campaign’s summaries, and some social-media “leaks” have been proven false [4].