Which medical records or photographs of Trump's ear injury have been made public and what do they show?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Only limited, selectively authored materials about Donald Trump’s July 2024 ear injury have been made public: a campaign-distributed letter from Rep. Ronny Jackson describing a grazing gunshot and treatment, a series of photographs and social‑media images (some of which were misdated and debunked), and commentary from outside physicians who have examined published images — but no hospital medical records, formal clinician briefings or independent redacted medical reports have been released [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What the campaign released: a physician’s letter and a summary of treatment
The most detailed official account the public has seen is a signed memo from Rep. Ronny Jackson, distributed by the campaign, asserting that the wound was a roughly 2 cm gunshot grazed across the top of Trump’s right ear from a high‑powered rifle, that it came “less than a quarter of an inch from entering his head,” that he was evaluated with a CT of the head, and that no sutures were required because of the wound’s “broad and blunt” nature [5] [1]. The campaign also described on‑site and hospital care, and Jackson said he evaluated and treated the wound daily, but the campaign did not produce hospital records or make the treating hospital’s clinicians available for independent questioning [5] [2].
2. What the FBI and other official statements contributed
Public statements from federal law enforcement and brief campaign comments acknowledged an injury and subsequent medical evaluation, but the reporting shows the FBI’s public statement did not substitute for medical records and that the campaign declined to release the hospital’s treatment notes or convene a medical briefing — leaving key clinical details unverified by independent medical documents [2] [1].
3. Photographs: what exists, what was verified, and what was misrepresented
Numerous photographs circulated showing Trump with blood and later with a bandage over his right ear; reputable fact‑checks found several viral images presented as post‑injury evidence were actually older photos from 2022 and were miscaptioned (Reuters and AP fact checks) [6] [7] [8]. Images showing a bandaged ear at public events were confirmed as contemporary, but the provenance and date of many social posts claiming “no injury” or claiming an uninjured ear were debunked by news agencies [6] [7].
4. Independent visual assessments and their limits
Plastic surgeons and other physicians who reviewed public photos have offered assessments suggesting the ear has largely healed with minor contour changes — notes of “bumpiness” at the ear’s edge and a slight depression where the rim meets the face, and speculation that makeup or conservative healing (not necessarily reconstructive surgery) could explain the appearance — but those judgments are based on photographs, not on clinical examination or operative notes [9]. Such image‑based analysis cannot confirm internal injury, the exact wound track, or what diagnostics (like CT findings) actually showed.
5. What has not been produced and why that matters
No hospital medical records, operative reports, diagnostic imaging files, or a contemporaneous treating‑physician press conference have been released to the public, and news outlets explicitly note the campaign’s refusal to disclose those records, leaving open questions about the precise anatomic injury, any intracranial risk evaluation, and the rationale for clinical decisions such as withholding sutures [4] [3] [2]. Separately, litigation and discovery efforts could force broader disclosure in the future — legal filings have sought full medical records in other cases involving the former president, indicating a possible avenue for obtaining official documents, but as of the reporting provided those records remain private [10].
6. Competing narratives and implicit agendas
The available public materials reflect competing priorities: the campaign’s need to control messaging and present rapid recovery, fact‑checkers’ efforts to counter misinformation about images, and independent commentators’ attempts to interpret scarce visual evidence — each party brings incentives that shape the public record [1] [6] [9]. Journalistic calls for a formal medical report have framed the absence of clinical documentation as a transparency issue for a major political candidate, while supporters frame Jackson’s memo and circulated photos as sufficient reassurance [3] [4].
Exact clinical confirmation of tissue damage, imaging findings, or the full course of hospital care cannot be stated from the public record because no hospital records or treating‑physician reports have been produced; assessments therefore rest on the Jackson memo, visible photographs (some misattributed), and expert read‑outs of images rather than on primary medical documentation [1] [6] [9].