Which ear was hit by an assassination attempt in butler PA
Executive summary
Media accounts and official updates consistently report that during the July 13, 2024 assassination attempt at a rally near Butler, Pennsylvania, the shot struck former President Donald Trump in or grazed his right ear; multiple outlets say the bullet pierced or grazed the right ear [1] [2] [3]. Investigations and later reports focused on security failures and the fact the shooter fired from outside the secured perimeter; Senate and press reviews documented “preventable failures” in Secret Service planning [4] [5].
1. The short answer: which ear was hit?
Contemporary reporting and widely cited summaries state the wound was to Trump’s right ear — described variously as “pierced,” “grazed,” or “pierced the upper part of my right ear” in immediate statements and later reviews [1] [2] [3]. Local and national outlets, including PBS, Fox affiliates and retrospective pieces, uniformly identify the right ear as the location of the injury [2] [3] [6].
2. How the reports describe the injury
Accounts differ slightly in wording: some say a bullet “pierced the upper part of my right ear” (a quoted line appearing in reporting summaries) while many news stories and official-leaning summaries use “grazed” or “clipped” when characterizing the wound [1] [2] [7]. Time’s detailed narrative emphasized that a “slight turn of his head” redirected the projectile into the ear instead of a more lethal trajectory [8]. These variations reflect both immediate quotes and subsequent medical or editorial shorthand in coverage [1] [8].
3. What investigators and oversight reports focused on instead
Investigations and oversight were dominated not by the precise wound terminology but by security planning failures that allowed the shooter to fire eight shots from a rooftop outside the secured perimeter. A Senate committee report and press summaries described “preventable failures,” denials of resource requests to the Secret Service, and suspensions of agents after the incident [4] [9]. Those institutional findings have driven most congressional and media attention more than forensic nuance about the ear wound [4].
4. Discrepancies and why they matter
Different sources use synonyms—“grazed,” “pierced,” “clipped,” “wounded”—which can give readers different impressions of severity. Some outlet excerpts reproduce direct quotes saying the bullet “pierced the upper part of my right ear,” while AP-style reporting and many local outlets opted for “grazed” or “clipped” in headlines and ledes [1] [9] [3]. The variance matters politically and narratively: words like “pierced” imply penetration and a more serious wound, while “grazed” suggests a less severe contact. Available sources do not include a medical report in the materials provided here to definitively resolve the semantic difference [10].
5. Competing perspectives in coverage
Mainstream outlets and subsequent oversight documents emphasize the security lapse and the factual location of the wound (right ear) while pro- and anti-government commentators and some opinion pieces amplify uncertainty, framing unanswered questions about motive, evidence, or official transparency [4] [11] [7]. For example, investigative reporting and official briefings concentrated on what went wrong operationally [4], whereas commentators on partisan sites demanded more disclosure or alleged cover-ups [11] [7].
6. What is known about the shooter and aftermath relevant to the wound
Reporting identifies the shooter as Thomas Matthew Crooks (also cited in many pieces as Michael Thomas Crooks), who fired eight rounds from an AR-15–style rifle and was killed by Secret Service counter-snipers; one attendee died and two others were wounded at the scene [1] [12] [13]. Subsequent FBI and congressional activity concentrated on classifying the attack, security breakdowns, and reforms; those documents reiterate that the shot that struck Trump was to his right ear [10] [4].
7. Limitations and what the sources do not say
Available sources in this set do not produce an unambiguous, contemporaneous medical report describing wound depth, trajectory, or exact clinical characterization beyond media phrasing [1] [10]. If you are seeking an official medical record or the forensic details that would settle “pierced” versus “grazed” beyond journalistic descriptions, those documents are not included in the provided reporting (not found in current reporting).
8. Bottom line for readers
All major contemporaneous reports and later reviews cited here identify the right ear as the location of the injury; the remaining question is semantic (grazed vs. pierced) and sits with medical/forensic records not present in these sources [1] [2] [3]. Oversight and investigative narratives consistently shift the focus away from that wording to larger security failures that allowed the attack to occur [4].