Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Have photographs or videos been used to suggest Trump had an ear injury — what do experts say?
Executive summary
Photographs and videos have been central to disputes over whether Donald Trump’s right ear was injured in the July 13, 2024 assassination attempt; agency photos and campaign statements document a bandage and bleeding at the time, while later close-up images showing minimal visible scarring have fueled skepticism and conspiracy claims [1] [2]. Medical commentators who examined later photos often said the ear appeared to have healed well and that minor irregularities could reflect scar tissue or skin grafting, but authoritative public medical records remain limited and news outlets have repeatedly noted unanswered questions about the exact medical details [3] [4].
1. Photos and video from the shooting show bleeding and a bandage — the campaign’s account matches those images
Immediate footage and photographic coverage of the Butler, Pennsylvania rally captured Trump wincing, blood on his face, and subsequent appearances with gauze and a skin‑colored bandage on his right ear; campaign physician Ronny Jackson described a gunshot wound that “struck the top of his right ear” and “came less than a quarter of an inch from entering his head,” which aligns with the visible post‑shooting dressings [1] [5].
2. Later close-ups without obvious damage prompted online claims that ‘nothing happened’
In the months and year after the attack, circulating close‑up photos showing little or no obvious deformity in the ear produced viral posts claiming “there is absolutely nothing wrong” and arguing the injury was faked; fact‑checkers and news organizations documented that some of these viral images were older or taken under different lighting and that other contemporaneous agency photos do show the bandage and earlier swelling [2].
3. Plastic surgeons and medical commentators evaluated later pictures and generally found healed changes, not absence of injury
Private plastic‑surgery commentary published in non‑mainstream outlets described subtle bumps, a slight depression and changes in texture on the upper right ear and suggested the ear healed without major reconstructive surgery, with the possibility makeup or minor grafting could conceal some signs — an assessment that treats the later photos as consistent with a healed wound rather than proof no injury occurred [3].
4. Journalists and media critics note a lack of comprehensive public medical documentation
Multiple reporters and commentary pieces pointed out that while the sequence of images and campaign statements establish Trump was injured and treated, there was no full official medical report released to the public detailing imaging or operative notes; this gap helped fuel speculation and allowed both doubters and defenders to lean on selected photos or physician memos [4].
5. Misinformation dynamics: selective images + timing drive contrasting narratives
The controversy shows a common pattern: early images showing blood and bandages establish an injury; later images showing minimal visible scarring are cited as proof the initial reports were false. Fact‑checkers found circulating “no damage” claims often relied on older or differently timed photographs, while supporters point to the immediate post‑shooting images and campaign physician statements as confirmation that an ear wound occurred [2] [1].
6. What experts actually say and where sources disagree
Plastic‑surgery commentary viewing later photos concluded the ear “healed well” with some residual irregularities and possible skin‑color changes that could reflect grafting or conservative healing [3]. The campaign physician’s memo emphasized significant initial bleeding and swelling with ongoing healing that required dressings for a time [5]. Independent journalists have stressed the absence of a full public medical account, leaving room for competing interpretations of the photographic record [4].
7. How to interpret photographic evidence responsibly
Photographs and video are powerful but limited medical evidence: lighting, angle, timing, makeup, and healing can dramatically alter what is visible. The most reliable public facts are the contemporaneous images showing bleeding and bandages and the campaign physician’s description of a wound; later photos that suggest little scarring are compatible with a well‑healed, superficially grazed ear but do not, on their own, prove or disprove the clinical details that only medical records or imaging could confirm [1] [2] [3] [4].
8. Bottom line for readers
Available reporting establishes that Trump showed bleeding and wore bandages after the July 2024 shooting and that his team described a gunshot wound to the upper right ear [1] [5]. Later photographs showing minimal visible scarring have been used to cast doubt, but expert photo‑based commentary and fact‑checking conclude the later appearance can be consistent with healing — while noting that the lack of a full, public medical dossier has left unresolved details that fuel competing narratives [3] [2] [4].