What are the sources of the Trump ear injury allegations?

1. The campaign’s medical account: Ronny Jackson’s letter and campaign statements

The Trump campaign published a letter from former White House physician Rep. Ronny Jackson that provided the most specific description: Jackson wrote that Trump sustained a gunshot wound to the right ear from a “high‑powered rifle” that struck the top of the right ear and came “less than a quarter of an inch from entering his head,” and that the wound was roughly 2 cm wide, with swelling and intermittent bleeding requiring dressings ^{[1] [2]}. Media outlets such as PBS and Time reported and quoted those campaign-provided details while noting the campaign did not release full medical records ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Trump’s own public description and comments

Trump himself said publicly that “a bullet ‘pierced the upper part’ of his right ear” in the immediate aftermath and later rejected suggestions that the injury might have been shrapnel, insisting it was a bullet ^{[3] [4]}. Book excerpts and interviews also relay Trump describing heavy bleeding from the ear at the time of the shooting ^[5].

3. Independent reporting and admitted unknowns: media questions about official medical documentation

Several journalists and outlets have emphasized that while injury and bleeding were plainly visible in photos and video, there was no comprehensive, independent release of hospital medical records or a full official medical briefing that would provide definitive clinical detail; commentators asked why a fuller official medical report was not published ^[3]. Poynter’s analysis specifically flagged continuing questions about the exact medical findings and treatment because of the lack of an authoritative public medical report ^[3].

4. FBI statements and public disagreement over bullet vs. shrapnel

FBI Director Christopher Wray later testified with some uncertainty about whether Trump’s ear was struck by a bullet or by shrapnel or glass; that testimony prompted Trump and allies to publicly dispute the FBI’s characterization and reiterate the campaign’s claim that it was a bullet ^{[2] [4]}. Reporting notes this disagreement in official accounts — campaign letter and political statements on one side, FBI commentary suggesting some uncertainty on the other ^{[2] [4]}.

5. Photographs, bandages, and fact checks about public imagery

News agencies and fact‑checkers documented visible blood on Trump’s right ear immediately after the shooting and his later public appearances with a white gauze and then a skin‑colored bandage over the right ear ^{[6] [1]}. Fact checks also flagged manipulated clips and images circulated online — including an edited RNC clip that inaccurately put a bandage on the left ear — underscoring misinformation around the visual record ^{[6] [7]}.

6. Secondary expert commentary and private claims

A few medical commentators and allied figures provided more graphic descriptions or speculative reconstructions (for example, assertions that the bullet “tore off” part of the ear), but these come mostly from campaign allies or private commentators rather than independent hospital reports; outlets have noted Jackson’s close ties to Trump when reporting his claims ^{[8] [9]}. Time and other outlets flagged Jackson’s partisan alignment and the absence of hospital statements as relevant context ^{[2] [3]}.

7. What reporting does not settle or explicitly contradict

Available sources do not mention a comprehensive, independently released hospital medical report that confirms all campaign details; Poynter and others say specific clinical documentation has not been published ^[3]. Reuters and other fact-checkers explicitly refute certain visual claims (for instance, altered video showing a bandage on the left ear), but no provided source definitively proves or disproves every specific clinical detail beyond the campaign’s letter and visible bandages/blood in images ^{[7] [6]}.

Summary appraisal: the public record rests on (a) campaign-released medical assertions from Ronny Jackson and Trump’s own statements, (b) visual evidence of bleeding and bandages documented by news agencies and later scrutinized by fact‑checkers, and (c) an official investigative voice (the FBI) that at times expressed uncertainty about whether the injury was caused by a bullet or by shrapnel — a disagreement that Trump and allies publicly contested ^{[1] [2] [7] [4]}.