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.
Are there verified photos or videos showing Donald Trump's ear injury?
Executive summary
Photos and videos from the immediate aftermath of the July 13, 2024 assassination attempt do show Donald Trump bleeding and later wearing a bandage on his right ear; campaign and media releases, eyewitness images at the Republican National Convention, and reporting by TIME and BBC confirm a gunshot graze and visible dressing [1] [2] [3]. Debates and conspiracy threads persist because later close-up images and selective reuse of older photos have been used to claim there was “nothing wrong,” and outlets such as DW have debunked a viral post that used an old, unrelated photo to deny the injury [4].
1. What the contemporaneous photos and footage show
In the moments after shots were fired at the Butler, Pennsylvania rally, multiple news outlets captured Trump with blood on and around his right ear and face; later public appearances and convention footage show him with a large bandage over the right ear, which reporters noted was clearly visible on stage [3] [1]. Media organizations published those images in real time, and TIME’s timeline documents the immediate bleeding, treatment and subsequent appearances where a dressing was seen [1].
2. Official and campaign accounts about the injury
The Trump campaign released a medical summary from Rep. Ronny Jackson stating the wound was a gunshot graze to the right ear—described as about 2 cm wide and from a high-powered rifle—and said the wound began to granulate and heal while intermittent bleeding required continued dressing use [1] [2]. TIME and MedPage Today reported the campaign memo and the physician’s description as the most detailed public account the campaign supplied in the weeks after the shooting [1] [2].
3. Why some people say there are “no photos” of an injury
Misinformation spread when social users posted an old Reuters file photo from 2022 (showing Trump without a bandage) as if it were a current image, leading some audiences to conclude incorrectly that no injury ever existed; DW’s fact check explicitly calls that claim “demonstrably false” and shows the old photo had been recycled inappropriately [4]. Later close-up images showing little visible scarring have also fueled skepticism despite earlier photos and video evidence of bleeding and bandages [4] [5].
4. What independent medical commentary and later pictures say about the scar
Plastic surgeons and media pieces assessing later close-ups reported that the ear healed and, from a distance, shows little obvious deformity—one surgeon described minor bumpiness and slight depression where the injury occurred but said overall healing looked good without surgery [6]. Popular outlets also ran stories noting that later images with little visible scarring intensified public debate about the extent of the wound [5] [6].
5. Gaps in public documentation and why debates continue
Critics and media-watchers have noted the absence of a full, contemporaneous official medical report released to the public detailing imaging or operative findings; Poynter pointed out that days after the shooting there was no comprehensive public briefing or release of medical records, which left space for questions and conspiracy theories to grow [7]. Reuters’ later reporting about White House medical transparency on other matters underscores how the availability—or absence—of formal medical disclosures shapes public trust [8].
6. How to interpret competing claims and visual evidence
Available reporting shows three consistent facts: [9] real-time photos and video captured bleeding and bandaging of the right ear; [10] the campaign released a physician’s letter calling the injury a gunshot graze and describing care; [11] later images and expert comment indicate the wound healed with modest residual change, which from some angles can look minimal—giving fodder to both confirmation and denial narratives [1] [2] [6] [4]. Where sources disagree is largely about whether later photos mean the initial injury was overstated; DW explicitly refutes claims that there was “nothing wrong” by showing recycled imagery was used to mislead [4].
Limitations and final note
This summary uses only the documents provided. Available sources do not mention full, contemporaneous hospital records being released to independent media for verification (not found in current reporting). The photographic record immediately after the attack and the campaign’s physician memo together establish that photos and videos of bleeding and of a bandaged ear exist; disputes largely arise when old images are repurposed or when healed close-ups are presented without that context [1] [2] [4].