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.
Was trump really shot in the ear
Executive summary
Multiple contemporaneous news reports, official descriptions from the Trump campaign and later investigations all state that a bullet grazed or nicked Donald Trump’s right/upper right ear during a July 13, 2024, rally in Butler, Pennsylvania — producing bleeding, swelling and a visible bandage at later events [1] [2] [3]. Fact‑checks and photo archives counter the online claim that “nothing happened” by showing numerous photos of blood and bandages and by identifying images circulated as misleading [4] [3].
1. The core fact: reporters and authorities say a bullet grazed his ear
Major contemporaneous accounts summarize the same central event: an attacker fired multiple rounds from a rooftop; one round grazed Trump’s upper right ear, causing bleeding and a wound the campaign later described as a roughly 2 cm track to the cartilage that swelled and required dressings [1] [2]. News outlets and timeline reconstructions document Secret Service activity, casualties in the crowd and that the shooter was killed at the scene [1] [5].
2. Medical description and campaign narrative — what was claimed
The Trump campaign’s medical summary released after the rally described a bullet track that “produced a 2 cm wide wound that extended down to the cartilaginous surface of the ear,” initial significant bleeding and marked swelling, with healing that later required dressings visible at public events [2]. Trump himself and campaign posts repeatedly described being “shot” in the ear [1] [2].
3. Visual evidence: photos and bandages contradict denials online
Fact‑checkers and news photo archives show numerous images from the rally and subsequent public appearances with blood or a white/sometimes skin‑colored bandage on Trump’s right ear; those images undermined social posts claiming he had “nothing wrong” [3] [4]. The AP identified at least one old photo that was recycled online to claim “no injury,” noting the reused image was from 2022 and not from after the Butler shooting [3].
4. Why conspiracies arose — the misinformation dynamics
Observers and fact‑checkers flagged fast‑spreading social posts that cherry‑picked old images or misdated pictures to argue Trump was never injured; outlets such as DW and AP documented that a “no injury” claim often relied on an unrelated 2022 photo and ignored the many images showing blood and bandages [4] [3]. The presence of later close‑ups or healed skin also fed doubts among skeptics, a common pattern after high‑profile violent incidents.
5. Independent reviews and lingering questions about security and timeline
PBS and other outlets later examined Secret Service procedures and gaps that allowed the rooftop shooter to act; those reviews do not dispute that Trump was grazed but focus on operational failings, information silos and reforms the agency undertook after the attempt [5]. Investigations and reporting also document how quickly the scene unfolded and how agents and local officers responded [5].
6. Long‑term corroboration: follow‑up reporting and appearances
Follow‑up journalism and interviews—including profiles and later appearances where Trump showed a scar or a bandage—reinforced the account that he had been struck near the ear [6] [7]. Subsequent reporting on the shooter, court filings and trial coverage likewise treat the ear graze as an established fact in the chronology [8].
7. What the available sources do not say or resolve
Available sources do not mention any credible medical record publicly released that allows independent reviewers to fully adjudicate the internal wound details beyond the campaign’s description [2]. Sources do not present a competing official forensic conclusion disputing the campaign and press accounts; instead, fact‑checks target misleading social images rather than the underlying core narrative [4] [3].
8. Bottom line for readers: credible reporting supports that he was hit, despite online claims
Contemporaneous reporting, campaign medical statements, photo evidence and later reporting all consistently report that a bullet grazed or nicked Trump’s right/upper right ear at the Butler rally, producing bleeding, swelling and dressings — while social media claims that “nothing happened” relied on misdated images and selective framing [1] [2] [3] [4]. Journalistic and investigative coverage has focused subsequent attention on security failures rather than disputing the basic fact of the ear injury [5].
If you want, I can assemble a timeline of the day’s events drawn only from these sources or collect the specific photo captions and dates that fact‑checkers used to rebut the “no injury” posts.