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.
Did Donald Trump sustain any gunshot wound to the ear during his public life?
Executive summary
Contemporary reporting and later summaries say Donald Trump was wounded in the July 13, 2024, Butler, Pennsylvania rally and that the wound was to his right/upper right ear — descriptions range from “grazed” to “shot and wounded” and campaign doctors described bleeding and swelling [1] [2] [3]. Independent news outlets, fact-checkers and later official summaries repeatedly reference a bullet grazing or striking his ear, while some commentary notes a lack of a formal, detailed medical report released to the public [1] [2] [4] [5].
1. What the contemporaneous accounts say: ear struck or grazed
Multiple mainstream accounts from the time and subsequent reporting describe the assailant firing multiple rounds and one round contacting Trump’s right ear: Wikipedia’s synthesis of news reporting states the first bullet “grazed” Trump’s ear and notes disagreement in testimony about whether it was bullet or shrapnel [1]. The People and other outlets likewise report that Thomas Crooks “shot President Trump and left him with a gunshot wound to his upper right ear” [3]. The Guardian’s review likewise summarizes officials as saying one bullet grazed his ear [6].
2. Medical description from the campaign: bleeding, swelling, superficial wound
The Trump campaign released a physician’s note saying the wound was from a high‑powered rifle that came “less than a quarter of an inch from entering his head, and struck the top of his right ear,” with “initially significant bleeding” and marked swelling of the upper ear; treatment details included dressings and no sutures due to the wound’s broad and blunt nature [2]. Journalistic commentary has flagged the campaign’s description but also the absence of a full independent medical report released publicly [5].
3. Disagreement and uncertainty in public testimony and reporting
Senate testimony and agency statements reflected some inconsistency: Wikipedia’s compilation notes Federal Bureau of Investigation leaders testified with different emphases — FBI Director Wray said there was “some question” whether bullet or shrapnel hit the ear, while another FBI official said there was “never any doubt” that a bullet struck the ear [1]. That illustrates real uncertainty in official descriptions reported in the press [1].
4. Fact‑checks and misinformation battles over the ear photo
After the attack, social media circulated claims that Trump’s ear was uninjured; Deutsche Welle’s fact check concluded the claim that his ear was uninjured was demonstrably false, pointing to images of him with a bandage and blood immediately after the attack [4]. Other outlets have flagged conspiracy theories prompted by close‑up images of his ear [7]. These fact checks rely on the visible bandage and contemporaneous photos rather than a publicly released forensic medical report [4] [7].
5. Later summaries and investigations repeat the ear wound language
Later coverage — for example, reporting about other threats and probes — continued to summarize the Butler rally as having left Trump with a grazed or wounded right ear, a formulation repeated in outlets like The Guardian and in later encyclopedic entries [6] [8]. The FBI’s later public statements that the shooter acted alone also reiterated that Trump had been left with a gunshot wound to his upper right ear [3].
6. What is not answered in current reporting: the definitive forensic report
Several commentators asked publicly for an “official medical report” detailing exact trajectory, fragment versus bullet, and depth of wound; Poynter observed that no detailed official medical report had been released five days after the shooting and noted the reliance instead on campaign physician statements [5]. Available sources do not mention a single publicly released, independent forensic or surgical report that definitively answers whether the ear injury was a grazing bullet, an embedded fragment, or blunt trauma from shrapnel beyond the mixed testimony reported [5] [1].
7. How to interpret the competing claims
When sources converge — campaign doctor’s note, contemporaneous photos and multiple news organizations — they consistently say Trump sustained an injury to his right/upper ear with bleeding and subsequent swelling [2] [4]. Where sources disagree is on the precise mechanism (grazing bullet versus shrapnel), reflected in differing testimony summarized in news compilations [1]. The absence of a publicly released, detailed medical/forensic report means journalists and the public must rely on eyewitness accounts, official testimony summaries and campaign medical statements [5].
Summary judgment: reporting across major outlets and subsequent summaries uniformly describe an ear wound at the July 13, 2024 rally; descriptions vary from “grazed” to “shot and wounded,” and public sources note uncertainty about whether a bullet or shrapnel struck the ear and that no full independent medical report was released to clear that uncertainty [1] [2] [3] [5].