What did the official medical letter say about Trump’s ear injury after the July 13, 2024 shooting?

Checked on January 29, 2026
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

The “official” medical letter shared by the Trump campaign was a signed memo from Rep. Ronny Jackson that described a gunshot grazing of former President Trump’s right ear, saying the bullet track produced a roughly 2-centimeter-wide wound that extended to the cartilaginous surface of the ear and came “less than a quarter of an inch from entering his head” [1] [2]. Jackson’s letter said the ear suffered significant bleeding and marked swelling that has largely resolved, that the wound is “beginning to granulate and heal properly,” that intermittent bleeding continues requiring a dressing, and that no sutures were needed because the wound was broad and blunt [3] [4] [5].

1. The source and character of the letter: a campaign release by Trump’s former physician

The document widely described as the medical update was released by the Trump campaign and authored and signed by Rep. Ronny Jackson, who served as White House physician and has publicly stated he has been evaluating and treating Trump’s ear daily since the July 13 shooting; news organizations treated that memo as the primary account of Trump’s injury in the absence of a fuller hospital report [1] [2] [6].

2. What the letter said about the wound’s size, depth and proximity to the skull

Jackson’s letter explicitly described the injury as a bullet track that “produced a 2 (centimeter) wide wound that extended down to the cartilaginous surface of the ear” and said the bullet struck the top of Trump’s right ear after passing “less than a quarter of an inch from entering his head,” language repeated across Reuters, PBS and local reporting [1] [7] [2].

3. Hemorrhage, swelling, treatment and healing status as described in the memo

According to Jackson’s note, the injury produced “significant bleeding” and “marked swelling” of the upper ear initially, though the swelling had resolved by the time of the update; the wound was reported to be granulating and healing, but with intermittent bleeding that required continued dressing and occasional dressing changes, and Jackson wrote that because the wound was broad and blunt, sutures were not required [3] [4] [5].

4. Supplementary clinical steps and follow-up recommended in the letter

The memo said Trump received initial evaluation and treatment at Butler Memorial Hospital, including a CT scan of the head to check for other injuries, and that Jackson recommended continued monitoring including the possibility of a hearing exam given the location of the injury [2] [8] [1].

5. Limits, context and competing claims about the letter’s authority

While outlets treated Jackson’s memo as the most detailed public medical update available, journalists and watchdogs noted that it was a campaign-released letter rather than a full hospital record or independent medical briefing, and critics pointed to Jackson’s political role and past professional controversies as relevant context when evaluating the note’s provenance; independent fact-checkers also debunked viral claims that Trump “lost his whole ear” or that convention video showed the wrong ear bandaged, noting photos and video consistent with a grazed right ear and that Jackson did not say the ear was entirely detached [9] [10] [11].

6. What remains unverified or outside the letter’s scope

The campaign letter does not include full hospital records, operative notes or imaging studies for independent review, and reporting at the time stressed that no broader, hospital-released medical file or physician press conference had been published to corroborate every clinical detail beyond Jackson’s signed update [6] [4].

Want to dive deeper?
What did the Butler Memorial Hospital records (if released) show about Trump’s injuries and imaging?
How have medical ethics experts assessed politicians’ campaign-issued medical letters versus full medical records?
What subsequent medical updates or exams (e.g., audiology) were publicly reported after the July 20 letter?