Are there credible reports or photos showing Trump's ear injury or lack thereof?
Executive summary
Multiple reputable news agencies documented that former President Trump sustained a wound to his right ear in the July 2024 assassination attempt and published photos showing him with a bandage and bloodied ear soon afterward, while viral social posts claiming recent photos show “no damage” have been debunked as using older images; the weight of credible reporting supports that an ear wound occurred and that circulated “no injury” photos were miscaptioned or dated [1][2][3][4].
1. What the authoritative reporting says about an ear injury
Mainstream outlets reporting from the days after the shooting described a visible wound and medical treatment: Axios published a memo from Rep. Ronny Jackson saying Trump had a roughly 2 cm wound in his right ear and detailing bleeding and swelling after the attack [5], Time reported Jackson’s account and noted the campaign’s limited public medical disclosures while citing FBI comment that left questions about details [4], and multiple agency photos from the convention showed Trump wearing a bandage on his right ear, which fact-checkers pointed to as contemporaneous visual evidence of an injury [3].
2. Why claims that “photos show no injury” are unreliable
Fact-checking agencies traced viral posts that claimed a recent photo showed “no damage” to the ear and found those images were old or misdated: The Associated Press found an image being circulated as if taken after the shooting was actually from 2022 and was being used to argue falsely that Trump was uninjured [1], and Reuters likewise identified a widely shared photo as a 2022 rally picture miscaptioned as new and therefore not evidence against the documented injury [2].
3. What the contemporaneous photographs actually show
Verified news-agency photos from Trump’s first public appearances after the attack show him with a dressing or bandage over the right ear and visible discoloration or wound in some shots; Deutsche Welle’s later fact-check noted “numerous agency photos” showing a bandage at the Republican National Convention and used those images to rebut the “nothing wrong” claim [3], supporting the narrative that there was an observable injury at the time.
4. Medical and official accounts — agreement and limits
Medical description from Jackson — a former White House physician turned congressional ally of Trump — asserted a specific bullet-related wound and described bleeding, swelling and healing progression, and his memo was widely reported by outlets including Time and Axios [4][5]; however, news organizations also reported that the campaign did not release full medical records and that federal investigators (FBI) and some officials raised questions about elements of the public account, meaning independent confirmation beyond the physician’s memo and photos has limitations in the public record [4].
5. Misinformation dynamics and how to judge photos going forward
Fact-checkers repeatedly demonstrated how images taken earlier can be recycled to deny an injury — AP and Reuters both documented the same pattern of an old photo used to claim “no damage” [1][2] — and media outlets have urged caution: visual assessment of ears can be affected by angle, lighting, makeup or dressing, and authoritative confirmation rests on contemporaneous agency photography and medical statements rather than isolated social posts [3][4]. Where disputes persist, the record shows credible contemporaneous photos and a physician’s memo describing an ear wound, while viral “no injury” images have been debunked as misdated or miscaptioned [1][2][3].