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.
Fact check: Are there any photos or videos that show Trump with an ear injury?
Executive Summary
A range of photographs and videos from July 2024 through September 2025 provide multiple visual records that show Donald Trump reacting to gunfire at a campaign rally and displaying evidence consistent with a wound to his right ear; some images show him clutching or bandaging his ear and at least one shows blood on his face [1] [2] [3]. Media organizations and later official statements debated details of trajectory and whether the injury was a graze, shrapnel, or a direct bullet hit, while altered and misattributed images circulated online prompting fact-checks [4] [5] [6].
1. Visual evidence that sparked the question — dramatic rally images and video
Photographers captured images and video of the moment gunfire erupted at a July 2024 rally, and several widely published frames show Trump reacting visibly — raising a hand to his right ear, appearing distressed, and in later frames exhibiting blood on his face and a bandage in press photos [1] [7]. News agencies compiled frame-by-frame sequences and raw rally footage showing the immediate chaos; those sequences do not uniformly depict the same angle or level of injury, but multiple independent outlets reported and published images interpreted as showing an ear injury, which became central evidence in later reporting and analysis [1] [7].
2. Independent photographic confirmation — mainstream wire services and timing
Wire services including Reuters and the Associated Press published photos taken at the scene that show Trump clutching his right ear and appearing with blood on his face shortly after the shooting, and those images were distributed worldwide, establishing contemporaneous visual documentation of an injury [1] [3]. Subsequent photo releases and timelines reiterated that these images were taken in the immediate aftermath, and fact-checkers flagged that earlier, unrelated photos were sometimes reused or miscaptioned to dispute the injury, underscoring the importance of timing and original metadata in vetting claims [6] [3].
3. Medical/forensic questions — graze versus direct hit and trajectory analysis
Journalistic and forensic analysis published in the weeks after the attack assessed the ballistic trajectory and damage, with some outlets concluding the president was grazed or struck by shrapnel while others described a near-miss where a bullet passed near or entered the ear area; the New York Times published detailed trajectory reconstructions that supported a grazing/entrance near the ear, prompting debate over the precise mechanism of injury [4]. These technical analyses relied on video frame timing, witness reports, and photo evidence; differences in interpretation reflect varying assumptions about muzzle position and ricochet or fragmentation, not contradictions about the existence of visible injury [4] [5].
4. Fact-checking and debunked alterations — edited images muddying the record
Multiple fact-checks identified manipulated content circulating online, including an altered RNC video that flipped or changed imagery to show a bandaged left ear, a clear edit intended to mislead observers about which ear was injured; Reuters debunked that particular alteration and clarified that authentic press photos showed a bandage on the right ear [3]. The Associated Press also traced photographs misattributed to the incident back to earlier, unrelated events, demonstrating how recycled or edited images were used to dispute the contemporaneous record and drive confusion [6] [3].
5. Official and political narratives — competing emphases and public messaging
Officials and principal actors gave divergent public statements about the wound’s nature and cause: campaign representatives and Trump emphasized that a bullet struck his ear, while some federal officials and analysts expressed uncertainty about whether it was bullet, shrapnel, or graze, leading to public back-and-forth that focused as much on credibility and political fallout as on medical facts [5] [2]. These differing emphases shaped how media and social platforms amplified images and statements, with partisan outlets sometimes foregrounding photos that best supported their narrative and downplaying clarifying fact-checks [5] [2].
6. The state of the evidence as of the latest reporting — converging proof but contested detail
By late 2025, the visual record had grown to include multiple independent images and video frames showing Trump clutching or bandaged at his right ear and exhibiting blood, with later reporting summarizing that he was struck in the ear region though specifics — grazing versus penetration — remained subject to forensic interpretation [2] [4] [1]. Fact-checkers continue to flag altered or misattributed content; the consensus from contemporaneous photojournalism is that images exist depicting an ear injury, while technical disagreements persist about the bullet’s path and the exact tissue damage [3] [4].
7. What to watch — transparency, forensic release, and misinformation risks
Future clarity depends on release of full forensic reports, medical summaries, and unedited high-frame-rate video from multiple vantage points; until such releases are public, discussions will rely on published photos and reconstructions that strongly indicate a right-ear injury but leave room for expert debate on mechanism. Consumers should weigh contemporaneous wire photos and reputable forensic analyses more heavily than recycled or edited clips, and remain alert to partisan edits that reuse older images to cast doubt on verified visual documentation [3] [6] [4].