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.
Has Trump's medical team released statements or images about the ear injury and its severity?
Executive summary
Trump’s campaign and allies have publicly described the ear injury as a gunshot graze to the upper right ear and have released a physician’s letter and campaign statements asserting it was “less than a quarter of an inch from entering his head” and a roughly 2 cm wound; the campaign said no sutures were required and that imaging (a CT) was done [1] [2] [3]. Independent agencies and news outlets note the campaign shared a letter from Rep. Ronny Jackson and that the FBI later confirmed a bullet struck the ear — but many mainstream outlets also report limited official medical records and few independent clinical images have been released [1] [4] [3].
1. What the campaign’s medical statements say — and who issued them
The principal medical account publicized after the July 13, 2024 rally came in a letter from former White House physician Rep. Ronny Jackson, whom the campaign circulated; Jackson stated Trump sustained a gunshot wound to the right ear from a “high-powered rifle” that struck the top of the ear and came “less than a quarter of an inch from entering his head,” described a 2 cm wound, said swelling resolved and healing had begun, and reported a CT of the head was performed; Jackson also said no sutures were required [1] [2] [3].
2. Images and photos the campaign made available — what’s public and what’s not
Publicly available photographic coverage shows Trump wearing a visible bandage on his right ear in the days after the shooting and at the Republican National Convention; outlets reproduced agency photos of that bandage [5] [6]. Beyond those images of a bandaged ear, the campaign did not release detailed clinical photos or full medical records in mainstream coverage cited here; reporting notes an absence of a comprehensive hospital or forensic medical briefing in the immediate aftermath [5] [3].
3. Independent confirmation and agency statements
The FBI issued a statement confirming that a bullet struck Trump’s ear during the assassination attempt, a disclosure reporters cited alongside the campaign’s letter [4]. News outlets such as TIME and PBS analyzed the limited public materials and flagged that while the campaign’s letter offers specifics, independent clinical documentation publicly released by the treating hospital or a formal medical report remains limited in the reporting sampled here [1] [3].
4. Medical detail, treatment claims, and expert commentary in coverage
Jackson’s memo reported initial heavy bleeding, subsequent swelling that later resolved, granulation and healing, intermittent bleeding requiring dressing, and no need for sutures; outlets repeated these details while noting Jackson’s background and the campaign’s control of information [1] [2] [3]. Separate pieces later quoted plastic-surgery commentary about healed appearance and possible scar tissue or minor contour differences, but those are assessments based on photos rather than released hospital records [7] [8].
5. Misinformation, photo disputes, and public debate
Social media posts circulated images claimed to show “nothing wrong” with Trump’s ear; fact-checkers traced some of those images to older photos and contrasted them with agency images showing a bandage after the shooting, concluding the viral “nothing wrong” claims were misleading when they used out-of-date pictures [6]. Tabloid and commentary pieces also amplified conspiracy theories about whether any injury occurred or whether surgery took place; mainstream outlets and fact-checkers cited the campaign’s letter and FBI statement as anchors that a bullet struck the ear [6] [4].
6. What reporting does not show (limitations in available sources)
Available sources do not mention the release of full hospital medical records, operative reports, or unredacted clinical photographs by the campaign or the treating hospital; they show only the campaign’s physician letter, agency photos of a bandage, media interviews, and subsequent commentary/analysis [1] [3] [6]. Likewise, independent peer-reviewed clinical assessment or an officially released forensic radiology report is not found in the current reporting [1] [4].
7. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
The campaign and allies (including Jackson) presented a detailed, campaign-controlled medical narrative emphasizing limited injury and recovery; some news outlets accepted those details while noting the lack of independent hospital disclosures [1] [3]. Critics and some social-media actors pushed images and claims minimizing visible damage or alleging concealment; fact-checkers and the FBI statement pushed back on some of that minimization by confirming a bullet strike [6] [4]. Readers should note the campaign’s clear incentive to portray the injury as survivable and not campaign-halting, and oppositional social accounts have incentives to either magnify or deny aspects for political effect [1] [6].
Bottom line: The Trump campaign released a physician’s letter and showed photos of a bandaged ear; the FBI later confirmed a bullet struck the ear, but full clinical records and unedited medical images have not been publicly released in the reporting cited here [1] [4] [3].