What do hospital and campaign medical records say about the precise nature of Trump’s ear wound?
Executive summary
Hospital treatment notes and a campaign-released letter by Rep. Ronny Jackson describe the injury as a 2-centimeter-wide wound to the upper right ear that extended to the ear’s cartilaginous surface, with significant initial bleeding, marked swelling that later resolved, ongoing granulation and intermittent bleeding, and no sutures required; the campaign attributed the injury to a bullet from a high‑powered rifle that came “less than a quarter of an inch from entering his head” before striking the top of the ear [1] [2] [3]. Independent hospital medical records and a formal hospital physician briefing have not been released to the public, leaving the Jackson letter and campaign statements as the primary sources for clinical details [4] [5].
1. What the campaign’s medical statement asserts
The document and public comments circulated by the campaign—chiefly a letter attributed to Rep. Ronny Jackson describing his daily evaluations—state that the wound measured about 2 cm, reached down to the cartilage of the ear, caused heavy bleeding and marked swelling of the entire upper ear which later subsided, and is “beginning to granulate and heal properly,” though intermittent bleeding has persisted and a dressing has been required; Jackson also stated that because of the wound’s “broad and blunt nature,” sutures were not needed [1] [2] [6]. The campaign’s narrative further characterizes the projectile as a bullet from a high‑powered rifle that grazed the ear after passing “less than a quarter of an inch” from entering the skull—an account repeated in multiple campaign and news postings [3] [1].
2. What hospital sources and independent reporting have (not) provided
Reporting indicates that Trump received initial care at Butler Memorial Hospital and underwent at least imaging (a CT was mentioned in later coverage regarding other care), but hospital physicians were not made available for briefings and the hospital did not release a formal public medical report; mainstream outlets and commentators have repeatedly noted the absence of full hospital records or an official hospital statement confirming the account provided by the campaign [4] [5] [6]. Time and Poynter flagged that no independent hospital medical records have been produced and that voters and reporters were left to rely on the campaign letter and on statements from campaign‑aligned physicians [5] [7].
3. Competing interpretations and open questions
Despite the campaign’s clear description of a gunshot that grazed the ear, federal investigators and public reporting introduced at least one alternative possibility—that shrapnel or debris rather than a bullet caused the wound—meaning the precise nature of the projectile has not been conclusively corroborated in released medical or forensic records [5]. Experts and media outlets have also noted unanswered clinical questions raised by the limited disclosures: whether deeper tissue or bony injury occurred, whether reconstructive surgery would be required in future, and whether official imaging and hospital operative notes would corroborate Jackson’s summary; those documents have not been provided in the public record referenced here [8] [9] [5].
4. Assessing credibility, context and limits of the record
Rep. Ronny Jackson’s statement is presented as a medical summary from someone who says he treated or evaluated the patient daily and who holds emergency medicine credentials in public databases, which bolsters the campaign’s account—but independent verification is lacking because the hospital did not issue a parallel detailed report and full medical records have not been released, a gap critics and some newsrooms flagged as atypical compared with prior high‑profile presidential injuries [3] [1] [4]. The broader context—control of information by the campaign, selective release through a politically allied former White House physician, and public comments by investigators suggesting alternate mechanisms—means the best available public account describes a grazing gunshot‑type wound to the ear with cartilage involvement and ongoing superficial healing, but does not constitute the complete, independently verifiable medical record clinicians and forensic analysts would use to establish the wound’s precise mechanism and full extent [2] [5] [1].