+
  • HOME»
  • Trump’s Ear Injury Raises Questions After Mar-a-Lago Meeting With Netanyahu

Trump’s Ear Injury Raises Questions After Mar-a-Lago Meeting With Netanyahu

Former President Donald Trump met with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday at his Mar-a-Lago estate, where photos of the meeting have since circulated, revealing Trump’s uncovered right ear. Despite initial reports of a severe injury, the photos show no significant damage. Dr. Marc Siegel, speaking to Fox News, described the injury as a […]

Former President Donald Trump met with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday at his Mar-a-Lago estate, where photos of the meeting have since circulated, revealing Trump’s uncovered right ear. Despite initial reports of a severe injury, the photos show no significant damage.

Dr. Marc Siegel, speaking to Fox News, described the injury as a “grazed” bullet wound, noting that while the ear appeared “a bit macerated,” there was no visible scarring or need for plastic surgery evident in the images. This contrasts sharply with earlier claims by former White House physician Ronny Jackson, who had stated that a bullet had “blown off part of Trump’s ear.”

Jackson’s statements were at odds with FBI Director Christopher Wray’s recent testimony, which raised questions about whether the injury was caused by a bullet or shrapnel. Jackson criticized Wray’s comments, calling them “totally out of line” and insisting there was no evidence to support the shrapnel theory.

Trump has publicly refuted claims that he wasn’t shot, criticizing Wray and the FBI on social media for their handling of the situation. “The FBI never even checked!” Trump wrote on Truth Social, lambasting Wray’s uncertainty about the nature of his injury.

In a statement on Friday, the FBI confirmed that Trump was indeed struck by a bullet, either whole or fragmented, fired from the weapon of the deceased subject involved. This official confirmation aligns with Jackson’s original assertions but contradicts earlier statements that questioned the nature of the injury.

Advertisement