In the speech where Trump said there were "very fine people on both sides", did he condemn the neo Nazis?
Executive summary
The short answer: yes—Donald Trump did, on multiple occasions, say he condemned neo-Nazis and white supremacists in the aftermath of Charlottesville—but those explicit condemnations were delivered amid other remarks that praised “very fine people on both sides” and blamed “both sides,” remarks that many observers and the white-supremacist movement itself interpreted as equivocal or enabling [1] [2] [3].
1. What Trump actually said: condemnation and qualification
In the August 12 press exchanges that contained the “very fine people on both sides” language, Trump told reporters “I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups,” and later said white nationalists and neo-Nazis “should be condemned totally,” while simultaneously asserting that “not all of those people were neo-Nazis” and pointing to other attendees who were protesting the removal of a Confederate statue [1] [4]. Two days later, on August 14, Trump issued a separate televised statement that explicitly named and condemned the K.K.K., neo-Nazis and white supremacists as “repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans,” language reproduced in multiple transcripts and outlets [2] [5].
2. Why many critics concluded he did not truly condemn neo‑Nazis
Critics judged the overall communication inconsistent: the initial “many sides” framing and the “very fine people” line came across as equating racists and their opponents, and the earlier remarks were widely read as a failure to single out the white nationalists responsible for violence—an interpretation reinforced by news coverage and political backlash at the time [6] [7]. Journalists and commentators noted that his later, explicit denunciations were delivered only after intense criticism, prompting some to view them as reactive and undermined by his prior equivocation [8] [7].
3. How fact‑checkers and Trump's allies framed the record
Fact-checking outlets and the campaign emphasized the textual record: Trump did, in fact, use words condemning neo-Nazis and white supremacists—both in the press Q&A where he said they “should be condemned totally” and in the formal White House statement that listed hate groups by name—leading some fact-checks to conclude the claim “he never condemned” was false [9] [10] [11]. The campaign and defenders used those explicit lines to argue that the controversy was a selective reading of remarks taken out of context [11].
4. The reaction that matters: how extremist groups and the public read it
Even as Trump uttered explicit condemnations, white‑supremacist leaders and neo‑Nazi sites celebrated his initial equivocal framing, treating his comments as a political victory and evidence that the president had not fully repudiated them—an outcome that critics say demonstrates the practical effect of his mixed messaging [3] [12]. Major outlets documented that many in the public and political class perceived the sequence—vague “many sides” line, then specific denunciations—as insufficient and harmful [3] [8].
5. Bottom line and competing interpretations
The empirical record is clear that Trump used explicitly condemnatory language about neo‑Nazis and white supremacists in follow‑up remarks and said he had condemned them in the initial Q&A [1] [2]. The competing and consequential judgment—whether those condemnations were sincere, timely, or effective—depends on context: defenders point to the explicit words and later statements [11] [5], while critics point to the initial equivocal framing and its uptake by extremists as proof the net effect was to normalize or deflect blame [3] [12].