Does Trump curse?
Executive summary
Yes—public records and contemporary reporting show Donald Trump uses profanity in both public and private settings, sometimes explicitly on camera, and at a frequency and brazenness that many experts call unprecedented for a sitting president [1] [2]. Critics say his expletives have produced diplomatic and political fallout, while supporters and some advisers frame the language as authentic, blue-collar messaging or a deliberate rhetorical choice [3] [4].
1. Documented instances: a long trail of vulgar language
Reporting across outlets catalogues repeated examples: the 2018 “shithole countries” episode reported by senators and widely covered in 2018 and cited since [1] [3], the Access Hollywood tape where he described grabbing women with explicit language [4], numerous occasions of calling articles or people “f***ing” liars or “bulls***” in interviews and press encounters [4] [5], and a June 2025 on-camera use of the F-word that several outlets flagged as a break with past presidential norms [1] [6]. These instances are backed by contemporaneous reporting and eyewitness accounts rather than anonymous claims alone [3] [7].
2. How unusual is it? Experts say Trump amplified public profanity
Historians and etiquette experts acknowledge presidents have sworn in private or been caught on hot mics—Nixon and Johnson are oft-cited examples—but several scholars and journalists argue Trump’s public, repeated use of vulgarities marks a departure because he deploys them openly at rallies, in interviews, and, in at least one recent case, directly to the press on camera [3] [2]. Barbara Perry of the Miller Center is quoted saying his public use of vulgar profanity is unprecedented, and VOA and Reuters reporting frame his language as shifting public presidential decorum [1] [2] [3].
3. Political effect: energizing base, alarming critics, complicating coverage
Supporters and some aides cast swearing as authenticity that energizes core voters and communicates bluntness; critics and etiquette experts view it as undignified and damaging to institutions [4] [3]. Newsrooms wrestled with whether to print explicit words after the “shithole” episode, with the Associated Press explaining the decision to quote the president’s vulgarity because it bore directly on policy and public understanding [7]. Media framing and partisan reactions highlight implicit agendas: outlets emphasize different examples to either condemn decorum erosion or normalize coarse political speech [7] [8].
4. Frequency and evolution: from “bulls*” to on-camera F-bombs**
Analysts note a trajectory: earlier in his career and presidency Trump sprinkled profanity—“bulls***,” “ass,” and the like—while later episodes include telephone tirades described as “profanity-laced” and explicit on-camera F-words in 2025, provoking broader debate about presidential language norms [4] [9] [6]. Coverage in outlets ranging from Reuters and Newsweek to opinion pieces and smaller papers documents both episodic spikes and a steady willingness to use crude language publicly [3] [4] [10].
5. Limits of the record and competing interpretations
The available reporting robustly documents many instances but cannot catalog every private utterance, and some claims—particularly secondhand accounts of closed-door profanity—rely on participant recounting and partisan sources, which must be weighed accordingly [3] [9]. Alternative viewpoints exist: some historians contextualize presidential profanity as not new, and some defenders argue coarse language can be politically effective or honest; critics argue the content and targets of Trump’s language (racialized slurs, demeaning labels) amplify harm beyond mere vulgarity [3] [8] [5].