What did donald trump do that was embarassing regarding a koi pond in 2017? in japan?

Checked on January 24, 2026
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

In November 2017, during a visit to Tokyo’s Akasaka Palace, President Donald Trump poured the remainder of a box of fish food into a koi pond while standing beside Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe — an image that went viral and was widely ridiculed as a cultural and ecological faux pas [1] [2]. Subsequent reporting showed the photograph and video were real but that Trump was following Abe’s lead and that early coverage and social-media fury amplified the incident beyond its literal significance [3] [4].

1. The moment: Trump empties a box of fish food into the Akasaka Palace koi pond

Photographs and video from the November 6, 2017 encounter show Trump using a spoon to feed koi and then tipping his wooden box to pour the remainder of the feed into the pond while Prime Minister Shinzo Abe looked on; the visuals were captured by multiple agencies and carried in mainstream outlets including CNN, The Guardian and AP-wire reports [1] [2] [5].

2. Why the photos became “embarrassing”: optics, meme culture and instant judgment

The image fit a ready-made narrative — brash, impatient American leader vs. restrained Japanese host — and social media quickly turned it into ridicule, with critics calling it rude and irresponsible and many users likening it to a metaphor for broader presidential behavior; outlets from Vanity Fair to Business Insider documented the eruption of mockery and memes [6] [5] [7].

3. The factual correction: Abe had poured too, and context matters

Fact-checkers and subsequent reporting clarified that Abe had emptied his own box of food into the pond before or alongside Trump, meaning Trump’s action was not a solo breach of custom but part of the same photo‑opended sequence of feeding the koi — a point highlighted by Snopes, PolitiFact and other outlets that tracked the initial mischaracterizations [3] [4] [8].

4. The environmental claim: did the act endanger the koi?

Some commentators warned that dumping a large amount of feed can harm koi by degrading water quality — a common aquaculture concern cited by The Guardian via expert sources — and that overfeeding is a known risk to pond ecosystems [2]. However, reporting also showed the episode was brief and ceremonial, and no immediate evidence in the coverage linked the photo‑op to reported fish deaths or a documented ecological incident [2] [3].

5. Media dynamics and competing narratives: fake-news accusations and partisan spin

The episode exposed how quickly an image can be weaponized: conservative commentators accused mainstream outlets of manufacturing a scandal, while liberal and satirical outlets gleefully amplified the gaffe as emblematic of character; newsrooms later walked back or amended some headlines as fact-checks emerged, prompting op-eds about media mistakes and confirmation bias on both sides [9] [10].

6. What this reveals about political spectacle and why it mattered beyond the pond

Beyond the literal act of tipping fish food, the incident functioned as a tiny stage on which larger narratives about temperament, diplomacy and media reliability played out — supporters defended it as benign and following local custom, critics used it to indict demeanor and judgment, and fact-checkers pointed out the tendency for instantaneous social-media verdicts to outrun context [3] [4] [1]. Reporting shows the photograph was real, the pouring occurred, but the simplest reading — that Trump alone committed an impolite, damaging act — overlooked that Abe had done likewise and that early coverage sometimes omitted that context [3] [2].

Want to dive deeper?
How did fact-checkers reconstruct the timeline of Trump and Abe feeding koi at Akasaka Palace in 2017?
What are the ecological effects of overfeeding koi in ornamental ponds, and did any experts comment on the 2017 incident?
How have viral presidential photo-ops been corrected or reframed by major newsrooms in past U.S. administrations?