What was Donald Trump's public response and apology after the Access Hollywood tape was released?
Executive summary
Donald Trump issued a brief written and taped apology after The Washington Post published the 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape: he called the remarks “locker room banter,” said “I was wrong, and I apologize,” and posted a roughly 90‑second video and statements on campaign social media [1] [2] [3]. Coverage shows he immediately coupled the apology with defenses, comparisons to Bill Clinton, and political counterattacks — and some fact‑checkers later debated whether his subsequent remarks amounted to a full, sustained apology [1] [3] [4].
1. The apology itself: short, direct, and distributed online
Within hours of The Washington Post releasing the tape, Trump’s campaign published a written statement and a roughly 90‑second video saying “I’ve said and done things I regret,” that the words on the tape “are one of them,” and explicitly “I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize”; the campaign posted the message on Facebook and Twitter [1] [2] [3].
2. Language and framing: “locker room banter” and a claim about personal character
Trump characterized the comments as “locker room banter” and insisted “anyone who knows me knows these words don’t reflect who I am,” a rhetorical frame that sought to minimize the tape as private, dated talk rather than a statement of ongoing behavior or character [1] [3] [5].
3. Immediate pivot: apology plus political deflection
News coverage emphasizes that Trump’s apology was quickly followed by attacks on Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton — he compared his remarks to things he said others had done, and publicly said Bill Clinton “has said far worse to me on the golf course,” a comment that functioned as a political deflection as much as contrition [1] [3] [6].
4. Media reaction and context: an “October surprise” with electoral stakes
Reporters treated the tape’s release as a major late‑campaign development (“October surprise”) with potential to shift voters; analysis and later studies cited by media suggest the tape reduced public support for Trump in the weeks before the election [1]. The timing — two days before the second 2016 debate — amplified scrutiny of the apology’s sincerity and effectiveness [1] [3].
5. Varied interpretations: apology vs. “not an apology” debates
Some outlets recorded the apology as clear and explicit — he said “I was wrong and I apologize” on camera [2] [3] [5]. Others, including later fact‑check commentary, argued Trump never truly apologized in a sustained way because he returned to defending his broader conduct and later expressed pride or dismissal of the tape in some settings; FactCheck.org summarized that debates continued over whether he had genuinely apologized [4].
6. Political theatre: satire and broader fallout
The release produced immediate cultural and media responses — from late‑night satire to commentary by rival politicians — and placed other figures shown in the clip under scrutiny. The tape’s release spurred imitation and parody across TV and social media, increasing pressure on both the campaign and media to interpret the apology [1].
7. What the provided reporting does not settle
Available sources do not mention private, behind‑the‑scenes exchanges beyond the public statement, nor do they present independent evidence proving whether Trump’s apology changed private behavior or how individual voters ultimately weighed the apology versus his political counterattacks (not found in current reporting). Sources likewise differ on labeling the statements a full apology: some treat the video as an explicit apology while others point to subsequent remarks and fact‑check analysis that complicate that label [2] [4].
8. Bottom line for readers
Contemporaneous reporting shows Trump issued an explicit, brief public apology on video and in written form, but he paired it with minimization (“locker room banter”) and political rebuttals that left many observers questioning the depth and durability of the contrition [3] [1]. Fact‑checking outlets and later analyses documented ongoing dispute over whether the statement functioned as a genuine apology or as a tactical message within a high‑stakes campaign [4] [6].