How did Trump defend his Charlottesville comments in subsequent statements and interviews?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Donald Trump repeatedly defended his initial Charlottesville remarks by saying he had condemned violence and "neo-Nazis and white supremacists" and by insisting his “very fine people on both sides” line referred to people protesting Confederate monuments, not white nationalists [1] [2] [3]. He also attacked media coverage as unfair and emphasized later, formal statements that "racism is evil" while critics — including Republicans — called his original "both sides" characterization misguided [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. The immediate defense: reading a prepared statement that condemned racism and violence
After the deadly Charlottesville clash, the White House released a formal statement and the president delivered remarks that explicitly said “racism is evil” and that the administration would pursue charges against perpetrators of racist violence; the White House text and the C-SPAN coverage show Trump condemning the violence and promising federal action [1] [4] [5].
2. “Very fine people on both sides”: Trump’s later framing of who he meant
Facing blowback for saying there was “blame on both sides,” Trump repeatedly maintained his words were taken out of context and said the phrase referred to people who “felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee,” arguing he was describing monument protesters rather than white nationalists [3] [8].
3. Campaign rallies and media attacks: shifting the focus to media unfairness
At a Phoenix rally and in other appearances, Trump pivoted from the specifics of Charlottesville to attack the news media, asserting reporters were not reporting that he “spoke out forcefully against hatred, bigotry and violence” and that he had “strongly condemned the neo‑Nazis, the white supremacists and the KKK,” a line he used to counter critics of his initial comments [6].
4. The campaign’s and administration’s formal rebuttals: “totally” condemning extremists
The campaign and White House circulated press material and statements asserting the president had "specifically and 'totally' condemned 'neo‑Nazis and white nationalists,'" presenting that official language as a corrective to earlier controversy and a factual claim about his position [2].
5. Media fact‑checking and context documents: transcripts and timelines
News organizations and fact‑checkers compiled transcripts and timelines to show the sequence of questions and remarks that produced the “very fine people” line; outlets like PolitiFact published the exchanges to provide context rather than accept the administration’s later reframing uncritically [9].
6. Political consequences and dissent within his party
Republican lawmakers criticized his initial “both sides” characterization as misguided; the reaction from across the aisle and some Republicans kept the controversy alive and undercut the administration’s effort to close the debate by reasserting condemnations [7].
7. Competing narratives: intent versus impact
The administration’s line — that Trump condemned racist groups and meant only to describe monument protesters — competed with a broad critical narrative that his initial comments equated counterprotesters and white nationalists in the public’s eye. The Brookings analysis noted the episode as a defining moment and characterized Trump as aligned with bigots and racists, showing academic and policy criticism that contrasted with the White House defense [10].
8. What available sources do not mention
Available sources do not mention every subsequent interview or private conversation in which Trump may have defended his remarks beyond the public statements, rally speeches, press releases, and documented press‑conference exchanges captured by the cited reporting and transcripts (not found in current reporting).
Limitations: this account relies only on the provided documents — White House texts, press transcripts, news reports and analyses — and does not attempt to adjudicate motives beyond how Trump and his team publicly described and defended his remarks [1] [3] [2] [6] [9].