Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What exact words did Donald Trump allegedly use about Haiti and African nations in January 2018?
Executive Summary
In January 2018, multiple news organizations reported that President Donald Trump used the phrase “shithole countries” during a White House meeting to describe Haiti and several African nations, and that he questioned why the United States should accept immigrants from those places while saying the U.S. should admit more people from countries like Norway. Reporting also quotes him as asking, “Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out,” and saying, “Why do we want all these people from Africa here?” The reports are based on accounts from people present at the meeting and were published across major outlets the week of January 11–12, 2018 [1] [2] [3].
1. How the allegation first emerged and the exact phrases put forward
Reporting in mid-January 2018 presented a consistent core quote attributed to President Trump: that he asked, “Why do we want all these people from Africa here? They're shithole countries” and contrasted those places with “places like Norway.” Several outlets quoted a second alleged line: “Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out.” These phrases appeared in contemporaneous accounts of an Oval Office meeting about immigration on or around January 11–12, 2018, and were reported by organizations that said they relied on people who attended the meeting [2] [4] [5]. The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other outlets circulated near-identical wording, producing a unified public account of the alleged language [6] [3].
2. Who reported the words and how their sourcing compares
Major U.S. news organizations — including The Washington Post and The New York Times — led the initial coverage and attributed the quotes to multiple people present at the White House meeting; other outlets republished or independently confirmed the same account [6] [2]. Reuters and the Los Angeles Times provided similar summaries, emphasizing the “shithole countries” phrase and the Norway comparison [2] [7]. Some stories noted that senators and staff who attended the meeting later confirmed elements of the reporting, while the White House issued denials or disputes of specific details, illustrating a mix of firsthand accounts and official contradiction [8] [6]. The converging reports from several outlets strengthened the factual claim that those words were said as reported.
3. The administration response and immediate political fallout
Following the initial coverage, President Trump and White House officials disputed portions of the reporting, with the president tweeting that he did not use derogatory language about Haitians and denying certain quotes; contemporaneous reporting documented these denials alongside on-the-record confirmations by some lawmakers present [8] [6]. The episode triggered swift bipartisan condemnation from many members of Congress and drew international rebukes, producing a diplomatic and political backlash that concentrated on the substance of the alleged words rather than contesting whether a contentious exchange occurred in the meeting [1] [3]. The competing narratives — multiple reporters’ accounts versus presidential denials — transformed the matter into both a credibility dispute and a debate over racial and immigration policy rhetoric.
4. Why exact wording matters: legal, diplomatic, and historical context
Exact phrasing matters because the use of an explicit slur like “shithole” carries legal and diplomatic consequences and shapes public interpretation of policy intent. The reported phrase suggested explicit disdain for entire nations and nationalities, prompting questions about whether rhetoric influenced policy proposals on immigration and protections for countries experiencing crises. Internationally, leaders from affected countries and diaspora communities viewed the alleged wording as an insult with real consequences for bilateral relations and aid perceptions. Domestically, the language became a touchstone in debates over immigration law and presidential norms, with commentators and lawmakers citing the reported quotes as evidence of racialized policymaking and as a rationale for legislative or political responses [4] [5].
5. Assessing reliability: consensus, caveats, and what remains unsettled
Contemporaneous reporting displays strong consensus on the core alleged phrases across multiple reputable newsrooms, which relied on multiple attendees’ accounts [2] [3]. That consensus is the primary basis for concluding the words were spoken as reported. Caveats remain: the White House denied certain specifics, and the normal journalistic practice of protecting unnamed sources leaves some granular details — such as tone, exact sequencing, and whether any words were paraphrased — less airtight than verbatim court testimony would be. Nonetheless, the volume of consistent reporting from January 11–12, 2018, and follow-up confirmations by participants provide a robust evidentiary basis for stating what the president allegedly said about Haiti and African nations [1] [6].