When did Donald Trump call some countries 'shithole' and which countries did he mean? (January 2018)
Executive summary
President Donald Trump used the phrase “shithole” during an Oval Office immigration meeting on or about January 11–12, 2018, reportedly criticizing immigration from Haiti, El Salvador and “some parts of Africa,” and contrasting them with countries like Norway (reports first surfaced Jan. 11, 2018) [1] [2] [3]. The remark sparked bipartisan outrage and official condemnations, including from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and was widely reported and contextualized in contemporaneous coverage [1] [4] [3].
1. What was reported and when — the core timeline
News organizations reported that during a White House meeting in mid‑January 2018, Trump asked why the U.S. would admit immigrants from “shithole countries” instead of places like Norway; the remark was published in stories dated Jan. 11–12, 2018 and immediately generated international reaction [3] [1] [2]. Those initial reports described the comment as made in discussion of protections (such as temporary protected status) for nationals of nations including Haiti and El Salvador and for people from African countries [3] [1].
2. Which countries were identified in coverage
Multiple outlets say the comment targeted Haiti, El Salvador and “parts of Africa” (or African countries more broadly); reporters also quoted the president as invoking Norway as a preferred comparison [1] [3] [2]. Amnesty International’s summary likewise notes that the allegedly targeted set included Haiti and “the entire continent of Africa” in reaction to the reporting [5]. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus explicitly named Haiti, El Salvador and African countries in its Jan. 11, 2018 statement condemning the comment [4].
3. How outlets framed the quote and immediate reactions
Mainstream fact‑based outlets presented the quote as part of a blunt Oval Office exchange and highlighted broad diplomatic and political backlash; TIME compiled global reactions and described the comment as having “sparked international outrage” [1]. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus issued a formal rebuke calling the statement “shameful” and “abhorrent,” and other civil‑society groups and news observers framed it as racist and damaging to U.S. foreign relations [4] [5].
4. Denials, confirmations and reporting limits
Some officials in the meeting did not publicly refute the language and the White House disputed the reporting in its immediate aftermath; press accounts note the president later denied using the exact term while reporting outlets relied on off‑the‑record and on‑the‑record briefings to reconstruct the exchange [3]. Available sources do not provide a verbatim transcript in this packet; their accounts are reconstructions based on sources briefed on the meeting [3].
5. Why the remark mattered politically and diplomatically
Reporters and advocacy groups tied the remark to a wider pattern: it came amid an active debate over immigration policy and refugee caps and fed broader concerns about presidential rhetoric toward migrants and specific nations [3] [2]. Observers argued the language harmed U.S. standing and provoked outrage in affected countries; Amnesty International and congressional statements framed the comment as emblematic of disdain for entire nations or continents [5] [4].
6. Competing perspectives in the record
Contemporaneous coverage shows two strands: (a) multiple news outlets reported the vulgar description and its targets (Haiti, El Salvador, parts of Africa) and recorded broad condemnation [1] [3]; (b) the White House and some allies pushed back against the reporting or its interpretation, with denials of the exact words and debates over context [3]. Both strands are present in the sources provided here; readers should note the reporting relied on accounts from participants and aides rather than an audio/video record made public in these pieces [3].
7. What follow‑up reporting emphasized
Subsequent analyses tied the episode to policy outcomes — such as refugee caps and tighter immigration enforcement — and to longer trends in rhetoric and policy toward immigrants from majority‑Black and lower‑income countries [3] [2]. Coverage in later years continued to reference the episode as emblematic of the administration’s posture toward Haiti, African nations and other predominantly non‑European countries [5] [6].
Limitations: this summary uses only the sources you supplied. The packet includes multiple contemporaneous reports and later commentaries but does not include a public transcript of the meeting; where primary verification is absent, reporting relies on participants and briefed sources [3].