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 exactly did President Donald Trump say about 'very fine people' at Charlottesville on August 15 2017?
Executive Summary
President Donald Trump said at a press conference on August 15, 2017, that “you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides,” while also saying neo‑Nazis and white nationalists should be “condemned totally.” This sentence has been quoted and contested repeatedly; contemporaneous transcripts and subsequent reporting confirm the wording and show Trump framed the comment as distinguishing between violent extremists and other demonstrators who opposed the removal of a Confederate statue [1] [2] [3]. Analysts and fact‑checkers diverge on whether the remark created an improper moral equivalence; some sources emphasize Trump’s explicit condemnation of white supremacists, while others emphasize the effect of equating participants across the conflict [4] [5] [6].
1. What Trump actually said — a transcript that won’t be ignored
The August 15, 2017 press availability includes a direct line in which President Trump said there were “very bad people” among the Charlottesville demonstrators and then added that “you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides,” a formulation that plainly appears in multiple contemporaneous transcripts and reporting. The full context shows Trump answering a question about violence at a rally over the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue and trying to differentiate between explicitly extremist groups (which he said should be condemned) and other attendees who were protesting the statue’s removal rather than promoting hate [2] [1]. Reporters and later fact‑checkers preserved the sequence of “very bad people” followed by “very fine people,” which is central to disputes over meaning [1].
2. How defenders frame the quote — nuance and misrepresentation claims
Supporters and some fact‑check summaries argue Trump’s “very fine people” remark has been taken out of context and stress that he explicitly condemned neo‑Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, and white supremacists during the same appearance. Those defenders point to Trump’s later clarifications that he meant people who were there to protest the statue removal and not the hate groups, and they highlight how selective quoting can misrepresent an effort to distinguish non‑extremist protestors from violent actors [6] [4]. This framing often asserts that critics and political opponents used the phrase to suggest sympathy for white supremacists, whereas transcripts show Trump made a contemporaneous denunciation of extremist groups [6] [4].
3. How critics interpret the quote — normalization and equivalence concerns
Critics argue that placing “very fine people” and “on both sides” in the same breath as a condemnation of extremists had the practical effect of creating moral equivalence between avowed white supremacists and those opposing them, and that this normalized extremist presence by implying comparable legitimacy on both sides. Journalistic analyses and opinion pieces at the time—and subsequent retrospectives—underscore that many observers perceived the remark as insufficiently forceful and as diluting condemnation of organized hate groups, which contributed to widespread backlash and political consequences [5] [7]. Critics point to the rapid spread of the quote and public reaction as evidence that context did not erase the perceived implication of parity.
4. What neutral fact‑checkers and archives say — agreement on words, debate on meaning
Neutral transcripts and archival video confirm the exact wording and sequence of Trump’s remarks; fact‑checkers and news organizations consistently reproduce the phrase and note his express condemnation of neo‑Nazis and white supremacists in the same interaction. These sources agree on the factual core: Trump said both “very bad people” and “very fine people on both sides” and condemned extremist groups [1] [2]. Where they diverge is analytic: outlets and fact‑checkers weigh whether the juxtaposition of phrases should be read as a clarification separating non‑extremist demonstrators from radicals, or as an equivalence that softened the rebuke of hate groups [1] [3].
5. Why this keeps mattering — politics, memory, and the record
The phrase continues to resonate because it sits at the intersection of public memory, presidential rhetoric, and definitions of moral responsibility; the text of the remark is indisputable, but its political and social impact is contested. Some actors use the quote to argue Trump failed to take a firm moral stand against white supremacy, while others use transcripts to insist the president distinguished between radicals and ordinary protesters, suggesting agenda‑driven emphasis in subsequent coverage. The record confirms the words; disputes since 2017 focus on interpretation, public reaction, and how those interpretations were amplified by political opponents and defenders alike [3] [5].