Who were the key witnesses to Donald Trump's shithole countries remark?
Executive summary
Multiple news outlets and advocacy groups reported that President Donald Trump used the phrase “shithole countries” during an Oval Office discussion about immigration, specifically referencing Haiti, El Salvador and several African countries; coverage cites lawmakers and journalists briefed on the meeting and notes that senators present did not uniformly deny the wording [1] [2] [3]. The initial reporting and reaction came from mainstream outlets and civil-rights groups documenting the comment and the diplomatic fallout [1] [3].
1. How the allegation first entered the public record
The earliest broad public awareness traces to reporting that President Trump, during a White House meeting on immigration, complained about immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and parts of Africa, using the crude phrase and asking why the U.S. should admit people from those places instead of countries like Norway; that reporting was summarized in mainstream outlets such as TIME and examined by fact-checkers including PolitiFact [1] [2].
2. Who the key witnesses were, according to reporting
Available sources say the account came from “people briefed on the meeting” and journalists who reported senators and lawmakers were present; PolitiFact and TIME cite unnamed officials and multiple people briefed on the Oval Office discussion rather than a single on-the-record eyewitness, and note that no senator at the meeting directly refuted the Washington Post’s initial reporting [2] [1].
3. Lawmakers present and their responses
Reporting indicates members of both parties were at the immigration negotiations in the Oval Office; the contemporaneous public record shows mixed responses — some officials and caucus leaders condemned the reported language (for example, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus issued a statement criticizing the reported comment), while others did not directly deny the wording as reported [4] [2].
4. Civil-society and institutional reactions that amplify witness claims
Advocacy groups and institutions quickly responded to the reports — the ACLU publicly commented on the reported remark, pointing to media accounts that Trump opposed protections for people from Haiti and African countries and used the offensive term [3]. The African Union and other international actors registered outrage in the broader aftermath, showing the reporting’s immediate diplomatic and advocacy impact [5].
5. Why many published accounts rely on anonymous sourcing
Major outlets described the account as coming from officials “briefed on the meeting” rather than named attendees; PolitiFact and contemporaneous coverage emphasize that journalists relied on multiple unnamed sources and participant accounts, while noting the absence of an explicit on-the-record denial from senators who attended [2] [1]. That pattern reflects both the political sensitivity of the Oval Office meeting and participants’ reluctance to go on the record.
6. Limits of the public record and what is not in current reporting
Available sources do not list a complete, named roster of attendees who explicitly corroborated the phrase on the record; they also do not provide a verbatim audio or written transcript made public that would conclusively prove the exact words used [2] [1]. Available sources do not mention any single, on-the-record senator or staffer publicly saying “I heard that exact phrase” with full attribution [2].
7. Competing narratives and official denials
While journalists reported the crude language via people briefed on the meeting, the White House and the president issued denials through social media and statements in the original episode (not included among the supplied sources here). PolitiFact noted Trump denied the reports on Twitter, and simultaneously observed that senators at the meeting did not uniformly refute the Washington Post’s account — underscoring competing narratives in the immediate aftermath [2].
8. Why the question still matters — political and diplomatic stakes
The alleged remark touched U.S. immigration policy, congressional negotiations and international relations with Haiti, El Salvador and African countries; civil-rights groups and international bodies treated the reporting as a substantive signifier of intent and rhetoric behind policy choices, which is why organizations like the ACLU and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus moved quickly to condemn the comment as reported [3] [4].
Sources and caveats: This summary draws on contemporaneous reporting and analysis compiled by TIME, PolitiFact, the ACLU and related institutional statements cited above; those accounts rely largely on people briefed on the meeting and participant statements rather than a public transcript or a single on-the-record witness [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. If you want, I can pull the original Washington Post piece and the senators’ public statements from that time to produce a detailed list of named attendees and their statements as recorded then — those documents would better illuminate which officials directly confirmed or denied the language.