Trump: A Misogynist, A Racist, Both Or Neither?

In this episode of The Perspicacious Perspective, we take a hard look at the labels that have followed Donald Trump for years: misogynist, racist—or neither. Through a critical and measured lens, we explore the controversies that have shaped public perception, questioning what they reveal about Trump himself and the broader cultural moment.

From his high-profile relationships, including his marriage to Vanessa Trump, to his polarizing foreign policy moves—like his staunch support for Trump Israel initiatives—we examine how both personal and political decisions contribute to the narrative surrounding him.

Is the truth as simple—or as complicated—as the headlines suggest? Tune in as we unpack the nuance behind the noise.

Transcript

Welcome to The Perspicacious Perspective.

There are many controversies that surround Trump and I’ll be addressing a few of them in this episode.

All the controversies that I’ll be addressing relate to Trump’s comments, accusations and actions that concern misogyny and racism.

I initially wanted to talk about all the controversies related to Trump but it would make far too long of an episode so I decided to include all the controversies that concern his behaviour with women and minorities in the US.

I’ll try to be as impartial as I can and hopefully this episode will enable you to have a more educated opinion on whether you think Trump is a misogynist or racist.

Let’s start first by addressing Trump’s attitudes to women.

Did Trump ever make inappropriate comments about women and was he ever accused of sexual misconduct?

In October 2005, a recording surfaced that would become one of the most infamous scandals during Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016. The Access Hollywood tape featured Trump making vulgar and inappropriate remarks about women.

The tape was recorded in 2005 during a conversation between Donald Trump and Billy Bush, a host on the Access Hollywood show.

The conversation took place while Trump was on a bus, and he made sexually explicit comments about women, including the infamous line: “Grab 'em by the p*y.”**

The context of this was Trump discussing his past interactions with women, bragging about his ability to engage in sexual advances due to his celebrity status.

The tape was made public on October 7, 2016, just days before the second presidential debate between Trump and Hillary Clinton.

The comments caused an immediate uproar, and many condemned the language as degrading and disrespectful to women.

Trump issued a public apology, describing his words as “locker room talk” and claiming that they did not represent how he truly felt about women. He stated that he was wrong and he apologized.

He tried to downplay the significance of the tape, claiming that the conversation was a private moment and not indicative of his behavior.

The tape became a central issue in the 2016 election and was widely condemned by politicians, including some Republicans.

Some Republicans withdrew their support for Trump or called for him to step down as the party’s nominee.

After the tape’s release, several women came forward with allegations of inappropriate behavior or sexual assault by Trump. Trump denied all accusations, and many were not pursued legally.

The tape fueled a larger conversation about Trump’s treatment of women, which became a critical theme during the 2016 election.

Some critics argue that Trump’s response to the incident helped normalize misogynistic language and behavior in American political discourse.

Despite the controversy, Trump’s supporters largely dismissed the incident, with many claiming that his apology was enough, or even seeing the remarks as irrelevant to his candidacy.

In the wake of the Access Hollywood tape release, over 20 women came forward with accusations of sexual misconduct against Trump. These accusations spanned several decades, and many of the women claimed that Trump had groped, kissed, or made unwanted advances toward them.

Some of the women alleged incidents that occurred decades earlier, with allegations going back to the 1980s.

The women described a range of behaviors, including inappropriate touching or groping. kissing women without their consent, and making lewd comments about women’s appearances.

Notable women who publicly accused Trump included: Jessica Leeds: Who is a former flight attendant who said Trump groped her on a plane in the 1970s. Summer Zervos: A former contestant on "The Apprentice" who accused Trump of kissing her aggressively and trying to touch her breasts in a hotel room. And Natasha Stoynoff: Who is a former People magazine reporter who accused Trump of forcing himself on her during an interview in 2005.

Trump vehemently denied all of the accusations, calling them fabricated and part of a political smear campaign against him.

He repeatedly said that the women accusing him were lying or seeking attention.

Trump also mocked some of the accusers, suggesting that they were not attractive enough for him to assault.

Trump dismissed the allegations as a “false media narrative” and used the opportunity to attack the mainstream media and his political opponents, particularly Hillary Clinton, calling the accusations part of a larger conspiracy against him.

He also released a defensive video in which he accused the Clinton campaign and its allies of trying to sabotage his candidacy.

The scandal had a significant impact on Trump’s standing with women voters. Many female voters found his comments and the accusations of sexual misconduct deeply troubling, and it contributed to a perception of Trump as unfit for office.

According to exit polls, Trump performed poorly among women in the general election, particularly suburban women.

Hillary Clinton and her campaign capitalized on the scandal, emphasizing Trump’s misogynistic behavior and lack of respect for women. Clinton’s campaign promoted messages about equality, women’s rights, and gender justice, contrasting Trump’s controversial actions.

The timing of the Access Hollywood tape’s release and the subsequent sexual misconduct allegations were seen as a significant turning point in the 2016 election. It was referred to as an “October surprise,” which is the term for a late-breaking scandal that could affect the election outcome.

Despite the scandal, Trump’s base of supporters largely remained loyal. Many of his followers dismissed the allegations as a media smear and continued to rally behind his campaign, particularly his messages on immigration and America First policies.

After Trump’s election victory in November 2016, some of the women who had accused him of misconduct vowed to continue speaking out against him, while others chose to pursue legal action.

Summer Zervos sued Trump for defamation in 2017 after he denied her accusations. This lawsuit remained in legal proceedings after Trump took office.

The Access Hollywood tape and the subsequent sexual misconduct allegations were among the most defining and controversial moments of Trump’s 2016 campaign.

It raised larger questions about how the media, society, and the electoral system respond to accusations of sexual misconduct, especially when they involve a high-profile political figure.

The scandal also contributed to the growing national conversation about sexual harassment and the #MeToo movement, which gained momentum in the years following the election.

Is Trump a Racist?

Now in order to understand why people might think Trump is racist, it’s necessary to go back retrospectively to before Trump’s presidency; when he began to gain fame as a business entrepreneur.

Let’s start from the 1980s; in Trump’s Business & Early Media Career…

In the 1970s–1980s, Donald Trump and his family's real estate business were involved in several racial discrimination controversies, with the most notable being a major lawsuit from the U.S. federal government. 

What happened?

Donald Trump joined his father Fred Trump’s real estate business in the early 1970s. His father by the way, built and managed over 27,000 apartments in New York City and was estimated to be worth between $250 million and $300 million by the time of his death in 1999. Their company, Trump Management Corporation, owned and operated thousands of rental apartments across New York City, especially in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil rights lawsuit against Donald Trump, his father Fred Trump, and their company.

They were charged with violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to Black tenants and lying to Black applicants about apartment availability.

The U.S. Department of Justice used testers—which were black and white applicants posing as renters—to expose discriminatory practices. White applicants were offered apartments that Black applicants were told were unavailable.

Trump then hired celebrity lawyer Roy Cohn, who denied the charges and filed a $100 million countersuit against the government for defamation. The case was dismissed.

He claimed the case was politically motivated and insisted there was “absolutely no discrimination.”

Trump and the U.S. Department of Justice reached a settlement in 1975 where Trump agreed to advertise vacancies in minority publications. He had to submit regular reports to the U.S. Department of Justice to demonstrate compliance. No admission of wrongdoing was included in the agreement. However, the U.S. Department of Justice later accused Trump of not fully complying with the settlement terms.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Trump properties continued to face accusations of racial steering and housing discrimination, but none as high-profile as the 1973 case.

There were at least 6 additional discrimination complaints filed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the late 1980s.

What was the Birther conspiracy?

Between 2011 and 2016, Donald Trump became one of the most prominent proponents of the birther conspiracy, which falsely claimed that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and therefore was ineligible to be president.

Donald Trump made public comments suggesting that Obama was not born in the U.S. and that he should produce his long-form birth certificate to prove his eligibility for the presidency.

He started to demand Obama’s birth certificate publicly, claiming that Obama had not been forthcoming with the details of his birth.

In March 2011, Trump appeared on "The View" and said:"I have people that actually have been studying it. They cannot believe what they’re finding."

He also remarked that Obama’s birth certificate should be released because it was "very, very important."

Trump’s comments received widespread media coverage and generated significant attention, fueling the birther movement, a group of people who questioned the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency.

In 2011, the controversy gained even more traction when Trump discussed it extensively during media interviews and public appearances.

The media focused heavily on Trump’s claims, and his celebrity status and platform provided the birther movement with a larger audience.

On April 27, 2011, President Obama released his long-form birth certificate from the Hawaiian Department of Health, addressing the conspiracy head-on.

Obama had previously released a shorter, official "certification of live birth" in 2008, but Trump and other birthers continued to question its legitimacy.

The release of the long-form document seemed to put the issue to rest for most people, but Trump and his supporters continued to question its authenticity.

Even after Obama released the birth certificate, Trump did not immediately back down. He made several public statements, including in 2011, when Trump said that while he was “glad” Obama released his birth certificate, he still wasn’t convinced.

In an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” in 2011, Trump suggested that there were still unanswered questions about Obama’s birth and raised doubts about whether Obama had really been born in Hawaii.

Trump used the birther issue to gain attention and position himself as a challenger to the establishment.

In 2012, as the presidential race heated up, Trump continued to push the birther theory.

Though Mitt Romney (who was the Republican nominee) distanced himself from the birther conspiracy, Trump remained vocal in the media, and the issue lingered in the background of his public persona.

As Trump began his 2016 presidential campaign, the birther conspiracy resurfaced in a more prominent way.

In 2016, Trump made a statement that seemed to acknowledge the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate, though he tried to downplay his previous involvement:

On September 16, 2016, Trump said: “President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period.” However, even in this statement, Trump didn’t fully apologize or take responsibility for his role in perpetuating the birther conspiracy. He tried to shift the narrative by claiming that he had brought attention to the issue in a positive way because it had led to Obama releasing his birth certificate.

What did Trump say about the Mexicans?

In June 2015, Donald Trump officially launched his campaign for president by giving a controversial speech at Trump Tower in New York City. During this announcement, he made a highly inflammatory remark about Mexican immigrants, which would become one of the most notorious quotes from his entire campaign.

He said: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

This statement quickly garnered widespread backlash, with critics accusing Trump of making racist and derogatory generalizations about Mexican immigrants.

Trump’s remarks were seen as painting Mexican immigrants in an overwhelmingly negative light, particularly the claim that they were bringing drugs, crime, and rapists.

Trump attempted to temper the impact of his words by adding “some, I assume, are good people”, but it did little to mitigate the damage.

Many viewed Trump’s words as deeply insulting and a gross mischaracterization of the immigrant population, which includes millions of hardworking, law-abiding individuals.

Democrats and even some Republicans condemned the remarks as xenophobic and racist.

Organizations such as the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda and advocacy groups like La Raza (which is now called UnidosUS) issued strong statements denouncing Trump’s comment.

Following the remarks, NBC (which aired Trump’s reality TV show The Apprentice) severed its relationship with him, stating that his remarks were “disparaging” and inconsistent with their values.

Other media outlets and sponsors also distanced themselves from Trump.

Trump had been co-owner of the Miss Universe pageant, which was also severed from him, as several major sponsors pulled out.

Trump brushed off the criticism, suggesting that his remarks were misunderstood or taken out of context. He doubled down on his comments in subsequent interviews, asserting that his stance on immigration was justified by his desire to protect America from dangerous criminals entering the country.

Trump’s supporters largely defended the remarks, arguing that he was speaking out against illegal immigration and addressing what they saw as a serious problem—drug cartels, human trafficking, and violent crime associated with illegal immigration.

While his comment alienated many, it resonated with a significant portion of the white working-class voters who were frustrated with illegal immigration and felt that their concerns were being ignored by the political elite.

The remark set the tone for much of Trump’s 2016 campaign, where he focused heavily on immigration as a central issue, proposing policies like the border wall with Mexico and stronger enforcement of immigration laws.

Trump’s comments continued to fuel immigration debates throughout the campaign, and it became a rallying cry for those who viewed him as a political outsider willing to take on the “establishment” on issues like immigration reform.

Trump’s “rapists” comment was widely regarded as a moment that normalized and mainstreamed racist and xenophobic rhetoric in American politics.

While many condemned Trump’s remarks as divisive and harmful, his base—especially voters who felt alienated by political correctness—embraced his unapologetic tone and rhetoric.

The immigration issue would remain central throughout his presidency and was one of the issues that helped Trump secure a significant portion of the vote in the 2016 election.

Is Trump Islamophobic?

In December 2015, during his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Donald Trump made a highly controversial call for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States. This remark was made in response to concerns over terrorism and national security, particularly after the San Bernardino terrorist attack in California earlier that month, in which two terrorists—one of whom was a Muslim—killed 14 people.

On December 7, 2015, Trump issued a statement that read: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

He argued that there was a growing threat posed by Islamic terrorism and claimed that the U.S. needed to take drastic action to protect itself, stating: “Our country cannot afford to be politically correct anymore.”

The statement was made in the wake of the San Bernardino attack, which was carried out by a Muslim couple, and heightened concerns about Islamic extremism in the U.S. and the world.

The remark was part of Trump’s broader rhetoric on national security, immigration, and radical Islamic terrorism, which he often used to rally support from voters concerned about the security of the U.S.

Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. was widely condemned by political leaders, civil rights organizations, and religious groups.

Democrats, including President Obama, and many Republicans distanced themselves from the proposal, calling it un-American and divisive.

Former President George W. Bush responded by saying that the U.S. was “not at war with Islam”, and many Republican leaders were uncomfortable with the suggestion.

Organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the statement as discriminatory and harmful.

Muslim-American groups voiced concerns about being targeted and stigmatized by such rhetoric, which they viewed as unfairly associating Muslims with terrorism.

Despite the backlash, Trump stood by his proposal. He insisted that the ban was necessary for the safety of the U.S. and that it was a temporary measure to allow authorities to better understand the scope of the threat posed by radical Islamic terrorism.

He downplayed the significance of the criticism, arguing that his stance was a reflection of reality and the need for tough action.

Trump’s statement deepened the polarization between his supporters and critics. His populist base responded positively to his tough stance on national security and immigration, while many others viewed it as an attempt to exploit fear and divide the nation.

The proposal received extensive coverage from the media, both in the U.S. and internationally. Trump’s rhetoric continued to generate intense discussion on issues of religion, immigration, and national security.

Many of Trump’s supporters, particularly those who felt alienated by political elites and concerned about terrorism, rallied behind his controversial position on Muslim immigration. Some felt that Trump was the only candidate willing to speak honestly about the threat posed by Islamic extremism.

The proposal was criticized worldwide, with leaders from various countries expressing concern over its implications for international relations, religious freedom, and human rights.

The British Parliament even debated a petition calling for Trump to be banned from the UK due to his remarks, though the motion was not passed.

Trump’s call for a ban contributed to a rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric and Islamophobia in the U.S., especially in the lead-up to the 2016 election. It played into broader concerns about the growing influence of Islamic extremism and the perception of Muslims as potential threats.

The call for a Muslim ban remained one of the most controversial and defining moments of Trump’s 2016 campaign, helping solidify his status as an outsider willing to take hardline positions on issues like immigration and national security.

Did Trump ever disavow the KKK?

In February 2016, Donald Trump faced significant backlash after he failed to immediately disavow David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), during an interview on CNN.

The Interview and Controversial Moment occurred on February 28, 2016, during an interview with Jake Tapper on CNN’s State of the Union, where Trump was asked to comment on David Duke’s endorsement of his presidential campaign.

Jake Tapper asked: "Do you want David Duke's vote? ... I’m just talking about the support from David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan, and the people who support him."

Trump responded hesitantly and avoided directly condemning Duke, saying:“I don’t know anything about him. I don’t know what you’re talking about.” Later, he added: “I disavow, okay? I disavow.”

However, Trump did not immediately forcefully disavow Duke or the KKK. His response was perceived by many as ambiguous and weak.

Trump’s reluctance to disavow Duke immediately was widely criticized, especially by civil rights groups, political commentators, and opponents. Many viewed his failure to firmly reject Duke’s endorsement as an unwillingness to denounce white supremacy and hate groups.

The fact that Trump hesitated in a high-profile interview raised questions about his position on race relations and whether he was appealing to extremist factions.

Republican figures such as Lindsey Graham and Mitt Romney criticized Trump for not directly rejecting the endorsement. Romney, in particular, condemned the failure to unequivocally denounce white supremacy and said that Trump’s response was a “moral failing.”

Democrats were quick to seize on the moment, with figures like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders calling attention to the danger of Trump’s rhetoric and the potential for him to embolden hate groups.

CNN’s Jake Tapper, along with other media outlets, continued to press Trump on the issue, with critics arguing that a stronger disavowal was necessary.

The next day, after receiving widespread criticism, Trump made a more explicit disavowal of David Duke and the KKK in a statement.

He said: “I totally disavow the KKK, I totally disavow David Duke. I don’t know anything about him.”

Despite this, the damage had already been done. His initial hesitation in rejecting Duke’s endorsement left many questioning whether Trump was trying to avoid alienating certain segments of his base, which included some far-right and white nationalist supporters.

During the 2016 election, some elements of the alt-right and white nationalist groups expressed support for Trump. These groups were drawn to his tough stance on immigration, his nationalist rhetoric, and his disregard for political correctness.

David Duke and other far-right figures voiced support for Trump’s campaign, believing that Trump’s rhetoric on issues like immigration and political correctness aligned with their views.

Trump’s failure to immediately denounce these supporters reinforced concerns that he was either sympathetic to these views or at least willing to tolerate them for the sake of electoral gain.

Trump’s later disavowal may have satisfied some critics, the initial response set the stage for accusations of racism and bigotry that dogged his campaign throughout 2016. His ambiguous stance on Duke and white supremacy became a key talking point for his political opponents.

Trump’s failure to unequivocally reject David Duke initially was part of a larger pattern of controversial statements and actions related to race that led to divisions in the electorate. Some voters were deeply disturbed by the association with hate groups, while others were more focused on his promises to crack down on illegal immigration and challenge political correctness.

Over the course of his campaign and presidency, Trump’s comments and behavior regarding race and white supremacy were often criticized as encouraging or legitimizing extremist views. He was frequently accused of being slow to condemn hate groups, such as in the aftermath of the Charlottesville rally in 2017.

Trump’s reluctance to disavow groups like the KKK was part of a broader debate about whether his rhetoric emboldened white nationalists or whether he was simply reflecting the frustrations of voters who felt ignored by the political establishment.

Who did Trump’s 2017 travel ban target?

In January 2017, shortly after taking office, Donald Trump signed an executive order implementing a travel ban that targeted individuals from several Muslim-majority countries. This was one of the first major actions of his presidency and sparked widespread controversy, legal challenges, and protests.

On January 27, 2017, Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.”

The order, often referred to as the “Muslim Ban”, banned the entry of citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries. It included:

Iran

Iraq

Libya

Somalia

Sudan

Syria

Yemen

The order also suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days and indefinitely halted the resettlement of Syrian refugees, citing concerns over national security and the potential threat of terrorism.

Trump justified the ban by citing national security concerns, claiming that the U.S. needed to prevent terrorists from entering the country. He stated that the countries targeted in the executive order were “states of concern” with links to terrorism.

The White House emphasized the goal of the ban was to prevent radical Islamic terrorists from entering the U.S. and to ensure that the U.S. had a “vetting” process that could more effectively screen individuals from countries that posed a security risk.

The order was met with immediate backlash both in the U.S. and internationally. Thousands of people gathered at airports across the country to protest, expressing their opposition to the discriminatory nature of the ban and its impact on families, students, and travelers.

The ban was widely perceived as a discriminatory measure aimed at Muslims, and many critics argued it violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion.

Civil rights organizations and legal experts argued that the order violated equal protection principles under the Constitution, as it appeared to target people based on their religion and national origin.

Almost immediately, lawsuits were filed against the travel ban. Many individuals and organizations, including state attorneys general and civil rights groups, challenged the legality of the order in federal court.

Judges in various states issued temporary restraining orders blocking parts of the ban, particularly the sections preventing individuals from entering the U.S. or seeking refuge.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the suspension of the ban, ruling that it could not be enforced while legal challenges were ongoing.

The ban caused significant chaos at airports, with detained travelers, some of whom had already been on their way to the U.S. or had valid visas. Many travelers, including students, businesspeople, and refugees, found themselves stranded or denied entry into the U.S. without clear explanation.

The ban affected not only travelers from the seven banned countries but also green card holders and individuals with valid visas from those countries.

Trump and his administration defended the order, saying it was necessary for national security. Trump used Twitter and public statements to reiterate that the ban was meant to protect Americans from terrorism and to overhaul the country’s immigration system to prioritize national security.

He also referred to the opposition as "fake news" and political correctness, attempting to frame the controversy as a battle between national security and liberal elites.

Due to the legal challenges, Trump signed a revised version of the travel ban on March 6, 2017. This new version was intended to address the legal concerns raised by courts.

The Key changes in the revised version included the removal of Iraq from the list of banned countries, exemptions for individuals with valid visa or green card status, and clearer guidelines for the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, including a 120-day suspension for refugees.

The legal battles continued, and the revised ban was ultimately brought before the U.S. Supreme Court.

On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling that upheld the revised travel ban in a landmark decision. The Court ruled that the ban did not violate the Constitution or immigration law and was within the President’s authority to act in matters of national security.

The Court determined that the president’s broad powers in matters of immigration and national security outweighed the concerns about religious discrimination.

The final version of the travel ban, known as Proclamation 9645, was put in place in September 2017, adding Chad to the list and maintaining the restrictions on countries like Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. Some of the previous exemptions were removed, and a more comprehensive review process for refugees and visa applicants was instituted.

The travel ban was seen as a symbol of Trump’s hardline stance on immigration and his commitment to protecting American citizens from what he described as the dangers of Islamic terrorism.

The ban and its aftermath fueled divisive rhetoric and further polarized American public opinion, particularly regarding issues of immigration, national security, and religious freedom.

The ban was widely criticized globally, with many leaders of Muslim-majority countries and human rights organizations condemning it as discriminatory.

Several governments, particularly in Europe, expressed concern about the effects of the ban on diplomatic relations and global cooperation.

The travel ban became a central issue in the 2018 midterm elections and played a significant role in the broader conversation about immigration reform in the U.S.

It contributed to ongoing debates over immigration policy, particularly regarding the treatment of refugees, Muslim communities, and the U.S.'s role in global humanitarian efforts.

What was the Charlottesville rally?

In August 2017, Donald Trump faced significant backlash after his controversial response to the Charlottesville rally, a violent white supremacist rally that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017. The rally was organized by white nationalist groups and included neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, and other far-right extremists, who were protesting the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee.

The rally began as a demonstration against the removal of Confederate monuments, particularly the statue of Robert E. Lee, but it quickly descended into violence.

Clashes broke out between the white nationalist protesters and counter-protesters, including anti-racist groups like Antifa. The violence culminated when James Alex Fields Jr., a white nationalist, drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing Heather Heyer, a 32-year-old woman, and injuring dozens of others.

After the violence in Charlottesville, Trump issued an initial statement on August 12, which condemned the violence and hatred on "all sides." He said:

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.”

This response was widely criticized for being vague and for not directly addressing the white nationalist groups involved in the violence. Critics argued that Trump's failure to specifically denounce white supremacy and neo-Nazis sent a message of equivocation.

On August 15, 2017, Trump gave a press conference at Trump Tower in New York City, where he doubled down on his initial remarks and further inflamed the controversy. During the press conference, he said: “You also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.”

Trump was referring to the presence of what he described as "very fine people" among the white nationalist protesters, as well as among the counter-protesters. He argued that not everyone at the rally was a white supremacist and that there were “good people” on both sides of the conflict.

Trump’s remarks sparked widespread condemnation, particularly from politicians, activists, and civil rights leaders. Many accused him of equivocating between white supremacists and the people protesting against them, suggesting moral equivalence between hate groups and those standing up to them.

Critics, including members of his own political party, pointed out that his comments legitimized white nationalism and neo-Nazism.

Senator John McCain, for example, stated that "there’s no moral equivalency between racists and Americans standing up to defy hate and bigotry."

Senator Marco Rubio also tweeted, “We must be clear. There are no “very fine people” among neo-Nazis, white supremacists, or the KKK.”

Trump’s comments alienated many, including business leaders, Republicans, and activists who had previously supported him. The backlash resulted in the disbanding of two high-profile advisory councils, the President’s Manufacturing Council and the Strategy and Policy Forum, as several CEOs resigned in protest over Trump’s refusal to condemn white supremacy more forcefully.

Protests erupted across the country, with many people demanding that Trump clearly denounce the racist ideology of the groups involved in the Charlottesville rally.

In the days following the rally, Trump continued to defend his comments, insisting that there were “very fine people” on both sides of the confrontation. He argued that some of the people who had attended the rally were merely protesting the removal of the Confederate statues and were not connected to white supremacy or hate.

He also suggested that there was violence on both sides of the rally, further implying moral equivalency between the white supremacists and those protesting them. His statements were met with growing frustration and disbelief, as his refusal to directly denounce neo-Nazis and white supremacists was seen by many as tacit support for these groups.

Trump’s response to the Charlottesville rally marked one of the most polarizing moments of his presidency. It solidified the view among many critics that Trump had a soft spot for white nationalist ideologies or, at best, was unwilling to take a firm stand against them.

His failure to condemn white supremacy in unequivocal terms alienated a significant portion of the population, including racial justice activists, civil rights leaders, and even some of his political allies.

The events also became a flashpoint in the ongoing national conversation about race relations, police brutality, and the legacy of Confederate symbols in the United States.

The fallout from his comments in Charlottesville led to a decrease in bipartisan support for Trump, particularly from those who had been hesitant to criticize him earlier in his presidency. While his core base of support remained loyal, the controversy deepened the divide between Trump and many moderate Republicans, Democrats, and progressives.

Trump’s handling of the Charlottesville rally continued to shape public discourse throughout his presidency. His remarks were frequently cited in discussions about his views on race, hate groups, and American values. The event and Trump’s response reinforced perceptions of him as divisive and unwilling to fully reject extremist ideologies.

The fallout also contributed to the growth of movements like Black Lives Matter and anti-racist activism, as well as the removal of Confederate statues in various states, which became a focal point of debate about race and history in the U.S.

Trump’s insistence on “both sides” played a major role in shaping how the public and media viewed the issue of white nationalism in America. His rhetoric was seen as giving credibility to groups that many considered fringe extremists, and his comments were widely interpreted as normalizing hate speech and violence.

The Charlottesville controversy became a central part of the broader debate about race in America, particularly in relation to Trump’s presidency. It was frequently discussed in the context of his broader rhetoric and policies, including his responses to police violence, immigration issues, and his comments about other racial or ethnic groups.

Who did Trump refer to when he said “shithole countries?

In January 2018, Trump faced widespread international condemnation following reports that he referred to certain nations as "shithole countries" during a meeting with lawmakers. The alleged comments were made in the context of discussions about immigration policy.

During a meeting on immigration, President Trump reportedly asked, "Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?" He suggested that the U.S. should instead welcome more immigrants from countries like Norway. 

Lawmakers from both parties condemned the remarks. Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who was present at the meeting, stated, "He said these hate-filled things and he said them repeatedly." 

The White House did not initially deny the reports, with the Deputy Press Secretary stating that Trump was advocating for merit-based immigration.

Countries and international bodies worldwide reacted with outrage. The United Nations labeled the comments as racist, and the African Union expressed alarm, highlighting the historical context of African nations' relationship with the U.S.

Several nations summoned U.S. ambassadors to formally protest the remarks. For instance, Botswana called the comments "reprehensible and racist," seeking clarification on whether their country was considered a "shithole."

Trump denied using the specific term "shithole," tweeting that the language used was tough but not as reported. 

Despite denials, the incident fueled ongoing debates about race, immigration, and the tone of political discourse in the U.S., with many viewing the remarks as indicative of underlying racial biases.

What was the Family Separation Policy?

In June 2018, the family separation policy at the U.S.-Mexico border gained national attention, leading to widespread outrage both domestically and internationally. This policy, which was part of the Trump administration’s "zero-tolerance" approach to illegal immigration, resulted in thousands of children being separated from their parents as they crossed the U.S. border.

In April 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the implementation of a zero-tolerance policy aimed at deterring illegal immigration, particularly from Central American migrants seeking asylum in the United States. Under this policy, individuals caught crossing the border illegally would face criminal prosecution, and their children would be separated from them as a result of the parents’ incarceration.

As a result, the Department of Homeland Security began separating families, placing children in detention centers or holding facilities while their parents were prosecuted.

In June 2018, images and audio recordings of separated children began circulating in the media, sparking a public outcry. The most notable image was that of a crying 2-year-old girl from Honduras. It became one of the most symbolic images of the crisis.

Leaked audio also surfaced, featuring children crying for their parents while being held in detention centers. This further fueled the controversy and highlighted the emotional and psychological toll on the children.

The policy sparked immediate backlash from human rights organizations, immigration advocates, and lawmakers across the political spectrum. They argued that the policy was inhumane and violated the rights of children and families. Many critics condemned the separation of children from their parents as child abuse.

The United Nations and several international bodies also condemned the practice, calling it a violation of international human rights standards.

Democrats were the most vocal critics of the policy, calling it cruel and immoral. The policy was widely seen as a means to deter asylum seekers and migrants from Central America, many of whom were fleeing violence and poverty in their home countries.

Republicans, including some members of Trump’s party, expressed concern over the policy’s effects, but many ultimately supported the broader immigration enforcement measures. Some Republican Party members, like Senator Jeff Flake, openly criticized the administration for its treatment of children.

At first, President Trump defended the policy, arguing that it was necessary to combat illegal immigration and deter asylum seekers from entering the U.S. He also stated that Congress needed to act to change immigration laws to stop family separations.

Trump also made several claims about the benefits of the policy, including the argument that separating families would discourage illegal immigration.

Faced with growing political and public pressure, Trump signed an executive order on June 20, 2018, to halt family separations. The order sought to end the separations but also called for keeping families in detention together while their immigration cases were processed. This was a shift from the earlier policy of prosecuting every adult who crossed the border illegally, which had resulted in the separations.

However, the executive order did not immediately address the existing separated families, and questions remained about the logistics of reuniting the children with their parents.

After the policy was halted, the Trump administration faced immense pressure to reunite families that had already been separated. By August 2018, it was reported that thousands of children remained separated from their parents, with a significant number of reunifications still pending.

The policy caused long-term emotional and psychological trauma to the children who were affected, and it contributed to widespread criticisms of the Trump administration’s approach to immigration.

The family separation crisis further entrenched political divisions over immigration in the U.S. It became one of the key flashpoints of the broader immigration debate and was frequently referenced by both Trump’s supporters and critics throughout the remainder of his presidency.

The policy drew significant attention in the lead-up to the 2018 midterm elections, and Democrats used the issue to rally opposition to Trump’s immigration policies.

Who did Trump tell to ‘go back’ to the countries they came from?

In July 2019, President Donald Trump sparked a massive controversy when he told four congresswomen of color to "go back" to the countries they came from. The remarks were widely criticized as racist and xenophobic, and they ignited a fierce debate over race, immigration, and the role of women in politics.

On July 14, 2019, Trump posted a series of tweets targeting the four Democratic congresswomen—Ilhan Omar (representing Minnesota), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (representing New York), Rashida Tlaib (representing Michigan), and Ayanna Pressley (representing Massachusetts)—all of whom were women of color and members of the progressive "Squad" in the House of Representatives.

Trump tweeted:

“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came.” “Then come back and show us how it is done.”

The tweets were in response to the congresswomen criticizing Trump’s policies and rhetoric, particularly regarding issues like immigration, racial justice, and the treatment of immigrants.

All four women were U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization, and three of the four were born in the United States. Ilhan Omar, born in Somalia, was the only one born outside the U.S., but she had been a naturalized American citizen for many years.

Trump’s comments were met with swift condemnation from across the political spectrum. Democrats and Republicans alike decried the remarks as racist and xenophobic.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi condemned the tweets, calling them "xenophobic" and stating that Trump’s remarks were “dangerous” and “disrespectful.”

Republican Senator Mitt Romney also criticized the president, saying that the remarks were “wrong” and “divisive.”

Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of Trump, defended the president, but many other Republicans, including Senator Susan Collins, expressed concern about the comments.

Trump’s use of the phrase "go back" was widely interpreted as an attack on the congresswomen’s racial and ethnic backgrounds. The phrase has a long history of being used to attack people of color, particularly immigrants, in the United States. Critics pointed out that it was an example of racialized rhetoric meant to delegitimize the congresswomen and their political voices.

In response to Trump’s comments, the House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning his remarks. The resolution passed with a 240-187 vote, with four Republicans joining Democrats in condemning Trump’s rhetoric.

The resolution declared that Trump’s comments were "racist" and called on him to apologize. However, Trump did not apologize and doubled down on his comments, continuing to criticize the four congresswomen.

Despite the widespread backlash, Trump continued to defend his remarks. In a press conference on July 15, 2019, he stated that he wasn’t talking about race but rather criticizing the congresswomen’s political views. He argued that they were “very left-wing” and that their criticism of America was “un-American”.

Trump also claimed that his remarks were aimed at criticizing their policy positions rather than their racial or ethnic backgrounds, but many saw it as a thinly veiled attack on their identity as women of color.

Trump’s comments further intensified the racial and political divides in the U.S. It reinforced perceptions among his critics that his rhetoric was designed to stoke racial tensions and appeal to his base of white, working-class voters by targeting minority groups.

The incident also became a rallying cry for Democrats and progressives, who used the moment to highlight Trump’s controversial views on race, immigration, and his divisive political style.

The four congresswomen, often referred to as “The Squad,” became increasingly vocal in their opposition to Trump’s policies. They held a joint press conference to address the president’s comments and defiantly declared that they were not going to be silenced by his attacks.

They also continued to criticize Trump’s administration for its treatment of immigrants, its handling of racial justice issues, and its economic policies, positioning themselves as leaders of a progressive movement within the Democratic Party.

This list of controversies that are associated with Trump don’t make it easy to defend the idea that Trump is not a misogynist or a racist.

It’s rare for people nowadays, particularly politicians, to come out and admit they’re racist or misogynistic. In fact- I’ve never met anyone who has told me they’re  a racist or a misogynist.

In my personal view, Trump is a populist and a capitalist who will say and do whatever to appease the will of his voters- whose majority happen to be white Americans- like himself- and to make money.

If that means doing or saying something that will offend minorities in the US and other countries- then so be it- he doesn’t care.

If we think about the span of time Trump has been in the public eye- it’s obvious that he’s never cared about minorities in the US. His reputation as a business magnate was more important- and now, as a leader of the US in his second and final term- he likely doesn’t care about what anyone thinks- he’s already successfully created the reputation he needed to get enough votes to become the US President.

Prior to becoming the US President, he was arrogant about his achievements and downplayed how critical of a role his father played in financing and supporting his business ventures which obviously led to his wealth. 

That most likely influenced the way he interacted with women, as men have a tendency to boast about their financial success when trying to pick up women- which you must admit- is pretty normal.

It’s arguable that his personality or character should have nothing to do with his competence as a president.

What I will say however, is that this next decade will be telling in how competent of a leader Trump proves to be- and whether Trump will have any more controversial moments for us to talk about.