Trump Claims He Misspoke "Would" Instead of "Wouldn't" in Implausible Helsinki Walkback Attempt

One day after facing fierce bipartisan condemnation for siding with Vladimir Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies, President Donald Trump attempted damage control with an implausible claim that he had simply misspoken a single word during the Helsinki press conference. The walkback was widely mocked as unconvincing and failed to repair the damage from what Senator John McCain had called “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory.”

The “Would/Wouldn’t” Explanation

Reading from prepared remarks at the White House, Trump claimed he had made a simple verbal error when he said “I don’t see any reason why it would be Russia” that interfered in the 2016 election. He stated: “In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word ‘would’ instead of ‘wouldn’t.’ The sentence should have been, ‘I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia.’”

Trump attempted to frame this as an obvious double negative that should have clarified his support for U.S. intelligence conclusions about Russian interference. However, the explanation contradicted the extensive context of his Helsinki remarks, where he had praised Putin’s “extremely strong and powerful” denial, questioned his own intelligence agencies, and promoted conspiracy theories about the DNC server.

Immediate Contradictions Undermine Walkback

Even while attempting to walk back his comments, Trump immediately undermined his own clarification. After claiming to accept intelligence findings, he added: “Could be other people also. There’s a lot of people out there.” This suggestion that other entities might have interfered directly contradicted the unanimous position of U.S. intelligence agencies attributing the interference specifically to Russia.

The president also could not bring himself to state clearly and unequivocally that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election, instead hedging with qualifiers and alternative possibilities.

Limited Effectiveness

According to Carol Leonnig of the Washington Post, the damage control had minimal impact: “The damage has been done. European allies are likely not really believing that the president twice mistakenly said he couldn’t imagine that the Russians would interfere in our election.”

White House staff reportedly had their “fingers crossed” but expressed “great consternation” about how the summit had unfolded. Trump had ignored extensive briefing materials—up to 100 pages—prepared by his team for the Putin meeting.

Bipartisan Skepticism Continues

The walkback failed to quell criticism from either party:

Sen. Susan Collins expressed being “astonished that the president would choose to believe the assertions by President Putin over the unanimous conclusions of his own U.S. intelligence leaders.”

Democrats voiced deeper concerns about Trump’s loyalties and whether he was compromised by Russia.

Even fact-checking organizations found the explanation implausible given the full context of Trump’s remarks in Helsinki, which had included multiple statements favoring Putin’s account over American intelligence assessments.

Significance

The failed walkback highlighted Trump’s inability or unwillingness to fully accept and affirm the intelligence community’s findings about Russian interference. His reluctance to clearly state that Russia had attacked American democracy—even when given a scripted opportunity to do so—deepened concerns about his relationship with Putin and Russia.

The episode demonstrated that Trump viewed the political fallout as a messaging problem requiring damage control, rather than a substantive issue requiring a clear affirmation of American intelligence findings and national security interests. The transparent implausibility of the “would/wouldn’t” explanation became a symbol of Trump’s approach to inconvenient truths throughout his presidency.