No single event demonstrated the limits of Donald Trump’s presidency more than the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Decorated with swastikas and Confederate flags, many of the demonstrators spewed Nazi-era rallying cries while the slogan “Make America Great Again” stretched across hats and t-shirts. For those monitoring the President’s appeal to a bigoted subset of America, demonstrators mixing white supremacist symbols and Trump campaign attire came with little surprise.

Polling shows that voters sympathetic to the white nationalist cause occupy a notable portion of President Trump’s political base. A Huffington Post/YouGov poll found that nearly half of Trump supporters surveyed express sympathy for the white nationalists in Charlottesville, with 11 percent indicating that the demonstrators were mostly right and another 37 percent stating that they went too far but had a point. Further, results of a Politico/Morning Consult poll showed that, compared to other conservatives, strong approvers of PresidentTrump were four times as likely to indicate a favorable impression of neo-Nazis.

Critics of the President argue that his racialized language on the campaign trail laid the groundwork for emboldening white supremacists. Through his acute criticism of Muslims and immigrants, President Trump maintained a committed base of Americans holding unfordable views of racial minority groups. As the New York Times and other news organizations produce headlines such as, “Trump Gives White Supremacists an Unequivocal Boost,” the mutually beneficial relationship between the President and the bigoted portion of his base remains well documented. In a tweet following the events in Charlottesville, Hillary Clinton alluded to a direct link between Donald Trump’s campaign practices and the weekend’s violent display white supremacy.

How, then, can Donald Trump presidentially condemn these bigoted viewpoints while maintaining support from his most committed voters? In the aftermath of Charlottesville, backlash from the President’s various statements—scripted, unifying language and unscripted nods to white nationalism—revealed his political limitations in pursuing both.

After demonstrators flooded Charlottesville wielding torches Friday night and Nazi flags Saturday morning, the President’s typically active Twitter account fell into silence—and his critics noticed.

President Trump’s first acknowledgement of the events came as a tweet later that morning. Remaining politically neutral, his statement used unifying words to denounced hate generally without placing explicit blame onto any one group.

The vagueness of his tweet stood in contrast with his previous assertions that “radical Islamic terrorism” cannot be defeated if leaders refuse to call it out by name. The President’s reluctance to take a side between the white nationalists and counter-protesters drew criticism from both sides of the political spectrum, including former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

During the rally, CNN aired an interview with Duke characterizing the event in unambiguous terms.

“This represents a turning point for the people of this country. We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back,” Duke explained.

Duke represents the loyal yet bigoted segment of President Trump’s base. He faithfully supported Mr. Trump’s candidacy as far back as the Republican primary in 2016, and continued to be an enthusiastic supporter after the President expressed reluctance in disavowing Duke’s support. However, President Trump’s attempt at using unifying language to condemn the Charlottesville violence—although vague—put him at risk of alienating his base. Duke highlighted this political tightrope in a tweet replying to the President’s initial statement.

President Trump’s first spoken statement on Charlottesville, made nearly four hours after the Virginia governor declared a state of emergency and two hours after a white nationalist demonstrator plowed a car into counter-protestors, reflected the neutrality of his original tweet.

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides—many sides. So we want to get the situation straightened out in Charlottesville and we want to study it and we want to see what we’re doing wrong as a country, where things like this can happen,” the President said.

This nebulous statement of blaming “many sides” stood in stark contrast to the blunt, outspoken demeanor that President Trump built his career on. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle delivered statements of disapproval over the President’s vague language.

As Republican Senator Cory Garder told CNN: “This isn’t a time for innuendo or to allow room to be read between the lines. This is a time to lay blame…The president has done an incredible job naming terrorism around the globe as evil. He has said and called it out time and time again. This president needs to do exactly that today.”

In a flood of news coverage, reports began providing commentary on the politics of President Trump’s neutrality and the conflict of interest that comes with alienating white nationalist groups. In an article covering President Trump’s reaction to Charlottesville, Vanity Fair writer Tina Nguyen offered possible explanations for the President’s vague messaging:

“The alt-right radicals and neo-Nazis who terrorized Charlottesville on Saturday made common cause with the president, even if he did not ally himself with them, while the anti-racist protesters who stood up to the white supremacist demonstrators were generally on the left. For a president who struggles to frame issues as anything other than referendums on himself, it is not surprising that he might struggle to offer more than vague condemnation of ‘both sides.’”

The immediate outcry that followed President Trump’s statement demonstrated reporters’ ability to influence the administration’s response to such events. After numerous inquiries from the press asking whether Donald Trump specifically opposed white supremacy, the White House issued a statement feeding the desires of reporters and critics:

“The President said very strongly in his statement yesterday that he condemns all forms of violence, bigotry, and hatred. Of course that includes white supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazi and extremist groups. He called for national unity and bringing all Americans together,” an aide announced.

The crafted White House statement mirrored President Trump’s scripted appearance that took place the following day, as continuous negative press compelled the White House to follow up with another statement from the President himself. At a press conference two days following the Unite the Right rally, Mr. Trump produced a pre-written statement condemning far-right groups in Charlottesville.

“Racism is evil—and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans,” Trump read from a teleprompter.

For listeners, this carefully crafted statement did little to explain the President’s initial neutrality. When members of the press asked why he waited “so long” to publically denounce the violence, Trump claimed that he needed more information before condemning neo-Nazis and white supremacists by name.

“Here’s the thing. When I make a statement, I like to be correct. I want the facts. This event just happened,” the President insisted.

However, the President’s explanation contradicted his previous behavior. Often, Donald Trump provides uninformed, real-time commentary on apparent political violence as it occurs. When a car plowed into pedestrians on London Bridge a couple of months prior, the President immediately retweeted an unconfirmed headline from the right-wing source Drudge Report: “Fears of new terror attack after van ‘mows down 20 people’ on London Bridge.” As British police were still sorting out exactly what occurred, President Trump took to Twitter again to describe the incident as a terrorist attack, even though he lacked any evidence of terrorist intent from London authorities.

In the aftermath of Charlottesville, the two days it took for President Trump to make a statement of condemnation proved too long for many in his outer circle. On the day of his crafted statement, three CEOs stepped down from a White House manufacturing council, and criticism of the President throughout the news media failed to subside. Following his remarks, President Trump took to Twitter to address the continuing criticism:

The President’s attack on Charlottesville news coverage continued into the night as well as the following morning. Later that evening, Trump retweeted a well-known alt-right media figure, asking why there was “no media outrage about continuing violence in Chicago. In the morning, backlash over Trump’s retweet of a cartoon meme circulated widely among the press. The image showed a person whose face was covered by a CNN logo being plowed into by a train labeled “Trump.”

His ability to shift negative attention from himself onto the press demonstrated a pattern of Donald Trump’s presidency. When the public associates negative events with Mr. Trump’s leadership, the President frequently spins the narrative into a referendum on the mainstream media. However, when events appear to be clear and objective, President Trump faces a challenge in maintaining this strategy. After the President received heavy criticism over his handling of the hurricane in Puerto Rico earlier this month, Mr. Trump took to Twitter to shift responsibility onto news organizations:

President Trump’s negativity towards the news media continued at his next press conference regarding Charlottesville, which took place three days after the rally. With the conflicting pressure to maintain his his base, Mr. Trump demonstrated the impact that the press has on his actions as president. Speaking without preparation at Trump Tower in New York, the President doubled down on his initial message of shared blame:

“I think there is blame on both sides. You look at both sides. I think there is blame on both sides…You had a group on one side that was bad and a group on the other side that was very violent,” he said.

Soon after, President Trump took his off-script remarks a step further. Before questioning whether the movement to pull down Confederate statues would lead to the removal of memorials to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, the President continued his off the cuff statement by equating the actions of counter-protestors to the white nationalist demonstrators.

“What about the ‘alt-left that came charging at, as you say, the ‘alt-right’? Do they have any semblance of guilt?” President Trump asked.

The President’s remarks stunned both members of the press core and Trump aids alike. “I saw a guttural, emotional reaction from reporters to the news conference in a way I haven’t seen before,” commented Kyle Pope, the Columbia Journalism Review editor. “There was something unleashed on both sides that is new.”

As CNN cut away from the news conference, anchor Jake Tapper, nearly speechless, reacted simply with the word: “Wow.” In banners across television screens, the network did not shy away from labeling the President’s statement as “off the rails.”

Right-leaning television hosts shared in this shock over the President’s remarks. “I’m still in the phase where I’m wondering if it was actually real-life,” said Fox News’ Kat Timpf. Later on Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer asserted, “What Trump did today was a moral disgrace.”

Mr. Trump’s choice to double down on his views following press backlash has become a staple of his presidency. As tensions escalated between the United States and North Korea earlier this year, President Trump threatened “fire and fury” against the adversarial nation during a moment of improvised remarks to the press. A threat of this nature to a country that possesses nuclear weapons sparked raging headlines from the press questioning the President’s diplomacy and suggesting that his remarks were too tough. In response, President Trump doubled down on his initial statement:

“Frankly, the people that were questioning that statement—was it too tough?—maybe it wasn’t tough enough…They’ve been doing this to our country for a long time, for many years, and it’s time that somebody stuck up for the people of this country and the people of other countries,” President Trump explained.

The President demonstrated similar behavior after a media uproar over his assertion that athletes should be fired for kneeling during the national anthem. At a rally for the Republican Alabama Senate candidate Luther Strange, President Trump’s exclaimed, “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say: ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out. He’s fired. He’s fired!'”

Soon after, the National Football League denounced the statement, with commissioner Roger Goodell describing it as disrespectful and “divisive.” In the midst of widespread criticism, the President doubled down on his remarks when he took to Twitter later that day:

With the intensity of the backlash over President Trump’s statements on Charlottesville, the President’s choice to double down on his initial remarks remains consistent with his handling of previous controversies.

President Trump’s decision to undermine his scripted talking points emerges as another trend of his presidency.

His doubling down on shared blame in Charlottesville took place at an event where he was expected to only discuss infrastructure. To the surprise of his aides, President Trump asked reporters for questions. In a tweet, New York Times White House Correspondent Maggie Haberman captured the President’s choice to answer questions despite contradictory instruction from his staff: