We’ve witnessed the public apology many times before, especially in countries that run on an electoral political system. “Revisiting ‘The Age of Apology’” explains that “[…] Moments of apologetic rhetoric are not new[…] Public apologies for historical transgressions, injustices, wrong doings, and mistakes offered by political leaders around the globe have been an essential part of many societies and cultures” (2).

It’s important to understand why and when public apologies are made. Sanderijn Cels, a practice-oriented academic affiliated at Harvard Kennedy School’s Carr Center for Human Rights, explains that in the political world, apologies are “[…] Understood as social acts through which an official publicly offers a statement on behalf of a government for historical wrongdoing” (351). Digging into a more meaningful purpose, an apology is considered to be a moral act because it acknowledges right from wrong, where the overall effort of the apology is to make amendments (Salem 81). While apologies are meant to serve as a moral purpose to correct a wrong, apologies are not always practiced with the moral objective. “Various apologies given in some situations indicate a functionalistic role whereby an apology can be simply used as a strategy for political appeasement” (Salem 81). 

In terms of the function of an apology, Stephen Winter, Senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the University of Auckland, explains that the function of an apology is the remedy of wrongdoing (263). “An apology is conveyed by one agent to another at a particular time and place. That transactional character shapes its composite existence conditions and stipulates its non private character. Because apologies are conveyed, they must conform to publicly recognizable standards” (263).

This topic of what the function of apology is has been studied several times as we have witnessed several apologies from politicians. Cels’ article reviews several scholars' work who define the concept of the public apology. She says,

Various scholars ‘define the concept more expansively, including in the very definition elements such as the promise of forbear and the offer of reparations,’ concludes philosopher Pablo De Greiff (2008, p. 132). Additionally, some scholars argue that apology is more a process than a single speech act (e.g., Daye, 2004; Oliner, 2009), while others put forth a narrow definition of apology, thereby treating the issuing of an apology statement as a distinct act (e.g., Kampf, 2009; Tavuchis, 1991). The latter do not deny the fact that some political apologies need to be complemented with other measures in order to be effective, but they do not include these in the definition of apology (352).

Cels summarizes that an offender must say that he or she apologizes (353). In Trump’s apology, he does say, “I apologize,” however, he has constructed his speech to avoid acknowledging the women he’s offended, and rather he deflects the attention to his opponent, Hillary Clinton, and boasts about how great a man he is. This is a tactic known as image repair.