On August 25, 2018, Axios reported that "President Trump has repeatedly suggested to senior officials of Homeland Security and National Security to use nuclear bombs to prevent hurricanes from hitting the United States." The private remarks of the President and a briefing in a memorandum of the National Security Council, in which these comments were recorded. Axios described two of these events in detail:
During a White House hurricane briefing, Trump said, "I understand. I understand it. Why do not we break it? "Gave a source that was present." They begin to form off the coast of Africa as they move across the Atlantic. We throw a bomb into the eye of the hurricane and it destroys it. "Why can not we do that?" Added the source, outlining the President's remarks. […]
Trump also raised the idea in another conversation with a high-ranking administrative official. A 2017 NSC memo describes this second conversation in which Trump asked if the government should bomb hurricanes to prevent them from hitting home. One source, who was informed in the NSC memo, said it does not contain the word "nuclear." it only means that the president spoke about the bombing of hurricanes.
In response to the report, Trump said it was "false news," suggesting that "he wanted to blow up big hurricanes with nuclear weapons before" was "ridiculous."
The story of Axios that President Trump wanted to blow up big hurricanes with nuclear weapons before he went ashore is ridiculous. I have never said that. Only more FAKE NEWS!
– Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 26, 2019
In response, Axios reporter Jonathan Swan, who reported the story to Margaret Talev, tweeted that he was standing by what he wrote and repeated Axios' Sourcing:
I stand by every word in the story. He said so in at least two sessions in the first year and part of the presidency, and one of the conversations was recalled. https://t.co/5qs8o1k4QS[19659006<-JonathanSwan(@jonathanvswan) August 26, 2019
Snopes can not independently verify the claims of anonymous sources or the claims contained in the Axios story not seen. We classify the claim as such as "unproven." This rating could change if confirmatory information is published.