Multiple accounts from former administration officials reveal that President Donald Trump, during his tenure, reportedly suggested using nuclear weapons to prevent hurricanes from reaching the United States. Sources familiar with internal discussions claim that the idea was raised on more than one occasion in meetings with senior Homeland Security and national security officials, and was even mentioned in a National Security Council (NSC) memorandum documenting the president’s remarks.
The Proposal and Its Context
According to an individual present at one White House hurricane briefing, President Trump appeared animated as he proposed a radical solution:
“I got it. Why don’t we nuke them?”
He allegedly reasoned that hurricanes form near the coast of Africa and intensify as they move across the Atlantic. By detonating a nuclear bomb inside the eye of the storm, he argued, the government could theoretically disrupt its structure before it reached American shores.
The briefer reportedly responded with a cautious promise to “look into it,” while those in the room reacted with shock. One participant described the atmosphere as “silent enough to hear a pin drop.” Afterward, several officials privately questioned how such a suggestion should be handled.
Official Records and Reactions
The idea resurfaced later in a separate conversation between President Trump and a senior official. A 2017 NSC memorandum summarized this discussion, noting that the president had raised the possibility of “bombing hurricanes” to stop them before landfall. The document, however, did not specifically mention the word “nuclear.”
Individuals familiar with the memo stressed that it was a routine record of the president’s comments and not an indication that any such plan was being seriously considered. According to these accounts, the proposal never advanced into the formal policy process and was effectively dismissed within the first year of the administration.
When questioned about the matter, a senior White House official declined to confirm or deny the president’s private discussions, stating, “We don’t comment on internal deliberations.” Another official defended the president’s intent, emphasizing that the motivation — to protect the U.S. mainland from catastrophic storms — was understandable even if the method was unrealistic. The official added that advisers often viewed such questions as examples of the president’s curiosity and willingness to challenge conventional thinking.
President Trump later dismissed the report altogether, calling it “ridiculous” and labeling it “fake news” in a social media post during the G7 summit.
Scientific and Historical Background
While the suggestion sounded unprecedented, the idea of using nuclear explosions to disrupt hurricanes has existed for decades. The concept originated during the Eisenhower administration, when a government scientist theorized that the immense energy from a nuclear blast could neutralize a storm’s internal convection patterns.
Despite its long-standing appeal in popular imagination, experts have consistently debunked the idea. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains a public “Tropical Cyclone Myths” page that directly addresses this theory. The agency explains that detonating a nuclear device within a hurricane would not only fail to alter the storm’s behavior but would also create severe environmental consequences due to radioactive fallout spreading with the prevailing winds.
Furthermore, such an action would violate the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty signed between the United States and the former Soviet Union, which prohibits the use of nuclear weapons for non-military purposes.
Scholarly Perspectives
Scientists and policy experts note that the persistence of this myth reveals a broader public misunderstanding of meteorology and nuclear physics. A 2016 National Geographic article, titled “Nuking Hurricanes: The Surprising History of a Really Bad Idea,” analyzed the recurring fascination with this concept and concluded that it remains both scientifically implausible and legally prohibited.
From an academic standpoint, the notion also highlights an important tension in political decision-making — the intersection between innovative thinking and scientific feasibility. While leaders often seek bold, unconventional solutions to national challenges, such proposals must ultimately align with established scientific understanding and international law.