Hurricane Dorian and Sharpiegate: Altered NOAA Forecast Map and Political Pressure on Weather Scientists
Tier 3Documented2019-09-01 to 2020-07-09
Factual Summary
On September 1, 2019, as Hurricane Dorian approached the southeastern United States, President Donald Trump posted on Twitter that "South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated." By that date, no National Hurricane Center forecast showed Dorian threatening Alabama. Eight consecutive NHC forecast updates over the preceding 24 hours depicted the storm tracking up the Atlantic coast, well east of Alabama. Within minutes of Trump's tweet, the National Weather Service office in Birmingham, Alabama, posted a correction stating: "Alabama will NOT see any impacts from Dorian. We repeat, no impacts from prior #prior Hurricane Dorian will be felt across Alabama."
On September 4, 2019, Trump displayed an outdated NOAA forecast cone map in the Oval Office during a briefing on the storm. The map had been visibly altered with a black Sharpie marker to extend the projected hurricane path into Alabama. The Washington Post subsequently reported that Trump himself drew the extension on the map. Altering an official weather forecast is a potential violation of federal law under 18 U.S.C. Section 2074, which prohibits knowingly issuing false weather reports.
Rather than correcting the record, the administration escalated. On September 6, 2019, NOAA issued an unsigned public statement backing Trump's original claim, stating that "tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama." The statement contradicted the Birmingham office's earlier correction and was issued without identifying its author. Internal emails obtained through FOIA requests revealed that the statement was the product of political pressure from the Department of Commerce, led by Secretary Wilbur Ross.
The Commerce Department Inspector General launched an investigation and issued a report on July 9, 2020. The IG found that Commerce officials had responded to White House directives in producing the unsigned NOAA statement. Acting NOAA Administrator Neil Jacobs told investigators he believed he and other senior officials would lose their jobs if they did not reprimand forecasters who had contradicted the president. The IG report concluded that the unsigned statement "did not follow NOAA's policies and procedures for scientific integrity" and that the response was driven by improper political pressure.
The acting NOAA chief scientist, Craig McLean, sent a staff-wide email calling the unsigned statement a "violation of NOAA's policies and ethics" and announced he would investigate. Multiple NOAA employees described the incident as demoralizing and damaging to public trust in official weather forecasts.
Primary Sources
1. Trump Twitter post, September 1, 2019, claiming Alabama would be affected by Hurricane Dorian
2. NWS Birmingham, Alabama correction: "Alabama will NOT see any impacts from Dorian," September 1, 2019
3. Department of Commerce Inspector General report on the NOAA Hurricane Dorian statement, July 9, 2020
4. 18 U.S.C. Section 2074, prohibiting false weather reports
Corroborating Sources
1. NPR: "Trump Displays Altered Map of Hurricane Dorian's Path to Include Alabama," September 4, 2019
2. Washington Post: "Trump shows doctored hurricane chart," September 4, 2019
3. Time: "Documents Show NOAA's Panic Over Trump's Dorian Map," February 2020
4. American Oversight: "How 'Sharpiegate' Turned a Simple Misunderstanding into a Media Frenzy and Headache for NOAA Employees," FOIA documents
5. BuzzFeed News: "Sharpiegate Emails Show Officials Panicked Over Trump's Fake Hurricane Dorian Map," 2020
Counterarguments and Context
Trump and his supporters argued that early models, days before the September 1 tweet, had shown a small possibility that tropical-storm-force winds could reach portions of Alabama, and that Trump's original statement was therefore not entirely without basis. The unsigned NOAA statement pointed to ensemble models from August 28 through September 2 that showed some probability of tropical-storm-force winds reaching the southeastern tip of Alabama. Defenders characterized the media coverage as disproportionate and noted that Trump was attempting to warn the public about a dangerous storm. Critics responded that by September 1, the date of Trump's tweet, the operational forecasts showed no Alabama threat, and that the subsequent alteration of an official NOAA map and the political pressure on career scientists represented a deliberate effort to avoid acknowledging an error.
Author's Note
This entry is classified as Tier 3 because the key evidence consists of primary documentation: the altered map displayed on camera, the NWS Birmingham correction, the Inspector General's findings of improper political pressure, and the FOIA-obtained internal emails documenting Commerce Department interference with scientific communication. The IG report represents an official government finding. No criminal charges were brought under the false weather report statute.