The Hurricane Dorian–Alabama controversy, also referred to as Sharpiegate, arose from a comment made by President Donald Trump on September 1, 2019, as Hurricane Dorian approached the U.S. mainland. Mentioning states that would likely be impacted by the storm, he incorrectly included Alabama, which by then was known not to be under threat from the storm.

After many residents of Alabama called the local weather bureau to ask about it, the bureau issued a reassurance that Alabama was not expected to be hit by the storm. Over the following week, Trump repeatedly insisted his comment had been correct. On September 4, he showed reporters a weather map which had been altered with a Sharpie marker to show the hurricane’s track threatening Alabama.

He also reportedly ordered his aides to obtain an official retraction of the weather bureau’s comment that the storm was not headed for Alabama. On September 6, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published an unsigned statement in support of Trump’s initial claim, saying that NHC models ‘demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama.’

Multiple agencies have investigated the possibility that political influence may have been exerted over NOAA and in June and July 2020 two reports had been completed. A report released on June 15, found that both Neil Jacobs, the acting NOAA administrator, and Julie Kay Roberts, the former NOAA deputy chief of staff and communications director, twice violated codes of the agency’s scientific integrity policy amid their involvement in the NOAA statement. A third investigation being done by a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives has not yet been released.

In a tweet about the approaching hurricane on September 1, 2019, Trump said that ‘South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated.’ By that date, no weather forecaster was predicting that Dorian would impact Alabama, and eight National Hurricane Center forecast updates over the preceding 24 hours showed Dorian steering well away from Alabama and moving up the Atlantic coast. Trump, who had (on August 29) canceled his trip to Poland to monitor the hurricane, was apparently relying on information that was several days old.

About 20 minutes after Trump’s tweet, the Birmingham, Alabama office of the National Weather Service (NWS) issued a tweet that appeared to contradict Trump, saying that Alabama ‘will NOT see any impacts from Dorian.’ On September 9, NWS director Louis Uccellini said that the Birmingham NWS had not been responding to Trump’s tweet, but rather to a flood of phone calls and social media contacts their office had received, asking if the hurricane was going to hit Alabama. ‘Only later, when the retweets and politically based comments started coming to their office, did they learn the sources of this information,’ he said. He added that the Birmingham office ‘did what any office would do to protect the public,’ counteracting the wrong information to ‘stop public panic’ and ‘ensure public safety.’

Over the following days, as the hurricane moved up the coast and Alabama felt no effects from it, Trump insisted repeatedly that he had been right about the hurricane threatening the state. On September 2 he criticized a reporter who had fact-checked his comment, saying he had been right and the fact-check was ‘phony.’

On September 4 in the Oval Office, Trump displayed the National Hurricane Center’s August 29 diagram of Dorian’s projected track. The diagram had a line apparently made with a black marker which extended the cone of uncertainty of the hurricane’s possible path into southern Alabama. Trump said he did not know how the map came to be modified. The map incident resulted in the hashtag ‘Sharpiegate’ trending on Twitter, with people posting invented versions of other photos modified by a marker.

Later the same day, Trump tweeted a map by the South Florida Water Management District dated August 29, four days before his September 1 tweet, showing numerous projected paths of Dorian. Trump incorrectly asserted ‘almost all models’ showed Dorian hitting Alabama, even though the map showed most predicted paths would not enter Alabama. A note on the map stated it was ‘superseded’ by National Hurricane Center publications and that it was to be discarded if there were any discrepancies. Trump also said his briefings had included a ‘95% chance” that the storm would strike Alabama and that ‘Alabama was hit very hard — was going to be hit very hard.’

On September 6, NOAA published an unsigned statement in support of Trump’s initial claim, saying that NHC models ‘demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama.’ The statement also said the tweet from the Birmingham NWS office was incorrect because it ‘spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time.’ The September 6 statement contradicted NOAA’s September 1 statement that the ‘current forecast path of Dorian does not include Alabama.’

The September 6 statement led to pushback from meteorologists, including from the president of the NWS Employees Organization, who commented that the statement was ‘political,’ ‘utterly disgusting and disingenuous,’ and with ‘no scientific basis.’ The Commerce Department’s Inspector General Peggy E. Gustafson said she was investigating the September 7 memorandum and directed NOAA employees to preserve all communications related to it.

On September 9 The New York Times reported that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had called the acting administrator of NOAA, Neil Jacobs, and ordered him to undo the department’s apparent contradiction of Trump. Jacobs objected, but was told that the top officials of NOAA would be fired if the disagreement was not resolved. The Commerce Department later issued a partial denial, saying ‘Secretary Ross did not threaten to fire any NOAA staff over forecasting and public statements about Hurricane Dorian.’

Political commentator Robert Reich called Trump’s behavior irrational. ‘I think we have to face the truth that no one seems to want to admit. This is no longer a case of excessive narcissism or grandiosity. We’re not simply dealing with an unusually large ego […] The president of the United States is seriously, frighteningly, dangerously unstable. And he’s getting worse by the day.’

Bloomberg journalist Timothy L. O’Brien called Trump ‘unstable’ and said ‘the world is in danger.’ ‘NOAA, an agency built on science and data engineered to provide reliable, impartial information and serve the public interest, wound up purging science and data from its public profile to cover for Trump. This is how good government decays when it’s compromised by a cult of personality.’


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.