Listen to the article
In a recent White House gathering with Kennedy Center Board Members, President Donald Trump revived his repeatedly debunked claim that he predicted the September 11 terrorist attacks a year before they occurred.
“I predicted all of this stuff,” Trump stated during the meeting. “I predicted Osama Bin Laden would knock out the World Trade Center.”
The president elaborated on his purported foresight, claiming he warned about Bin Laden approximately a year before the attacks. “I said, ‘You better get him. He’s a bad guy.’ I watched him be interviewed one time, and I said, ‘That’s a bad guy. You’d better get him.’ One year before exactly. I wrote it in a book,” Trump insisted.
This assertion comes amid questions about whether the Trump administration accurately assessed Iran’s capability to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime chokepoint for global oil supply. The president claimed he had long anticipated Iran would use the strait as a “weapon” in response to U.S. military actions, even as his administration has spent three weeks seeking allied support to protect shipping routes in the region.
Fact-checkers have consistently disputed Trump’s 9/11 prediction claims. The president referenced his 2000 book “The America We Deserve” as evidence, but thorough examinations of the text reveal only a single mention of Bin Laden, with no specific warning about an impending attack on the World Trade Center or a call for his elimination.
According to CNN’s fact-checking, the book’s sole reference to Bin Laden actually critiques U.S. foreign policy approaches rather than urging action against him specifically: “One day we’re told that a shadowy figure with no fixed address named Osama bin-Laden is public enemy number one, and the U.S. jetfighters lay waste to his camp in Afghanistan. He escapes back under some rock, and a few news cycles later it’s on to a new enemy and new crisis.”
This isn’t the first time Trump has made this claim. In 2019, while announcing the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the president similarly stated, “A year, a year and a half before the World Trade Center came down, the book came out. I was talking about Osama bin Laden. I said, ‘You have to kill him. You have to take him out.’ Nobody listened to me.”
Last October, Trump repeated the claim to service members, stating, “There’s a page in there devoted to the fact that I saw somebody named Osama bin Laden, and I didn’t like it, and ‘You gotta take care of him.’ They didn’t do it.”
While Trump’s book did mention the possibility of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, it did not specifically connect such an attack to Bin Laden or al Qaeda. During his remarks, the president also criticized former President Bill Clinton for not eliminating Bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks occurred.
The revival of this debunked claim comes as the president faces scrutiny over his administration’s handling of regional conflicts. After boasting about predicting various geopolitical developments, Trump contradicted himself by expressing surprise at Iran’s decision to target other countries in the region, stating that “nobody expected that.”
The persistent repetition of this false narrative, despite years of fact-checking to the contrary, highlights ongoing concerns about the accuracy of presidential statements regarding national security matters and historical events. As tensions continue in the Middle East, particularly around the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the administration’s credibility on intelligence assessments and threat predictions remains under close examination.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
I find it concerning that the president would make such a bold claim about predicting 9/11 without providing credible evidence. Extraordinary assertions deserve rigorous scrutiny, especially when they relate to major historical events. I hope journalists will continue pressing for the facts here.
I agree completely. The public deserves a factual accounting of what was known and when, not self-aggrandizing revisionism. Journalists should absolutely keep digging to get to the bottom of this.
While I appreciate Trump’s desire to demonstrate foresight, this 9/11 prediction claim feels more like political grandstanding than a factual account. Fact-checkers have rightly disputed it, and I haven’t seen anything convincing to support his version of events. We should be wary of unsubstantiated historical revisionism.
Well said. Unsubstantiated historical revisionism is an apt description here. Without solid documentation, this just comes across as another attempt by Trump to embellish his own importance and decision-making abilities.
I’m curious to learn more about the context and specifics around Trump’s supposed 9/11 prediction. Was there any written record or other documentation to substantiate this claim? It seems like an extraordinary statement that deserves scrutiny.
Exactly, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without any verifiable details to back this up, it’s hard to take Trump’s statement at face value. I’d need to see some concrete proof before believing he accurately predicted such a major event.
I appreciate Trump’s desire to demonstrate foresight, but his 9/11 prediction claim is simply not supported by the facts. Fact-checkers have thoroughly dismantled it, and I haven’t seen any convincing proof to back up his version of events. We should be cautious about unsubstantiated historical revisionism, especially from political figures.
Well said. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Trump has provided none here. This just comes across as another attempt at self-aggrandizement rather than a factual accounting. Journalists should keep digging to get to the bottom of this.
While I’m open to hearing alternative perspectives, Trump’s 9/11 prediction claim seems highly dubious. Fact-checkers have thoroughly debunked it, and I haven’t seen any compelling proof to back it up. We should be wary of unsubstantiated historical revisionism, especially from political figures.
Absolutely. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Trump has provided none here. I’m with you – I’m happy to consider new information, but this just seems like another attempt at self-aggrandizement that lacks credibility.
While I’m always interested to hear different perspectives, I have to say I’m a bit skeptical of Trump’s claims about predicting 9/11. It seems like a rather far-fetched assertion, and I haven’t seen any credible evidence to back it up. What do you all think?
I agree, the idea that Trump foresaw the 9/11 attacks a full year in advance is highly questionable. It’s the kind of claim that requires solid proof, which doesn’t appear to exist here.