A Brief History of Donald Trump’s 9/11 Controversies

From claiming that Muslims celebrated the attacks in Jersey City to failing to back an effort to help first responders.

Mary Altaffer/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On Sunday, Americans will commemorate the 15th anniversary of the September 11 attacks. In the years since this national tragedy, Donald Trump has landed in a handful of 9/11-related controversies. Here’s a look back:

He falsely said “thousands and thousands” of Muslims in Jersey City cheered the destruction of the Twin Towers. “I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down,” Trump claimed at a rally last November, and refused to back down after the comments sparked a firestorm. “There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos the next day. Trump also insisted, falsely, that it was “well covered at the time.”

The claim was actually a conspiracy theory that had no evidence or reports to back it up. Trump himself had made no mention of celebration at the time. Media outlets that fact-checked the claim, including the Washington Post and the Newark Star-Ledger, could find only isolated, unverified reports that small celebrations might have taken place. “There is no media record. There is no police record. There is nothing,” Jersey City’s mayor, Steven Fulop, told the Star-Ledger.

He claimed he saw people jumping from the World Trade Center from his Midtown apartment. “I witnessed it, I watched that,” Trump said at a rally in Columbus, Ohio, last November. “I have a view, a view in my apartment that was specifically aimed at the World Trade Center.”

As CNN pointed out, Trump’s apartment in Trump Tower is located more than four miles from the World Trade Center, making this claim dubious at best.

He got $150,000 in economic recovery aid for small businesses for his building at 40 Wall Street. Trump was one of many big names who got recovery funds after the attack from a New York state agency called the Empire State Development Corporation. Trump’s building fit the criteria for aid: It was south of Manhattan’s 14th Street, had suffered economic harm from the attacks, and employed fewer than 500 people. But the last condition was controversial. The New York Daily News found in 2006 that the program had “ignored the federal definition of a small business and adopted a much looser standard. The ESDC used employee counts…to determine whether applicants were small businesses. Federal law requires that the size category of the types of businesses most common in lower Manhattan—finance, insurance, real estate, and law firms—be determined based on annual revenue.”

Local politicians fumed about the aid money to the Daily News earlier this year, and Rep. Jarrod Nadler (D-N.Y.), whose district includes the World Trade Center, issued an open letter demanding that Trump return the money. “On behalf of the countless New York citizens and businesses who worked so hard to heal after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, I have a simple question: When do you plan on returning the taxpayer money that was designated to ease the suffering of our city’s small business owners?” Nadler wrote in May.

He did give an eloquent defense of New York’s response to 9/11. When Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) attacked what he called “New York values” during a Republican debate in January, Trump responded with a defense of the city’s spirit in recovering and rebuilding after the World Trade Center collapsed. “We rebuilt downtown Manhattan, and everybody in the world watched,” Trump said to applause, “and everybody in the world loved New York and loved New Yorkers.”

On the other hand…Trump ignored pleas to help 9/11 first responders pass the reauthorization of the James Zadroga Act, the law that set up a health care fund for the police, firefighters, and other rescue workers. Several other candidates had backed the reauthorization, but Trump remained silent despite receiving “multiple letters and calls requesting his support” from Citizens for the Extension of the James Zadroga Act, according to ABC. “Talk is cheap,” Rich Alles, one of the group’s board members, told ABC. “I’m mortified that he can stand in front of the nation…and wrap himself in the flag.”

But, as Mother Jones‘ David Corn reported in April, Trump somehow escaped widespread criticism for dodging the issue, even during the New York primary.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate