As the 25th anniversary of September 11 approaches, Donald Trump has once again recounted a story about being helped by two firefighters near Ground Zero, this time offering additional details about when the encounter supposedly occurred. Speaking days before the anniversary, Trump said the incident happened two days after the attacks, when two large firefighters believed a nearby building could become unsafe. According to his account, the men grabbed him by the arms, lifted him from the ground and carried him away while he told them he could run on his own. Trump described the firefighters as “big, strong guys” and praised them for quickly moving him to safety. The story is not new; he previously discussed a similar version during his 2016 presidential campaign. However, his descriptions of the timing have varied, and he later clarified on Truth Social that he was not at the World Trade Center on the day the towers collapsed, but “shortly thereafter.” That clarification has renewed interest in exactly when and where the reported encounter took place.

Despite Trump repeating the story over the years, publicly available evidence has not confirmed the specific rescue he describes. No names of the two firefighters have been provided, and no publicly documented photograph, video, emergency report or firsthand account has emerged to verify the incident. CNN previously reported that Trump was interviewed outdoors near Ground Zero two days after the attacks, but that alone does not establish the details of his rescue story. A former emergency-response official interviewed by PBS also said that activity around the site was closely coordinated and that such an incident would likely have generated a record, although he acknowledged that he could not rule out every possibility. Trump has also made other claims about his activities after 9/11 that have faced questions over supporting evidence. With the anniversary approaching, his latest retelling has once again placed his personal memories of that historic day under public scrutiny, particularly because the details and timeline remain disputed.