President Donald Trump faced immediate backlash from California officials after he appeared to suggest that Iran could “take out” the major West Coast cities of Los Angeles and San Diego during a rally in Grand Island, Nebraska. The comments, made while the president was urging support for the ongoing war with Iran, were denounced as “dangerous” and “reckless” by state and local leaders.
Trump’s remarks at the Nebraska rally
Speaking to a crowd ahead of the midterm elections, Trump framed the cost of the war with Iran as a “small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe.” He then added, “Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego,” before asserting that the conflict would be over “very soon.” The president has repeatedly argued that high gas prices are an acceptable trade‑off for confronting Iran, and his latest comments seemed to raise the stakes to the possibility of an attack on U.S. soil.
California officials condemn the statements
Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom called the president “deranged and dangerous,” while Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass warned that the remarks could “potentially compromise our safety.” Bass emphasized that a president’s primary duty is to protect the nation, not to “encourage attacks on American lives.” San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria echoed the sentiment, stating that his city “is not collateral damage” and that no American family should be treated as expendable.
Even Republican congressional candidate Jim Desmond, who is running in California’s 48th district, publicly disagreed with Trump, saying, “America must stand up to Iran, but the first responsibility of our Commander in Chief is to protect the American people and our homeland.” Desmond added that no American city is expendable and no family should be treated as collateral damage.
White House response
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung responded on X, clarifying that Trump was “clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn’t been stopped.” Cheung added, “America is safer because of the President. Iran has no nuclear, no navy, no air force, and no money,” reinforcing the administration’s view that the war has prevented a greater threat.
Context of the war with Iran
When the conflict began, Trump predicted it would last only a few weeks. Seven months later, the war continues, and the president has recently revised his timeline, saying the initial four‑ to six‑week estimate referred only to the period needed to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat, not to end the entire conflict.
The president’s remarks come amid his broader criticism of California on issues such as immigration, state elections, and wildfire management. By highlighting California cities as potential targets, Trump underscored his longstanding political focus on the state.
Public reaction
Social media users and local residents expressed concern that the president’s language could embolden hostile actors. Critics argued that such statements risked undermining national security and could be used by adversaries as propaganda.
Supporters of the president, however, pointed to the White House’s assertion that Iran lacks the capability to launch a nuclear strike, emphasizing that the administration’s actions have kept the nation safe.
What’s next?
The controversy is likely to remain a talking point as the midterm election season approaches, with California politicians using the incident to highlight perceived risks of the current administration’s foreign‑policy rhetoric. The Trump administration, for its part, appears poised to continue emphasizing the strategic necessity of confronting Iran, while defending the president’s comments as a warning of what could have happened without decisive action.
Original reporting: 40/29 / KHBS (NW Arkansas) — read the source article.
