Trump’s Iran comment sparks bipartisan clash over California cities
Former President Donald Trump told a rally in Grand Island, Nebraska, on Oct. 5 that Iran could "take out" Los Angeles and San Diego, adding it would be "a very small price to pay" if the United States did not intervene.
The comment quickly ignited a partisan battle, with Democratic leaders and several media outlets portraying the statement as an invitation for Iran to attack the California cities, while a group of frequent Trump critics pushed back, saying the remark was about the broader costs of a war with Iran.
Trump made the remarks while discussing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, saying, "They can take out a city. Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego. This is a very small price to pay," according to the rally transcript.
California Governor Gavin Newsom condemned the comment as "deranged and dangerous," and Democratic Senate leaders such as Chuck Schumer and Chris Murphy called it "sick" and "evil," arguing the president was suggesting American lives be treated as collateral damage.
Journalists and former staffers offered a contrasting view. The Atlantic’s Michael Scherer wrote on X that Trump’s point was the risk to California if a war with Iran was avoided. CNN fact‑checker Daniel Dale said the “small price” comment referred to war‑related costs like higher gas prices, not a literal attack. Aaron Blake of CNN echoed this, interpreting the remark as a reference to the economic impact of a conflict. Former Trump aide Sarah Matthews added that Trump was highlighting the potential targeting of major West Coast cities if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon.
The White House responded through Communications Director Steven Cheung, stating the president was emphasizing that America is safer because it is working to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear capability. A rapid‑response account clarified, "He was saying the U.S. is fighting to STOP Iran from having the ability to take out LA and San Diego with a nuclear weapon — which they would if they had the chance."
The disagreement has turned into a broader debate over political messaging and the framing of national security issues, with both parties vowing to keep the issue in focus as the 2026 election cycle ramps up.