California Officials Condemn Trump Over Remarks on L.A. and San Diego
California officials and political leaders have sharply condemned President Donald Trump following remarks he made during a campaign rally in Nebraska, where he suggested that Iran could “take out” Los Angeles or San Diego.
The controversy erupted after Trump spoke to a crowd in Grand Island, Nebraska, while addressing economic issues and the ongoing conflict involving Iran. During his speech, the president defended higher gas prices stemming from the military actions as a necessary sacrifice for national security.
“Remember, with the war, it’s just artificial. It’s a little bit high. It’s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe,” Trump said to the crowd. “They can take out a city. Let ‘em take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego. That’s — this is a very small price to pay.”
California Leaders Rebuke Remarks
The comments drew swift and severe backlash from state and local leaders across California, who labeled the remarks irresponsible and alarming.
Critics argued that the president appeared to make light of potential foreign attacks on major American population centers or cast the destruction of domestic cities as acceptable collateral damage. The remarks immediately drew strong rebukes from prominent state figures, including Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom.
White House Defense and Clarification
Following the widespread criticism, the White House defended the president’s statements, arguing that his words were misinterpreted by the media and critics.
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung took to social media to push back against the backlash. “The media freakout over President Trump’s comments is not rooted in reality,” Cheung wrote. “He was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn’t been stopped. America is safer because of the President.”
Independent fact-checkers and analysts evaluating the full speech context suggested that Trump’s confusing phrasing was intended to argue that military action prevented Iran from posing a catastrophic threat to U.S. cities, framing higher fuel costs as a minor sacrifice compared to that danger. However, the ambiguous wording continued to draw intense political fallout from officials representing the targeted California regions.