Trump Tells Nebraska Rally 'Let Them Take Out Los Angeles, Let Them Take Out San Diego' While Defending Iran War's Costs; White House Says He Meant a Nuclear Iran
California Democrats, Republican candidate Jim Desmond and independent Rep. Kevin Kiley criticized the Oct. 5 remark. The White House and some fact-checkers say the full context shows Trump was arguing the war stops Iran from threatening U.S. cities.
Two Cities, One Sentence
On Monday, Oct. 5, 2026, President Donald Trump spoke at a Republican rally in Grand Island, Nebraska. He was talking about the war with Iran and high gas prices[2][3]. In the middle of that passage he said, "They could take out a city. Let them take — let it — let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego."[3] He called it "a very small price to pay"[3][10].
Some people in the crowd cheered[1]. Trump also said the war is "essentially almost over with"[10].
Within a day, the remark had become a national argument. It rests on one tangled sentence and what it meant.
What He Said Just Before
The words just before the line matter to the story. Trump had called war-related gas prices "a little bit high" and said "with the war, it's just artificial."[3][10] FactCheck.org's transcript also has him calling them "a small price to pay for keeping the world safe."[3]
Then came the lines about Los Angeles and San Diego. After them he said, "this is a very small price to pay, and it's going to be over with very soon."[3]
So "price" appears twice, and the sentences between are jumbled. The transcript has stumbles and restarts. That is why two readers can hold the same text and see different meanings.
The California Response
California Democrats reacted fast. Gov. Gavin Newsom called Trump "deranged and dangerous" on X[4]. He also tied the remark to Trump's earlier decision to send the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles, which he described as a pattern of hostility toward California[4].
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said the remark "could potentially compromise our safety."[1] Her point is that adversaries hear a president's words too. San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria wrote: "San Diego is not collateral damage. We are not expendable. And we are never a 'small price to pay'."[10]
Their case is simple. A president's words about American cities carry weight whatever he meant. He named two cities, called the cost small, and the crowd cheered[1][10]. Both cities are big military, port and population centers, so officials there say they have a real stake in how threat talk is received[1][19]. They also have a political stake. California has competitive House seats on the Nov. 3 ballot[4][12].
The White House Reading
On Tuesday, White House communications director Steven Cheung said Trump "was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn't been stopped."[2][5] The White House Rapid Response account said Trump was describing "the ability to take out LA and San Diego with a nuclear weapon" that the U.S. is fighting to deny Iran[16].
On this reading, the "price" is gas costs, not cities. Trump has made the nuclear-Iran argument many times, and the White House says any fair listener knew what he meant[3][7]. Its account also mocked reporters over what it called a "media freakout."[8]
The pressure behind this is plain. The war has pushed up fuel prices, and the midterms are Nov. 3. At the rally Trump signed an executive order he said would lower diesel prices[13]. The White House needs voters to accept short-term pain. A messy line that becomes a campaign ad costs it message time, which it would rather spend on the diesel order and the "almost over" claim[13][6].
What the Fact-Checkers Found
Fact-checkers ended up in an unusual spot. FactCheck.org called the wording "confusing." It still judged "a more plausible interpretation" to be that Trump meant the war keeps Iran from threatening U.S. cities, with gas prices as the small sacrifice[3]. CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale said a viral paraphrase from a Harris-linked account was "not a direct quote" and not "a correct paraphrase."[7] Snopes confirmed the words were said and examined their context[17].
Critics answer that "plausible" still leaves room for more than one reading[11][7]. That is fair on its face. "Plausible interpretation" is a judgment about intent. It is not a finding about what was said.
The sentence can be read two ways. "Let them take out Los Angeles" can be a command, meaning allow Iran to do it. Or it can be a careless way to describe a danger, like "they could take out a city, like Los Angeles." The transcript alone doesn't settle which one[3].
Republicans, and How the Coverage Split
Criticism did not come only from Democrats. Jim Desmond, a Republican running for a competitive San Diego-area House seat, said he "vehemently" disagreed[12]. He backs confronting Iran. But he said, "the first responsibility of our Commander in Chief is to protect the American people and our homeland."[12] Al Jazeera quotes him saying, "No American city is expendable, and no American family should ever be treated as collateral damage."[9]
Al Jazeera also reports that Rep. Kevin Kiley, an independent who caucuses with Republicans, called the comments "unhelpful."[9] The open GOP-side criticism found here came from a candidate and an independent, not from Republican congressional leaders[9][12]. Desmond's voters live in one of the cities Trump named.
Outlets framed all this differently. The New Republic's headline said Trump "Suggests Letting Iran 'Take Out'" the cities. That takes the "letting" reading as fact and leaves out the gas-price setup and the White House response[10]. The Spectator ran "Reports about taking out Los Angeles and San Diego are greatly exaggerated." It treats the White House reading as settled and gives little weight to the plain words or the cheers[11].
Al Jazeera's video headline said Trump "jokes about letting Iran bomb" the cities. "Jokes" and "bomb" are not words Trump used. Its written story is more measured and includes the White House explanation[9]. NBC and CNN used "could 'take out,'" a softer verb than "let," and included Cheung's response[2][5]. ABC added "if it develops nuclear weapons," which adopts the White House's conditional reading, though Trump did not say that aloud[1]. Fox's Los Angeles station ran a similar straight headline[15].
No attack on Los Angeles or San Diego has happened or been threatened by Iran in connection with this remark. The dispute is entirely about words. What remains open is whether the White House can move the story back to gas prices before Nov. 3, or whether the clip and the cheers keep the argument alive in California.
Summary
On Monday, Oct. 5, 2026, President Donald Trump spoke at a Republican rally in Grand Island, Nebraska, and talked about the war with Iran and high gas prices[2][3]. In the middle of that passage he said, 'They could take out a city. Let them take — let it — let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego,' and called it 'a very small price to pay'[3][10]. Some people in the crowd cheered[1]. He also said the war is 'essentially almost over with'[10].
California Democrats reacted fast. Gov. Gavin Newsom called Trump 'deranged and dangerous'[4]. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said the remark 'could potentially compromise our safety'[1]. San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria wrote that his city is 'not collateral damage'[10]. Jim Desmond, a Republican running for a San Diego-area House seat, said he 'vehemently' disagreed[12]. Al Jazeera also reports that Rep. Kevin Kiley, an independent who caucuses with Republicans, called the comments 'unhelpful'[9]. The White House said Trump was 'clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn't been stopped'[2][5].
The real dispute is over what one jumbled sentence meant. One reading: Trump called the destruction of two cities an acceptable cost. The other reading: he meant that higher gas prices are the 'small price,' paid so that a nuclear Iran never gets the chance to destroy a city. FactCheck.org and CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale both called the second reading more plausible, while saying the wording was confusing[3][7]. Critics answer that a president's words about U.S. cities carry weight whatever he meant, and that the crowd cheered the lines as spoken[1][10].
The Event
On Monday evening, Oct. 5, 2026, President Trump spoke at a Republican rally at the Pinnacle Bank Expo in Grand Island, Nebraska[18][3]. While talking about the Iran war and gas prices, he said 'Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego,' and called it 'a very small price to pay'[3]. On Tuesday, Oct. 6, White House communications director Steven Cheung said Trump meant that U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran had not been stopped[2][5]. California's governor and the mayors of Los Angeles and San Diego publicly condemned the remark[2][19].
Undisputed Facts
- Trump made the remark at a Republican rally in Grand Island, Nebraska, on Oct. 5, 2026[3][18].
- Just before the remark, Trump talked about the war and gas prices, saying 'with the war, it's just artificial. It's a little bit high'[3][10].
- Trump said 'Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego' and 'this is a very small price to pay, and it's going to be over with very soon'[3]. Some in the crowd cheered[1].
- Trump also said of the war, 'It's essentially almost over with'[10].
- Gov. Gavin Newsom called Trump 'deranged and dangerous' on X. Mayor Karen Bass said the remark 'could potentially compromise our safety'[4][1].
- San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria wrote: 'San Diego is not collateral damage. We are not expendable. And we are never a 'small price to pay''[10].
- White House communications director Steven Cheung said Trump 'was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn't been stopped'[2][5].
- Midterm elections take place Nov. 3, 2026. Trump has come under pressure over fuel prices, and at the rally he signed an executive order he said would lower diesel prices[13].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- War costs before a midterm
- The Iran war has pushed up fuel prices. Trump keeps calling them 'a small price to pay,' and he signed a diesel-price order at the rally weeks before the Nov. 3 elections[10][13]. The White House needs voters to accept short-term pain. That is why the 'small price' framing keeps coming back.
- California as a political opponent
- Newsom and Trump have been in open conflict since federal troops were sent to Los Angeles[4]. Any remark naming California cities becomes part of that fight, and part of the competitive House races in the state[12].
- How rally speech gets clipped
- Trump's rally style jumps between topics without clear transitions. A 10-second clip can carry a different meaning than the full passage. Both sides take advantage of this: critics share the clip, and defenders point to the transcript[7][3].
Material realityNo attack on Los Angeles or San Diego has happened or been threatened by Iran in connection with this remark. The dispute is entirely about words. The underlying facts do not change whichever reading wins: a U.S. war with Iran is ongoing, gas prices are higher because of it, and Trump says it is 'essentially almost over'[10][14]. That last claim is one he has made before[10]. How a sentence works matters here. 'Let them take out Los Angeles' can be read as a command ('allow Iran to do it'). It can also be read as a careless way of describing a danger ('they could take out a city, like Los Angeles'). The words after it, 'a very small price to pay,' refer either to the cities or to the gas prices Trump had just mentioned. The transcript alone does not settle which one[3].
Narrative as a weaponThree groups are pushing hardest. California Democrats want voters to hear the plain words and the cheering, as proof Trump sees blue-state cities as expendable[4][10]. The White House wants the remark seen as a standard anti-nuclear-Iran argument twisted by a hostile press. Its Rapid Response account went as far as insulting reporters[8][16]. Partisan social accounts on both sides ran with whichever version helped them, including a paraphrase CNN's fact-checker said was wrong[7]. Fact-checkers ended up in an unusual spot: they mostly backed the White House reading while calling the wording confusing[3][7]. Readers should note that 'plausible interpretation' is a judgment about intent. It is not a finding about what was said.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asTheir case starts with the full passage. It began with gas prices and ended with 'small price to pay.' So the 'price' was gas costs, not cities. Cheung said the president was making a simple point: a nuclear-armed Iran could strike U.S. cities, and the war is meant to stop that[2][5]. The White House Rapid Response account said Trump was describing 'the ability to take out LA and San Diego with a nuclear weapon' that the U.S. is fighting to deny Iran[16]. Trump has made this argument many times, and they say any fair listener knew what he meant[3][7].
WhyKeep public support for a war that has raised fuel prices, and keep a messy rally line from turning into a campaign ad before the Nov. 3 midterms[13].
Impact on themThe remark gives Democrats a ready-made clip in California and in swing House races. The White House is now spending its message time on clean-up instead of on its diesel-price order and its 'almost over' claim[13][6].
Frames it asTheir case is that a president's words about American cities matter, whatever he says he meant. Trump said 'let them take out' two named cities, called it a 'small price,' and the crowd cheered[1][10]. Bass argued that words like these 'could potentially compromise our safety,' since adversaries hear them too[1]. Newsom tied the remark to Trump's earlier sending of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles, as a pattern of hostility toward California[4]. Gloria's point was moral: no city is 'collateral damage'[10].
WhyDefend their voters and their cities. Newsom is also a leading national Democratic figure. California has competitive House seats on the Nov. 3 ballot[4][12].
Impact on themThey gain a sharp contrast with Trump. LA and San Diego are big military, port and population centers, so officials there say they have a real stake in how threat talk is received[1][19].
Frames it asFactCheck.org said the wording was 'confusing.' But it judged that 'a more plausible interpretation' is that Trump meant the war would keep Iran from threatening U.S. cities, and that gas prices are the small sacrifice[3]. Dale said a viral paraphrase posted by the Harris-linked 'Headquarters' account was 'not a direct quote' and not 'a correct paraphrase.' He noted Trump often calls war costs like gas prices a small price compared with an unchecked Iran[7]. Snopes confirmed the words were said and also examined their context[17].
WhyProtect their credibility by checking claims on every side, including viral clips that hurt the president[7].
Impact on themRight-leaning commentators picked up their findings as proof of media bias. Critics countered that 'plausible' still leaves the words open to more than one reading[11][7].
Frames it asJim Desmond, a Republican House candidate in San Diego County, backed confronting Iran but rejected the remark. He said 'the first responsibility of our Commander in Chief is to protect the American people and our homeland'[12], and, per Al Jazeera, 'No American city is expendable, and no American family should ever be treated as collateral damage'[9]. Al Jazeera also reports that Rep. Kevin Kiley, an independent who caucuses with Republicans, called the comments 'unhelpful'[9]. In Desmond's view, supporting the war and objecting to the words do not conflict.
WhyDesmond is seeking a competitive Southern California seat whose voters live in one of the two cities Trump named[12].
Impact on themTheir criticism lets outlets such as Al Jazeera call the reaction 'cross-party.' The open GOP-side criticism found in this review came from a candidate and an independent who caucuses with Republicans, not from Republican congressional leaders[9][12].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.7
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABC News | U.S. center | 3 | Trump suggests Iran could 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego if it develops nuclear weapons | Adding 'if it develops nuclear weapons' to the headline adopts the White House's conditional reading, which Trump did not say aloud. |
| FOX 11 Los Angeles | U.S. local (Fox Corp.-owned station) | 3 | Trump suggests Iran could 'take out' Los Angeles during Nebraska rally | This is straight local framing, close to the national networks. It shows the Fox-owned local station did not adopt the White House 'media freakout' line. |
| NBC News | U.S. center-left | 4 | California officials condemn Trump for saying Iran could 'take out' Los Angeles or San Diego | The headline is built around the reaction. 'Could' is a softer and fairer verb than 'let,' and the story includes Cheung's response. |
| CNN | U.S. center-left | 4 | Trump draws backlash after he suggests Iran could 'take out' Los Angeles or San Diego | The news story centers the backlash, while CNN's own fact-checker publicly pushed back on the harshest paraphrase. The outlet effectively carried both readings. |
| The Spectator | U.S. right (commentary) | 6 | Reports about taking out Los Angeles and San Diego are greatly exaggerated | It treats the White House reading as settled and frames critics as overreacting. The crowd's cheers and the plain words get little weight. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 6 | Trump jokes about letting Iran bomb Los Angeles and San Diego (video); Trump says Iran could 'take' San Diego, Los Angeles; draws cross-party ire (text) | The video uses 'jokes' and 'bomb,' words Trump did not use. The text version gives the White House view and backs 'cross-party' with Desmond and independent Rep. Kevin Kiley, though neither is a sitting Republican. |
| The New Republic | U.S. left | 7 | Trump Suggests Letting Iran 'Take Out' Los Angeles and San Diego | The headline takes the 'letting' reading as fact. It leaves out the White House explanation and the gas-price setup. |
References
- Trump suggests Iran could 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego if it develops nuclear weapons — ABC News · U.S. mainstream broadcast network (Disney-owned), center
- California officials condemn Trump for saying Iran could 'take out' Los Angeles or San Diego — NBC News · U.S. mainstream network (Comcast-owned), center-left
- The Context for Trump's 'Take Out' Los Angeles, San Diego Remarks — FactCheck.org · Fact-checking project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center (University of Pennsylvania); foundation-funded, generally rated center
- Gavin Newsom, California officials condemn Donald Trump's rhetoric on Iran taking out US cities — The Hill · U.S. Capitol Hill outlet (Nexstar-owned), center
- Trump draws backlash after he suggests Iran could 'take out' Los Angeles or San Diego — CNN · U.S. cable news (Warner Bros. Discovery), center-left
- Trump remarks that Iran could "take out" Los Angeles, San Diego draw backlash — Axios · U.S. digital news (Cox Enterprises-owned), center
- CNN Fact Checker Daniel Dale Defends Trump Over 'Let 'Em Take Out' Los Angeles, San Diego Clip — Mediaite · U.S. media-news site, center-left
- 'You Buffoons!' White House Lashes Out at 'Media Freakout' Over Trump's LA, San Diego Remark — Mediaite · U.S. media-news site, center-left
- Trump says Iran could 'take' San Diego, Los Angeles; draws cross-party ire — Al Jazeera · Funded by the government of Qatar
- Trump Suggests Letting Iran 'Take Out' Los Angeles and San Diego — The New Republic · U.S. progressive magazine, left
- Reports about taking out Los Angeles and San Diego are greatly exaggerated — The Spectator · U.S. edition of British conservative magazine, right
- Trump says Iran could 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego — ABC (Australia) · Australian public broadcaster, center
- Trump tries to navigate Iran war and rising gas prices at first rally since strikes began — Yahoo News · Aggregator carrying a syndicated report; originating outlet not identified in search results
- Trump says Iran war could end soon, claims consumer prices will 'come tumbling down' — Fox News · U.S. cable news (Fox Corp.), right
- Trump suggests Iran could 'take out' Los Angeles during Nebraska rally — FOX 11 Los Angeles · Local TV station owned by Fox Corp., center
- White House Defends Trump's LA, San Diego Destruction Comment Amid Backlash — Newsweek · U.S. newsmagazine, center
- Did Trump say of Iran, 'Let 'em take out' LA and San Diego? — Snopes · Independent fact-checking site, generally rated center-left
- Trump on war in Iran: 'Let 'em take out Los Angeles, let 'em take out San Diego' — KTLA · Los Angeles local TV station (Nexstar-owned), center
- Local leaders respond to Trump's comment that Iran could 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego — NBC 7 San Diego · San Diego local TV station (NBCUniversal-owned), center