President Donald Trump has a story that he’s trying to tell on the campaign trail this fall: That while the Iran War is historically unpopular, it shows no signs of slowing down, and Americans are paying very high gas prices, it was all worth it if it means keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Pre-election polling suggests that argument isn’t persuading many people.
President Donald Trump is joined by Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Vice President JD Vance, British Ambassador Peter Mandelson, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, while announcing a trade agreement with the U.K., Thursday, May 8, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Emily J. Higgins)
President Donald Trump is joined by Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Vice President JD Vance, British Ambassador Peter Mandelson, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, while announcing a trade agreement with the U.K., Thursday, May 8, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Emily J. Higgins)
And in making the argument again on Monday, Trump added a new, highly controversial part.
Donald Trump Makes A Really Strange Iran Comment
At a campaign rally in Nebraska on Monday night, Trump talked again about how the war in Iran is worth it, with gas over $4 not a bad price to pay. But he also, somewhat controversially, raised the idea of Iran “taking out” two major California cities.
According to local TV station KTLA, Trump was discussing the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon and stated, “They could take out a city. Let ‘em take out Los Angeles. Let ‘em take out San Diego,” as the crowd cheered.
He went on to say, “This is a very small price to pay, and it’s going to be over very soon. It’s essentially almost over with.”
Democratic Office Holders Respond
Democratic public officials quickly condemned the president’s comments, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria.
The governor, who is widely expected to run for president in 2028, accused the president of “advocating for an attack on 10+ million U.S. residents in two of America’s largest cities,” adding that such comments were “not normal.”
Mayor Bass, locked in a tough re-election fight in her own right, said that the president “suggested that a foreign government attack Los Angeles.”
Mayor Gloria said in an X post that “San Diego is not collateral damage,” adding that “We are not expendable.”
Other commentators pointed out that Los Angeles, the city Trump spoke about being “taken out,” has the nation’s largest population of immigrants and exiles from Iran.
It’s also curious why Trump would say San Diego, where San Francisco (along with Los Angeles) is much more often treated as the sort of boogeyman liberal city that draws boos at his rallies.
What Trump Meant
This is clearly not the sort of comment any other American president in history would have made.
It’s certainly irresponsible to speak so casually, in a political rally setting, about major American cities being wiped out.
President Donald Trump plays golf in the Senior Club Championship at Trump National Golf Club Jupiter, Sunday, April 6, 2025, in Jupiter, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)
It was also somewhat disconcerting to hear crowds cheer loudly for such a suggestion.
That said, Trump, as he often does, delivered his comments somewhat inarticulately, in the free-association style that’s often the hallmark of his rallies. But he was likely not directly advocating for a nuclear strike on two major U.S. cities.
His point seems to have been that Iran must be stopped from obtaining a nuclear weapon, no matter what, and if they do get one, they could gain the ability to destroy major U.S. cities.
The “very small price to pay” comment is a phrase Trump has used many times of late, mostly in reference to high gas prices that have resulted from the Iran War; he followed that with “it’s essentially almost over with,” another thing that he has frequently promised about the war.
“Let them take out Los Angeles” could also be interpreted as Trump arguing that if such a thing occurred, it would be because Trump’s warnings about Iran, and the need to take out its nuclear program, were not heeded.
So the president of the United States was likely not affirmatively advocating for the destruction of Los Angeles and San Diego, but it was nevertheless a politically toxic thing to say — and something that other Republicans, less than a month from the midterm elections, will have to answer questions about.
Could Iran Do It?
The other question is whether, even if Iran did manage to create a nuclear weapon, they would actually have the ability to take out American cities. The answer? Probably not.
While Iran has recently begun producing longer-range missiles than the ones it currently has, they are not believed to have anything resembling the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capability that would be required to successfully attack Los Angeles or San Diego.
About the Author: Stephen Silver
Stephen Silver is an award-winning journalist, essayist, and film critic, and contributor to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Broad Street Review, and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. For over a decade, Stephen has authored thousands of articles that focus on politics, national security, technology, and the economy. Follow him on X (formerly Twitter) at @StephenSilver, and subscribe to his Substack newsletter.
