On Oct. 5, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump suggested during a campaign rally in Grand Island, Nebraska, that Iran could target Los Angeles and San Diego as a price for keeping the world and the country safe.
The White House moved swiftly to push back against the mounting backlash. Steven Cheung, the White House Communications Director, dismissed the intense public reaction on his X account, stating that the uproar was entirely unfounded and not “rooted in reality.”
Context of the Campaign Trail Remarks
The controversy began at the Pinnacle Bank Expo Center at Fonner Park. President Trump was discussing the ongoing conflict involving Iran and surging domestic gas prices before pivoting to the hypothetical scenario of an Iranian attack on American soil.
According to his remarks at the Grand Island event, the president suggested that losing a major urban center could be part of a broader security equation. “It’s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe,” Trump said. “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.”
Los Angeles and San Diego hold the positions of the largest and second-largest cities in California by population, respectively, making the remarks particularly jarring for millions of residents.
Sharp Rebukes from California Leaders
Elected officials across California wasted little time condemning the statements. California Governor Gavin Newsome labeled the president “deranged and dangerous” in response to the rally footage.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass took to social media to denounce the comments, emphasizing that a president’s primary duty is defending the populace rather than inviting peril. “The role of a president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives,” Bass wrote online. “In the face of irresponsible threats, as Angelenos, we know how to stand together and protect our city.”
San Diego figures also condemned the rhetoric, with pushback coming across party lines. U.S. Representative Sara Jacobs, a Democrat representing part of the region, rejected the idea that her constituents could be treated as expendable. “My constituents — including many active duty service members, veterans, and their families — are not acceptable collateral damage in Trump’s stupid war,” Jacobs said.
Jim Desmond, a Republican congressional nominee from San Diego and a Navy veteran, voiced similar outrage over the rhetoric. “As a Navy veteran, I served to protect Americans, not write off American cities as an acceptable price of war,” Desmond stated. “No American family should ever be treated as collateral damage.”
White House Defends President's Claims on Iran Security
Responding to the widespread condemnation from local and federal leaders, the administration defended the core message behind the president’s speech.
“He was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn’t been stopped,” Cheung said, emphasizing that national security metrics have improved under the current administration. “America is safer because of the President. Iran has no nuclear, no navy, no air force, and no money.”
