What did Trump mean when he said 'Let them take out Los Angeles' at a Nebraska rally?
Trump told a Nebraska rally "Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego." California officials say he called attacks on the cities a small price for the Iran war; the White House says he meant a nuclear Iran's threat.
Claim in dispute
Trump was clearly stating that U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran had not been stopped, and the media reaction to his comments is not rooted in reality.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
Our labels in this case measure each response against one disputed claim: that President Donald Trump's remark meant attacks by Iran on Los Angeles and San Diego would be an acceptable price for the war, as his critics read it. A response that asserts or endorses that reading is recorded as Condemned. A response that rejects that reading and offers another, including the White House explanation that Trump meant the war is stopping a nuclear-armed Iran from ever being able to attack the two cities, is recorded as Challenged the characterization. A response arguing that an attack on the cities would be acceptable would be recorded as Defended or excused; we have not found one as of October 6, 2026. A label records a speaker's stated position, not our finding on what Trump meant.
Trump held a midterm campaign rally at the Pinnacle Bank Expo Center in Grand Island, Nebraska, on the evening of October 5, 2026. Right Side Broadcasting Network's video of the speech (opens in a new tab) runs about 82 minutes. About 12 minutes in, he said, in our transcription: "And again, 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. They can take out a city. Let them take, let it, let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego. That's, this is a very small price to pay, and it's going to be over with very soon" (video at 12:20 (opens in a new tab)). The crowd cheered.
The passage does not mention nuclear weapons. In the two minutes before it, Trump talked about the midterm elections: the line of supporters outside the hall, his request that the crowd "pretend I'm on the ballot," his warning that tax cuts "could all be taken away if you start losing a couple of little elections," early voting, a line he attributed to former Vice President Kamala Harris, and his wish to "see a tremendous victory because it verifies all the things we did" (from 10:10 (opens in a new tab)). The word "it" in "it's just artificial" is not defined in the passage; earlier in the speech Trump had tied the war to oil and gas prices.
That earlier passage came about six to seven minutes before the remark, which begins at 12:25. Trump said the war with Iran would end soon and that "your prices are going to come tumbling," and added: "We're saving the world from what could be one of the worst tragedies ever. We're not going to let them have it, and they won't have it. That's decided. They will not have a nuclear weapon" (at 5:00 (opens in a new tab)). At 6:15 he said "We have to stop them from having a nuclear weapon" (video (opens in a new tab)) and then described passing an Iowa gas station selling gasoline at $1.95 a gallon. In the minute after the remark, he said the war was "essentially almost over with," that "they always say they have a big threshold for pain," and that the war would "end one way or the other," then mentioned gasoline and moved on to Venezuela and oil. He did not mention Los Angeles or San Diego again. About 13 minutes later, again discussing gasoline prices, he said, "And again, remember this. I stopped them from ever having," and then, "How about those B-2 bombers?" He did not name Iran or nuclear weapons in that passage (video at 25:11 (opens in a new tab)).
Published versions of the quotation differ. In the recording, Trump restarts twice before "Los Angeles" and says "That's, this is" before "a very small price to pay." CBS News Los Angeles (opens in a new tab) printed both restarts, "Let them take, let it, let them take out Los Angeles," and Agence France-Presse (opens in a new tab) printed one; CNN (opens in a new tab), NBC News (opens in a new tab) and ABC News (opens in a new tab) printed "Let them take out Los Angeles" once, and some outlets printed "Let 'em." The restarts do not change the words that follow. ABC News and CBS News Los Angeles described the remark as being about Iran developing a nuclear weapon, while The National News Desk (opens in a new tab) noted that Trump did not mention nuclear weapons in it. CBS News Los Angeles said it was not immediately clear what Trump meant, and the Los Angeles Times (opens in a new tab) said the comment was possibly in jest.
California Democrats responded within hours. Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote (opens in a new tab) that Trump "is now saying our foreign enemies should 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego" and called him "deranged and dangerous." His press office later wrote (opens in a new tab) that the president was "advocating for an attack" on more than 10 million residents, and after that his governor's account called (opens in a new tab) the remark "Disgusting and disqualifying." Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass wrote (opens in a new tab) that the president "suggested that a foreign government attack Los Angeles," and in a separate post (opens in a new tab) on another of her accounts wrote, "Keep LA out of your damn mouth." San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria wrote (opens in a new tab) that his city "is not collateral damage." Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, Reps. Sara Jacobs and Scott Peters, the gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra and the Democratic National Committee also criticized the remark.
Jim Desmond, a Republican San Diego County supervisor running in California's 48th Congressional District, wrote (opens in a new tab) that he "vehemently" disagreed with the president's comments and that he had "served to protect Americans, not write off American cities as an acceptable price of war." His Democratic opponent, Marni von Wilpert, criticized both Trump and Desmond. Rep. Kevin Kiley, a former Republican running for reelection as an independent, told FOX40 (opens in a new tab) that there is "no evidence" Iran could strike a California city and that "such rhetoric is unhelpful." FOX40 reported that the California Republican Party declined to comment.
On the morning of October 6, White House Communications Director Steven Cheung wrote (opens in a new tab) that the "media freakout" over the comments was "not rooted in reality" and that Trump "was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn't been stopped." About half an hour later, the White House's Rapid Response 47 account, quoting the Los Angeles Times post of its story, wrote (opens in a new tab) "No, he didn't, you buffoons" and said Trump "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." In the speech, Trump spoke about stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon about six to seven minutes before the remark, at 5:00 and 6:15. He did not mention it in the passage itself, and he made the "I stopped them from ever having" remark about 13 minutes after it.
CNN (opens in a new tab) reports that Trump has repeatedly called high gas prices a small price to pay for the war, and that in Nebraska he appeared to contrast that with a far higher price, an attack on a U.S. city. Where officials stand on the war itself is tracked in a separate case (opens in a new tab).
As of the afternoon of October 6, 2026, we did not find a statement from Trump himself explaining the remark. Apart from Jim Desmond, a Republican San Diego County supervisor running for Congress, and Kiley, a former Republican running as an independent, we did not find an elected Republican who had addressed it as of October 6, 2026. The recording establishes what Trump said and what came before and after it. It does not establish what he meant.
People in this case
Donald TrumpDirectly involved
Gavin NewsomDirectly involved
Karen BassDirectly involved
Todd GloriaDirectly involved
Timeline
6 timeline entries on this page. Dates: October 5, 2026 to October 6, 2026
October 2026
6 events
Trump says 'Let them take out Los Angeles' at Nebraska rally
Incident
At a midterm campaign rally in Grand Island, Nebraska, President Trump called the war's costs "a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe" and said, "They can take out a city. Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego." The passage followed remarks about the midterm elections and did not mention nuclear weapons. About six to seven minutes earlier, Trump had said Iran "will not have a nuclear weapon." The time is approximate, based on the remark's position in a live broadcast and on the earliest clips of it, posted at 23:44 and 23:45 UTC.
[01]FULL SPEECH: President Trump Holds Massive Rally in Grand Island, NE - 10/05/26
Right Side Broadcasting Network's unedited video of President Trump's full speech at the Pinnacle Bank Expo Center in Grand Island, Nebraska, on October 5, 2026, posted to YouTube after the live broadcast. The Los Angeles and San Diego remark comes about 12 minutes into the speech, after a passage on the midterm elections. Trump's earlier statements that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon come about six to seven minutes before it.
FULL SPEECH: President Trump Holds Massive Rally in Grand Island, NE - 10/05/26 · Right Side Broadcasting NetworkRemark at 12:20 to 12:40; Iran war and nuclear weapon passage at 4:23 to 6:31California officials and candidates condemn the remark
Reaction
Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote that Trump was "now saying our foreign enemies should 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego" and called him "deranged and dangerous." Within the next two hours, Sen. Alex Padilla, Rep. Sara Jacobs, San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond (the Republican candidate in the 48th District), San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, Sen. Adam Schiff, Xavier Becerra, Democratic House candidate Marni von Wilpert, Rep. Scott Peters and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass also criticized the remark on X.
[02]Gavin Newsom's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
California Gov. Gavin Newsom's post on his personal X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark posted by the commentator Acyn.
Gavin Newsom's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Gavin NewsomOriginal post[03]Alex Padilla's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
Sen. Alex Padilla's post on his Senate X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
Alex Padilla's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Alex PadillaOriginal post[04]Sara Jacobs's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
Rep. Sara Jacobs's post on her congressional X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
Sara Jacobs's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Sara JacobsOriginal post[05]Todd Gloria's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria's post on his official X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
Todd Gloria's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Todd GloriaOriginal post[06]Jim Desmond's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
Post on the X account of Jim Desmond's congressional campaign. Desmond, a San Diego County supervisor, is the Republican candidate in California's 48th District.
Jim Desmond's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Jim DesmondOriginal post[07]Adam Schiff's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
Sen. Adam Schiff's post on his Senate X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
Adam Schiff's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Adam SchiffOriginal post[08]Xavier Becerra's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
Xavier Becerra's post on his X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark. Becerra is a Democratic candidate for governor of California.
Xavier Becerra's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Xavier BecerraOriginal post[09]Scott Peters's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
Rep. Scott Peters's post on his congressional X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
Scott Peters's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Scott PetersOriginal post[10]Karen Bass's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass's post on her official X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
Karen Bass's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Karen BassOriginal post[11]Marni von Wilpert's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
Post on the X account of Marni von Wilpert's congressional campaign. Von Wilpert is the Democratic candidate in California's 48th District.
Marni von Wilpert's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Marni von WilpertOriginal postLos Angeles Times reports Trump suggested letting Iran 'take out' the two cities
Source release
The Los Angeles Times published a story headlined "Trump suggests letting Iran 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego at campaign rally," saying the comment was possibly in jest. The White House's Rapid Response 47 account later responded to the Times' post of the story.
[12]Trump suggests letting Iran 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego at campaign rally
Los Angeles Times report on the remark, which says it was possibly in jest. The White House's Rapid Response 47 account replied to the Times post that linked this story.
Trump suggests letting Iran 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego at campaign rally · Los Angeles TimesFull articleCheung says Trump meant the threat from a nuclear Iran
Claim
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung wrote that the reaction to Trump's comments was "not rooted in reality" and that Trump "was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn't been stopped."
[13]Steven Cheung's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung's post on X, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
Steven Cheung's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Steven CheungOriginal postWhite House Rapid Response account says the U.S. is fighting to stop a nuclear attack on the cities
Claim
Quoting the Los Angeles Times post, the White House's Rapid Response 47 account wrote "No, he didn't, you buffoons" and said Trump "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."
[14]Rapid Response 47's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
Post by the White House's Rapid Response 47 account on X, quoting a Los Angeles Times post that linked its story headlined "Trump suggests letting Iran 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego at campaign rally."
Rapid Response 47's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Rapid Response 47Original postDemocratic National Committee calls the remark 'disgusting and dangerous'
Reaction
The Democratic National Committee posted the remark and wrote, "Disgusting and dangerous. End the war and hold him accountable."
[15]Democratic National Committee's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
Post by the Democratic National Committee's X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
Democratic National Committee's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Democratic National CommitteeOriginal post
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
Trump was clearly stating that U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran had not been stopped, and the media reaction to his comments is not rooted in reality.
Sources (2)
- Steven Cheung's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Steven CheungOriginal post
Disputed claim
Trump was saying the United States is fighting to stop Iran from having the ability to attack Los Angeles and San Diego with a nuclear weapon, which Iran would do if it had the chance.
Rapid Response 47
Sources (2)
- Rapid Response 47's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Rapid Response 47Original post
- 'You buffoons': Trump team defends remarks about Iran 'taking out' LA, San Diego · The National News DeskFull article
Disputed claim
Trump was saying that foreign enemies of the United States should "take out" Los Angeles and San Diego.
Sources (2)
- Gavin Newsom's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Gavin NewsomOriginal post
- Trump suggests allowing Iran to "take out" LA and San Diego during campaign rally · CBS News Los AngelesFull article, updated October 6, 2026, 8:55 a.m. Pacific
Disputed claim
Trump accepts attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego as a cost of the Iran war: "if it means attacks on two major American cities in the process, he is not troubled by the cost."
Sources (2)
- Adam Schiff's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Adam SchiffOriginal post
- California officials condemn Trump for saying Iran could 'take out' Los Angeles or San Diego · NBC NewsFull article
Response record
Responses
Latest recorded positions: 13. Dates: October 5, 2026 to October 6, 2026
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
14 responses on this page
Democratic National CommitteeDemocratic National Committee, official X accountDirectly involved "Disgusting and dangerous. End the war and hold him accountable."
CondemnedCase context: What did Trump mean when he said 'Let them take out Los Angeles' at a Nebraska rally?
Read more
The Democratic National Committee wrote on X, "Trump's new message on his Iran war: 'Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego.' Disgusting and dangerous. End the war and hold him accountable."
Before the statement
The post, quoting a video clip of the rally remark, opens: "Trump's new message on his Iran war: 'Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego.'"
After the statement
This is the end of the post.
Democratic National Committee's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Democratic National CommitteeOriginal postWhy this label?
The reference point is whether Trump's remark meant Iranian attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego would be an acceptable price for the war, as critics read it, rather than that the war prevents a nuclear Iran from being able to attack them, as the White House says. The committee quotes the remark as Trump's "new message" on the war and calls it "Disgusting and dangerous," condemning the remark without spelling out a reading of it. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, but the post criticizes the remark itself rather than disputing any description of it. Evidence: the committee's own post on X.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Todd GloriaMayor of San Diego, in a statement issued by his officeDirectly involved"No American city, regardless of its politics or geography, should ever be described as expendable or an acceptable price to pay."
CondemnedResponding to: Trump accepts attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego as a cost of the Iran war: "if it means attacks on two major American cities in the process, he is not troubled by the cost."
Read more
In a statement issued by his office on October 6, 2026, San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria said Trump "so casually dismissed" the lives of San Diego's nearly 1.4 million residents, that no American city "should ever be described as expendable or an acceptable price to pay," and that Trump should retract the remarks and apologize to the people of San Diego.
Before the statement
The statement was issued the morning after the rally, and its introduction says it followed Trump's suggestion "that a foreign adversary could 'take out' San Diego" and his calling it a "small price to pay." Gloria opened by describing San Diego as "an anchor of our nation's security in the Pacific" and home to servicemembers, shipbuilders and researchers.
After the statement
Gloria continued, "San Diegans deserve a President who values their lives, honors the service and sacrifice of our military families, and takes seriously his responsibility as Commander in Chief. President Trump should retract these remarks and apologize to the people of San Diego." He closed, "A President does not get to decide which American communities are worth protecting. His duty is to all of us."
Mayor Gloria statement on President Trump's remarks about San DiegoThird paragraph of the statement.Why this label?
The reference point is whether Trump's remark meant Iranian attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego would be an acceptable price for the war, as critics read it, rather than that the war prevents a nuclear Iran from being able to attack them, as the White House says. Gloria's statement treats the remark as describing San Diego as expendable and asks for a retraction and an apology, which adopts the critics' reading and criticizes the remark. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, but he objects to what he takes Trump to have said rather than disputing how others described it. This is a separate occasion from his October 5 post on X. Evidence: the statement as published by the Mayor's office.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Rapid Response 47Official White House rapid response account on XDirectly involved "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"
Challenged the characterizationResponding to: Trump was saying the United States is fighting to stop Iran from having the ability to attack Los Angeles and San Diego with a nuclear weapon, which Iran would do if it had the chance.
Read more
The White House's Rapid Response 47 account, quoting a Los Angeles Times post headlined "Trump suggests letting Iran 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego at campaign rally," wrote: "No, he didn't, you buffoons," and said Trump "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 it said Iran would do if it had the chance.
Before the statement
The post quotes a Los Angeles Times post linking its story "Trump suggests letting Iran 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego at campaign rally" and opens: "No, he didn't, you buffoons."
After the statement
The post ends by saying Iran would carry out such an attack "if they had the chance."
Rapid Response 47's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Rapid Response 47Original postTrump suggests letting Iran 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego at campaign rally · Los Angeles TimesFull articleWhy this label?
The reference point is whether Trump's remark meant Iranian attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego would be an acceptable price for the war, as critics read it, rather than that the war prevents a nuclear Iran from being able to attack them, as the White House says. The account rejects the Los Angeles Times' description, "No, he didn't," and offers another reading: that Trump was saying the United States is fighting to stop Iran from being able to attack the two cities with a nuclear weapon. That disputes the interpretation of the remark. The closest competing label is Defended or excused, but the post does not argue that an attack on the cities would be acceptable; it says the remark meant something else. Evidence: the account's own post on X.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Steven CheungWhite House communications directorDirectly involved"He was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn't been stopped."
Challenged the characterizationResponding to: Trump was clearly stating that U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran had not been stopped, and the media reaction to his comments is not rooted in reality.
Read more
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung wrote on X that "The media freakout over President Trump's comments is not rooted in reality," that Trump "was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn't been stopped," and that "America is safer because of the President."
Before the statement
Cheung posted the morning after the rally, quoting a video clip of the rally remark. The post opens: "The media freakout over President Trump's comments is not rooted in reality."
After the statement
It continues: "America is safer because of the President. Iran has no nuclear, no navy, no air force, and no money."
Steven Cheung's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Steven CheungOriginal postWhy this label?
The reference point is whether Trump's remark meant Iranian attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego would be an acceptable price for the war, as critics read it, rather than that the war prevents a nuclear Iran from being able to attack them, as the White House says. Cheung rejects the critics' reading, calling the reaction "not rooted in reality," and offers another: that Trump meant U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran had not been stopped. That disputes the interpretation of the remark. The closest competing label is Defended or excused, but the post does not argue that an attack on the cities would be acceptable; it says the remark meant something else. Evidence: Cheung's own post on X.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Karen BassMayor of Los AngelesDirectly involved"The President of the United States suggested that a foreign government attack Los Angeles. His statements against our city are dangerous and could potentially compromise our safety."
CondemnedResponding to: Trump was saying that foreign enemies of the United States should "take out" Los Angeles and San Diego.
Read more
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass wrote on X that the president "suggested that a foreign government attack Los Angeles," that his statements were dangerous and could compromise the city's safety, and that "The role of a president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives."
Before the statement
Bass posted later that evening, quoting a video clip of the rally remark.
After the statement
She added, "In the face of irresponsible threats, as Angelenos, we know how to stand together and protect our city."
Karen Bass's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Karen BassOriginal postWhy this label?
The reference point is whether Trump's remark meant Iranian attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego would be an acceptable price for the war, as critics read it, rather than that the war prevents a nuclear Iran from being able to attack them, as the White House says. Bass says Trump suggested that a foreign government attack the city and that he encouraged attacks on Americans, which asserts and condemns the critics' reading. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, but she states her own reading of the remark and criticizes it rather than only disputing a description. Evidence: Bass's own post on X.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Scott PetersU.S. representative from California's 50th DistrictDirectly involved"America knows San Diego is not a “small price to pay” for his inability to resolve it."
CondemnedResponding to: Trump accepts attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego as a cost of the Iran war: "if it means attacks on two major American cities in the process, he is not troubled by the cost."
Read more
Rep. Scott Peters wrote on X that San Diego is a military town awaiting the return of sailors and Marines from the USS Lincoln, and that "America knows San Diego is not a 'small price to pay' for his inability to resolve" the war.
Before the statement
Peters's post, quoting a video clip of the rally remark, opens: "San Diego is a proud military town, home to 115,000 courageous active duty servicemembers and their families. Military service is at the root of our community and culture. This month we await the return home of the sailors and marines still stranded on the USS Lincoln for months thanks to Donald Trump's reckless war in Iran."
After the statement
This sentence ends the post.
Scott Peters's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Scott PetersOriginal postWhy this label?
The reference point is whether Trump's remark meant Iranian attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego would be an acceptable price for the war, as critics read it, rather than that the war prevents a nuclear Iran from being able to attack them, as the White House says. Peters rejects the idea that San Diego could be a "small price to pay" for the war, which treats the remark as accepting harm to the city and criticizes Trump. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, but Peters objects to what he takes Trump to have said rather than disputing how others described it. Evidence: Peters's own post on X.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Show fewer responses
Marni von WilpertDemocratic candidate for U.S. House in California's 48th DistrictDirectly involved"Donald Trump says Los Angeles and San Diego being attacked would be ‘a small price to pay’ for his reckless Iran war. That is appalling and terrifying."
CondemnedResponding to: Trump accepts attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego as a cost of the Iran war: "if it means attacks on two major American cities in the process, he is not troubled by the cost."
Read more
Marni von Wilpert, the Democratic candidate in California's 48th Congressional District, wrote on X that Trump says an attack on Los Angeles and San Diego "would be 'a small price to pay'" for the war, called that "appalling and terrifying" and called the remark "an impeachable offense." She also criticized her Republican opponent, Jim Desmond, for supporting the war.
Before the statement
Von Wilpert posted later that evening. FOX 5 San Diego reported that she also issued the statement in a news release.
After the statement
She goes on to call the remark "an impeachable offense by the Commander in Chief" and says it is indefensible that Desmond "continues to support Trump's war."
Marni von Wilpert's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Marni von WilpertOriginal postSan Diego officials condemn Trump's rhetoric on U.S.-Iran war costs · FOX 5 San DiegoFull article, updated October 5, 2026, 11:01 p.m. PacificWhy this label?
The reference point is whether Trump's remark meant Iranian attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego would be an acceptable price for the war, as critics read it, rather than that the war prevents a nuclear Iran from being able to attack them, as the White House says. Von Wilpert states the critics' reading directly, that Trump called an attack on the two cities a small price to pay, and condemns it. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, but she adopts and criticizes that reading rather than disputing a description. Evidence: von Wilpert's own campaign post on X.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Xavier BecerraDemocratic candidate for governor of CaliforniaDirectly involved"Their lives are not a “small price to pay” or a punchline for Donald Trump."
CondemnedResponding to: Trump accepts attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego as a cost of the Iran war: "if it means attacks on two major American cities in the process, he is not troubled by the cost."
Read more
Xavier Becerra, a Democratic candidate for governor of California, wrote on X that 13 million Californians live in Los Angeles and San Diego counties and that "Their lives are not a 'small price to pay' or a punchline for Donald Trump."
Before the statement
Becerra's post, quoting a video clip of the rally remark, opens: "Thirteen million Californians call LA and San Diego counties home."
After the statement
This sentence ends the post.
Xavier Becerra's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Xavier BecerraOriginal postWhy this label?
The reference point is whether Trump's remark meant Iranian attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego would be an acceptable price for the war, as critics read it, rather than that the war prevents a nuclear Iran from being able to attack them, as the White House says. Becerra rejects the idea that the residents of the two counties are a "small price to pay," which treats the remark as accepting harm to them, and he criticizes Trump for it. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization. His line that Californians' lives are not "a punchline for Donald Trump" accuses Trump of joking about them, which is a criticism of the remark rather than a dispute over how others described it. Evidence: Becerra's own post on X.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Adam SchiffU.S. senator from CaliforniaDirectly involved"And if it means attacks on two major American cities in the process, he is not troubled by the cost."
CondemnedResponding to: Trump accepts attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego as a cost of the Iran war: "if it means attacks on two major American cities in the process, he is not troubled by the cost."
Read more
Sen. Adam Schiff wrote on X that Trump says the Iran war will end "very soon," asked how many times that promise has been made, and said, "if it means attacks on two major American cities in the process, he is not troubled by the cost."
Before the statement
Schiff's post, quoting a video clip of the rally remark, opens: "The President says the Iran war will end 'very soon.' How many times have we heard that promise?"
After the statement
This sentence ends the post.
Adam Schiff's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Adam SchiffOriginal postWhy this label?
The reference point is whether Trump's remark meant Iranian attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego would be an acceptable price for the war, as critics read it, rather than that the war prevents a nuclear Iran from being able to attack them, as the White House says. Schiff reads the remark as Trump accepting attacks on two American cities as a cost of the war and criticizes him for it, which asserts the critics' reading. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because the sentence begins with "if"; but the condition restates what Schiff takes Trump to have said, and the post's conclusion about Trump is not conditional. Evidence: Schiff's own post on X.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Todd GloriaMayor of San DiegoDirectly involved"San Diego is not collateral damage."
CondemnedResponding to: Trump accepts attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego as a cost of the Iran war: "if it means attacks on two major American cities in the process, he is not troubled by the cost."
Read more
San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria wrote on X, "San Diego is not collateral damage. We are not expendable. And we are never a 'small price to pay.' Keep our city out of your reckless war talk."
Before the statement
Gloria posted later that evening, quoting a video clip of the rally remark.
After the statement
The post continues: "We are not expendable. And we are never a 'small price to pay.' Keep our city out of your reckless war talk."
Todd Gloria's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Todd GloriaOriginal postWhy this label?
The reference point is whether Trump's remark meant Iranian attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego would be an acceptable price for the war, as critics read it, rather than that the war prevents a nuclear Iran from being able to attack them, as the White House says. Gloria answers the remark by rejecting the idea that his city could be a "small price to pay" or collateral damage of the war, which treats the remark as accepting harm to San Diego and criticizes it. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, but his post objects to what he takes Trump to have said rather than disputing how others described it. Evidence: Gloria's own post on X.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Jim DesmondSan Diego County supervisor and Republican candidate for U.S. House in California's 48th DistrictDirectly involved"As a Navy veteran, I served to protect Americans, not write off American cities as an acceptable price of war."
CondemnedResponding to: Trump accepts attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego as a cost of the Iran war: "if it means attacks on two major American cities in the process, he is not troubled by the cost."
Read more
Jim Desmond, a Republican San Diego County supervisor running in California's 48th Congressional District, wrote on X that he "vehemently" disagreed with Trump's comments, that the commander in chief's first responsibility is to protect Americans, and that as a Navy veteran he "served to protect Americans, not write off American cities as an acceptable price of war."
Before the statement
The post opens: "I vehemently disagree with President Trump's comments. America must stand up to Iran and defend our interests, but the first responsibility of our Commander in Chief is to protect the American people and our homeland."
After the statement
It continues: "No American city is expendable, and no American family should ever be treated as collateral damage."
Jim Desmond's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Jim DesmondOriginal postWhy this label?
The reference point is whether Trump's remark meant Iranian attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego would be an acceptable price for the war, as critics read it, rather than that the war prevents a nuclear Iran from being able to attack them, as the White House says. Desmond reads the remark as writing off American cities as an acceptable price of war and says he vehemently disagrees, which asserts and condemns the critics' reading. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because he also says America must stand up to Iran; but that is support for the war's aims, not a defense of the remark. Evidence: Desmond's own campaign post on X.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sara JacobsU.S. representative from California's 51st DistrictDirectly involved"not acceptable collateral damage in Trump’s stupid war."
CondemnedResponding to: Trump accepts attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego as a cost of the Iran war: "if it means attacks on two major American cities in the process, he is not troubled by the cost."
Read more
Rep. Sara Jacobs, whose district is in San Diego, wrote on X that her constituents, including many active-duty service members, veterans and their families, "are not acceptable collateral damage in Trump's stupid war."
Before the statement
Jacobs's post quotes a video clip of the rally remark. It opens with "My constituents" and the phrase "including many active duty service members, veterans, and their families," followed by "are" and the words quoted here.
After the statement
This sentence ends the post.
Sara Jacobs's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Sara JacobsOriginal postWhy this label?
The reference point is whether Trump's remark meant Iranian attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego would be an acceptable price for the war, as critics read it, rather than that the war prevents a nuclear Iran from being able to attack them, as the White House says. Jacobs answers the remark by rejecting the idea that her constituents are acceptable collateral damage, which treats the remark as accepting harm to San Diego and criticizes it. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, but she objects to what she takes Trump to have said rather than to how others described it. Evidence: Jacobs's own post on X.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Alex PadillaU.S. senator from CaliforniaDirectly involved"Now Trump is in Nebraska inviting an attack on U.S. soil, putting millions of Americans and hundreds of thousands of our servicemembers at risk while trying to get Americans to cheer for an attack on our own country."
CondemnedResponding to: Trump was saying that foreign enemies of the United States should "take out" Los Angeles and San Diego.
Read more
Sen. Alex Padilla wrote on X that at least 19 service members, including Noah Tietjens of Nebraska, have died in the war, and that Trump was in Nebraska "inviting an attack on U.S. soil" while trying to get Americans to cheer for it. "What kind of Commander in Chief does that?" he asked.
Before the statement
Padilla's post, quoting a video clip of the rally remark, begins by saying at least 19 service members have died in the war, including Noah Tietjens of Nebraska.
After the statement
It ends: "What kind of Commander in Chief does that?"
Alex Padilla's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Alex PadillaOriginal postWhy this label?
The reference point is whether Trump's remark meant Iranian attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego would be an acceptable price for the war, as critics read it, rather than that the war prevents a nuclear Iran from being able to attack them, as the White House says. Padilla reads the remark as inviting an attack on the United States and criticizes Trump for it, which asserts and condemns the critics' reading. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, but Padilla states his own reading and condemns the conduct. Evidence: Padilla's own post on X.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Gavin NewsomGovernor of CaliforniaDirectly involved"After sending the National Guard and Marines to occupy California, Donald Trump is now saying our foreign enemies should “take out” Los Angeles and San Diego."
CondemnedResponding to: Trump was saying that foreign enemies of the United States should "take out" Los Angeles and San Diego.
Read more
California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X that after sending the National Guard and Marines to California, Trump "is now saying our foreign enemies should 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego," and added, "He is deranged and dangerous."
Before the statement
Newsom posted about two hours after the remark, quoting a 34-second clip of it posted by the commentator Acyn.
After the statement
His post ends: "He is deranged and dangerous." Newsom's official governor's account later called the remark "Disgusting and disqualifying."
Gavin Newsom's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark · Gavin NewsomOriginal postWhy this label?
The reference point is whether Trump's remark meant Iranian attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego would be an acceptable price for the war, as critics read it, rather than that the war prevents a nuclear Iran from being able to attack them, as the White House says. Newsom reads the remark as Trump saying foreign enemies should attack the two cities and calls him dangerous, which asserts and condemns the critics' reading. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, but Newsom does more than dispute a description: he states what he says Trump meant and criticizes it. Evidence: Newsom's own post on X.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(21)
Original video
FULL SPEECH: President Trump Holds Massive Rally in Grand Island, NE - 10/05/26
About this source
Right Side Broadcasting Network's unedited video of President Trump's full speech at the Pinnacle Bank Expo Center in Grand Island, Nebraska, on October 5, 2026, posted to YouTube after the live broadcast. The Los Angeles and San Diego remark comes about 12 minutes into the speech, after a passage on the midterm elections. Trump's earlier statements that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon come about six to seven minutes before it.
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Mayor Gloria statement on President Trump's remarks about San Diego
Relevant passage: Third paragraph of the statement.
Excerpt
"No American city, regardless of its politics or geography, should ever be described as expendable or an acceptable price to pay. … President Trump should retract these remarks and apologize to the people of San Diego."
About this source
Statement issued by San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria's office on October 6, 2026, responding to Trump's October 5 rally remark. The office also distributed it by email to media, including Dispute Index.
- Author
- Office of Mayor Todd Gloria
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
San Diego officials condemn Trump's rhetoric on U.S.-Iran war costs
Relevant passage: Full article, updated October 5, 2026, 11:01 p.m. Pacific
About this source
FOX 5 San Diego report on reactions from San Diego officials. It reports that Marni von Wilpert issued her statement in a news release and identifies Jim Desmond as a San Diego County supervisor.
- Author
- Chris Ponce
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
'You buffoons': Trump team defends remarks about Iran 'taking out' LA, San Diego
Relevant passage: Full article
About this source
Report by The National News Desk, carried by Fox 17 and other Sinclair stations, on the Rapid Response 47 post. It notes that Trump did not mention nuclear weapons in the rally remarks.
- Author
- Alexx Altman-DeVilbiss, The National News Desk
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Trump suggests letting Iran 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego at campaign rally
Relevant passage: Full article
About this source
Los Angeles Times report on the remark, which says it was possibly in jest. The White House's Rapid Response 47 account replied to the Times post that linked this story.
- Author
- Iris Kwok, Richard Winton and Ana Ceballos
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
California officials condemn Trump for saying Iran could 'take out' Los Angeles or San Diego
Relevant passage: Full article
About this source
NBC News report quoting the remark, Cheung's response and reactions from Newsom, Bass, Gloria, Sen. Alex Padilla and Sen. Adam Schiff.
- Author
- Megan Brand
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Trump suggests allowing Iran to "take out" LA and San Diego during campaign rally
Relevant passage: Full article, updated October 6, 2026, 8:55 a.m. Pacific
About this source
CBS News Los Angeles report on the remark and reactions. Its lede describes the remark as being about Iran developing a nuclear weapon, its transcription includes both restarts before "Los Angeles," and it says it was not immediately clear what Trump meant.
- Author
- Tom Wait
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Trump draws backlash after he suggests Iran could 'take out' Los Angeles or San Diego
Relevant passage: Full article
About this source
CNN report on the remark, Steven Cheung's response and reactions from California officials. CNN says Trump appeared to contrast high gas prices with a far higher price, an attack on a U.S. city.
- Author
- Lauren Chadwick
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Democratic National Committee's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
About this source
Post by the Democratic National Committee's X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Rapid Response 47's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
About this source
Post by the White House's Rapid Response 47 account on X, quoting a Los Angeles Times post that linked its story headlined "Trump suggests letting Iran 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego at campaign rally."
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Steven Cheung's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
About this source
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung's post on X, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Marni von Wilpert's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
About this source
Post on the X account of Marni von Wilpert's congressional campaign. Von Wilpert is the Democratic candidate in California's 48th District.
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Jim Desmond's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
About this source
Post on the X account of Jim Desmond's congressional campaign. Desmond, a San Diego County supervisor, is the Republican candidate in California's 48th District.
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Xavier Becerra's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
About this source
Xavier Becerra's post on his X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark. Becerra is a Democratic candidate for governor of California.
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Scott Peters's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
About this source
Rep. Scott Peters's post on his congressional X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Sara Jacobs's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
About this source
Rep. Sara Jacobs's post on her congressional X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Adam Schiff's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
About this source
Sen. Adam Schiff's post on his Senate X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Alex Padilla's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
About this source
Sen. Alex Padilla's post on his Senate X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Todd Gloria's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
About this source
San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria's post on his official X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Karen Bass's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
About this source
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass's post on her official X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Gavin Newsom's post on Trump's Los Angeles and San Diego remark
About this source
California Gov. Gavin Newsom's post on his personal X account, quoting a clip of the rally remark posted by the commentator Acyn.
- Published
- Accessed
Corrections
(2)
Corrections address errors in our reporting or labels. When a speaker changes their position, we add a separate statement and link it to the earlier one.
Classification correction
Correction to: Statement by Rapid Response 47
- Previous classification
- Position Event #4890 classified the Rapid Response 47 post as "Defended or excused."
- Corrected classification
- The statement disputes the critics' reading of the remark and offers a different one, so the classification is "Challenged the characterization."
In this case Defended or excused would mean arguing that an Iranian attack on Los Angeles or San Diego would be acceptable. The statement does not argue that; it rejects the critics' interpretation and gives the White House's. The rationale was revised to match.
This corrects an editorial classification.
Post by the White House's Rapid Response 47 account on X, quoting a Los Angeles Times post that linked its story headlined "Trump suggests letting Iran 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego at campaign rally."
Los Angeles Times report on the remark, which says it was possibly in jest. The White House's Rapid Response 47 account replied to the Times post that linked this story.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Classification correction
Correction to: Statement by Steven Cheung
- Previous classification
- Position Event #4889 classified Steven Cheung's statement as "Defended or excused."
- Corrected classification
- The statement disputes the critics' reading of the remark and offers a different one, so the classification is "Challenged the characterization."
In this case Defended or excused would mean arguing that an Iranian attack on Los Angeles or San Diego would be acceptable. The statement does not argue that; it rejects the critics' interpretation and gives the White House's. The rationale was revised to match.
This corrects an editorial classification.
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung's post on X, quoting a clip of the rally remark.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- What did Trump mean when he said 'Let them take out Los Angeles' at a Nebraska rally?
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/what-did-trump-mean-let-them-take-out-los-angeles
The Dispute Index. "What did Trump mean when he said 'Let them take out Los Angeles' at a Nebraska rally?". First published: 2026-10-06. Last updated: 2026-10-06. https://disputeindex.com/cases/what-did-trump-mean-let-them-take-out-los-angeles