\u201cRemember, with the war, it\u2019s just artificial. It\u2019s a little bit high,\u201d he said, apparently referencing gas prices. \u201cIt\u2019s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe. They could take out a city. Let them take \u2014 let it \u2014 let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego.\u00a0<\/p>\n
![\"President](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Trump-LA-San-Diego-speech-400x267-1.png\")
Trump speaks at a rally in Nebraska on Oct. 5.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s \u2014 this is a very small price to pay, and it\u2019s going to be over with very soon,\u201d he continued. \u201cIt\u2019s essentially almost over with.\u201d<\/p>\n
The speech quickly drew outraged responses from Democrats in California and nationally.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cAfter sending the National Guard and Marines to occupy California, Donald Trump is now saying our foreign enemies should \u2018take out\u2019 Los Angeles and San Diego,\u201d California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote<\/a> on X. \u201cHe is deranged and dangerous.\u201d<\/p>\n Newsom\u2019s press office subsequently posted<\/a>, \u201cLet\u2019s be clear: The President is advocating for an attack on 10+ million U.S. residents in two of America\u2019s largest cities.\u201d <\/p>\n Newsom posted<\/a> again the following day, calling Trump\u2019s remarks \u201cdangerous \u2014 if not treasonous\u201d and saying that he was directing the state \u201cto actively monitor the situation in the event that foreign actors interpret the President\u2019s remarks as an invitation to target California.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe President says the Iran war will end \u2018very soon,\u2019\u201d Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California posted<\/a>. \u201cHow many times have we heard that promise? And if it means attacks on two major American cities in the process, he is not troubled by the cost.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI can\u2019t believe we have to say this, but the annihilation of two major American cities \u2014 more than 5 million people \u2014 is not a \u2018small price to pay\u2019 for Trump\u2019s illegal war,\u201d Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, wrote<\/a> on X.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s remarks were admittedly confusing, in keeping with his characteristically roundabout style of speaking. His speeches at rallies frequently veer off on tangents before circling back to an earlier point. It doesn\u2019t help that some in the crowd in Nebraska began cheering as he said, \u201cLet them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego,\u201d though Trump himself didn\u2019t seem to react to or encourage the crowd\u2019s response.<\/p>\n But taken in context, his remarks don\u2019t appear to be \u201cadvocating\u201d an attack on U.S. cities or suggesting their destruction would be an acceptable cost.\u00a0<\/p>\n Trump first referenced the war in Iran a few minutes into his Nebraska speech. \u201cWe\u2019re saving the world from what could be one of the worst tragedies ever,\u201d he said, adding that the war would end soon and, when it does, the price of oil \u201cwill come tumbling down.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n After riffing on other topics, he eventually came back to the subject of the war, which is when he made his controversial comments about Los Angeles and San Diego. What immediately preceded those statements, however, suggests that Trump wasn\u2019t calling for the destruction of those cities, but rather saying that protecting them is worth paying a bit more at the pump: \u201cIt\u2019s a little bit high. It\u2019s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe. They could take out a city.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n He was likely making the same point about paying more for gasoline when, after referencing the California cities, he said, \u201cThis is a very small price to pay, and it\u2019s going to be over with very soon.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Trump has used similar language before to argue that higher gas prices are worth it if the war prevents Iran from posing a threat to the U.S.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe one thing already has happened is, Iran will never have a nuclear weapon,\u201d he said in Iowa on Sept. 28. \u201cThat\u2019s a very big thing, because if you want to see turmoil and a travesty, let them take out a city with a nuclear weapon. I\u2019m not only talking about Israel and big parts of the Middle East, but let them hit us with a nuclear weapon.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office in March<\/a>, he said rising oil prices were \u201ca very small thing compared to allowing them to have \u2014 you want to see the stock market go down? Start letting them hit you with nukes, OK? I said it this morning, I think it\u2019s a very small price to pay.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re going to get [the cost of fuel] down,\u201d he told<\/a> a Nebraska news network on the day of his rally there. \u201cBut it\u2019s all going to come pouring down as soon as the war\u2019s over, which will be very soon. And we will not have Iran having a nuclear weapon. And that\u2019s going to be \u2014 and I say it and I say it proudly \u2014 a relatively small price to pay for keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of a lunatic nation.\u201d<\/p>\n Reached for comment, a White House spokesperson directed us to an X post<\/a> from Communications Director Steven Cheung.<\/p>\n \u201cThe media freakout over President Trump\u2019s comments is not rooted in reality,\u201d Cheung said. \u201cHe was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn\u2019t been stopped.\u201d<\/p>\n In his Feb. 24 State of the Union address<\/a>, days before the U.S. and Israel launched airstrikes on Iran, Trump said Iran was \u201cworking to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America.\u201d But experts told us<\/a> the threat of Iran developing an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the mainland of the United States was not particularly imminent.<\/p>\n