October 8, 2026
A statement by US President Donald Trump, which he made during an election rally in the state of Nebraska, sparked a widespread wave of condemnation in the United States, after it was interpreted as an implicit acceptance of targeting the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego as part of the repercussions of the confrontation with Iran, which prompted the White House to issue an official clarification to contain the crisis.
In this context, the White House denied, on Tuesday, the validity of what was being circulated about Trump’s proposal to allow Iran to “destroy” the two cities, stressing that the president’s statements fell within the framework of an early warning of the grave dangers that the country would have faced if Tehran succeeded in developing a nuclear arsenal.
Trump was addressing the repercussions of the high oil prices associated with the war with Iran, considering that this economic cost is a “small price” for depriving Tehran of nuclear weapons and ensuring national and international security. “It’s a little high, but it’s a small price to pay in order to keep the world safe, to keep our country safe,” he said in his speech, adding in a controversial phrase: “They can destroy a city. Let them take Los Angeles, let them take San Diego. That’s a very small price, and it will all be over very soon.”
In the midst of the political storm, White House Communications Director Stephen Cheung considered that Trump’s statements were “clear” in terms of pointing out the threats that would have affected American cities had it not been for the neutralization of the Iranian nuclear program, describing the uproar raised as “media hysteria not based on reality.”
However, the official clarification did not succeed in calming political opponents, as the president faced sharp accusations from the Democratic Party of suggesting the possibility of exposing American cities to destruction. In this context, California Governor Gavin Newsom wrote on the “X” platform that Trump “now says that our foreign enemies must destroy Los Angeles and San Diego,” while the leader of the Democratic minority in the House of Representatives, Hakim Jeffries, criticized the statements by saying that “the nuclear annihilation of an American city is not a laughing matter.”
These developments come in light of the escalation of simmering tension between Washington and Tehran over the nuclear file, which places the presidential discourse under intense political and media scrutiny, especially with regard to the security of American cities in times of crisis.
