WORLD • UNITED STATES
Trump clarifies Iran remarks about Los Angeles and San Diego
Donald Trump says his disputed remarks about California cities referred to the temporary cost of higher petrol prices. The explanation follows criticism of his wording at a Nebraska rally.
By ChikieChikie News
A clarification after the rally
US President Donald Trump said on 8 October that his comments about Iran and Los Angeles and San Diego had been misunderstood. Reuters reported that he used a Truth Social post to explain that he meant a temporary rise in gasoline prices was a cost worth bearing to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
The clarification followed remarks at a political rally in Nebraska on 5 October. The dispute centres on how the president described the possible threat to American cities while defending the economic costs of the Iran conflict.
Why the wording drew attention
At the rally, Trump referred to higher fuel costs before saying Iran could destroy a city and naming Los Angeles and San Diego. The words “Let ’em take out Los Angeles” prompted criticism because they could be heard as accepting an attack.
Associated Press reported that White House communications director Steven Cheung rejected that interpretation on 6 October. He said Trump was explaining why preventing an Iranian nuclear capability would protect US cities, rather than inviting an attack.
AP also reported objections from California Governor Gavin Newsom and Republican congressional candidate Jim Desmond. Those reactions reflect criticism of the language; they do not establish that an attack was planned or that the president issued an instruction to permit one.
Context and competing interpretations
FactCheck.org examined the passage within the wider speech. Its analysis concluded that the surrounding discussion pointed to an argument about higher gasoline prices being worth paying for safety, rather than an endorsement of destroying American cities. That is an interpretation of the speech, distinct from Trump’s own subsequent explanation.
The organisation noted that Trump had made similar arguments about fuel costs and nuclear risks in earlier remarks. It described the rally wording as confusing, with the president returning to the war after discussing other topics.
PolitiFact also presented the comments in the context of a discussion about gas prices and Iran. Reading the preceding sentences matters: an isolated phrase can convey a different meaning from the argument that surrounds it. Context does not remove the wording or the political responses it produced, but it helps explain the disagreement.
What readers should distinguish
The verified development is the president’s clarification and the response to his speech. His argument about Iran’s nuclear ambitions remains a statement of his position; this report does not treat his hypothetical reference to California cities as evidence of an imminent attack.
The available reporting supports a clear separation between three things: the words spoken at the rally, the White House’s explanation of them, and critics’ reactions. None should be silently substituted for another.
As of 8 October, the latest reported development was Trump’s written clarification.
Key facts
- Rally remarks: 5 October 2026, Nebraska.
- Clarification reported by Reuters: 8 October 2026.
- The controversy concerns wording and interpretation, not a verified attack on either city.
Sources and verification
Corrections & updates
Draft prepared on 8 October 2026. Recheck the reporting and sources before publication.
Related stories
Related headline one
Short description.
Related headline two
Short description.