Trump's controversial rally remarks

At an October fifth rally in Nebraska, President Trump said Iran could take out Los Angeles and San Diego, calling it a small price to pay for keeping the country safe.

“Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego.”

Democrats claim Trump invited attacks

California Governor Gavin Newsom said Trump was deranged and dangerous, claiming the president was advocating for an attack on ten plus million U.S. residents in two of America's largest cities.

“He is deranged and dangerous.”

Newsom escalates criticism

The following day, Newsom called Trump's remarks dangerous, if not treasonous, and said he was directing California to actively monitor the situation in case foreign actors interpret the president's remarks as an invitation.

“dangerous, if not treasonous”

Schiff and Sanders respond

Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California questioned how many times Trump has promised the Iran war will end soon.

“I can't believe we have to say this, but the annihilation of two major American cities, more than 5 million people, is not a 'small price to pay'”

Trump's confusing speaking style

Trump's remarks were admittedly confusing, in keeping with his characteristically roundabout style of speaking. His rally speeches frequently veer off on tangents before circling back to earlier points.

Context suggests different meaning

What immediately preceded Trump's controversial statements suggests he was saying that protecting U.S. cities is worth paying more at the pump, not calling for their destruction.

“It's a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe.”

Trump's earlier similar language

On September twenty-eighth in the Oval Office, Trump said if Iran had a nuclear weapon, let them take out a city.

“let them take out a city with a nuclear weapon”

March comments on oil prices

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office in March, Trump said rising oil prices were a very small thing compared to allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons and hit the U.S. with nukes.

“I think it's a very small price to pay.”

White House clarification

A White House spokesperson directed FactCheck.org to Communications Director Steven Cheung's statement that Trump was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn't been stopped.

“He was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn't been stopped.”

Trump clarifies at San Antonio rally

On October seventh at a San Antonio rally, Trump said he launched the war with Iran to prevent attacks on Los Angeles and San Diego, emphasizing he protects U.S. cities and the country.

“We protect our cities. We protect our country. We're not letting that happen.”

Trump's nuclear claims disputed

Trump has repeatedly claimed Iran's nuclear weapon capabilities were imminent. In June he said Iran would right now have a nuclear weapon if he hadn't launched airstrikes in June twenty twenty-five.

Intelligence agencies contradict Trump

Reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.S. Intelligence Community said in March twenty twenty-five that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, contradicting Trump's claims about imminence.

“Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.”

Experts assess the timeline

Arms control experts told FactCheck.org the twenty twenty-five bombing set back Iran's nuclear program.Experts said it would likely take months to enrich uranium to bomb-grade level and much longer to make it into a weapon.