Some of President Donald Trump’s most frequent media critics are rejecting the latest Democratic attack against him. The dispute erupted after Democrats and multiple media outlets claimed Trump suggested Iran should be allowed to attack Los Angeles and San Diego.

Trump was speaking about the war with Iran and the danger of Tehran obtaining a nuclear weapon during a Monday rally in Nebraska. His comments included a reference to the destructive capability of a nuclear-armed Iran.

“They can take out a city. Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego. This is a very small price to pay,” Trump said. The remarks quickly triggered a political and media fight over what the president meant.

Democrats portrayed the comments as a suggestion that Iran should attack the two California cities. Several journalists who have repeatedly scrutinized Trump, however, said that characterization did not accurately reflect his argument.

Gold. Upgraded. Buy real gold from $1. Store it in America. Sell it with one click.

The Atlantic writer Michael Scherer offered a sharply different reading of the remarks. “Trump's point here is that if he didn't start a war with Iran, then San Diego and LA would be at risk from nuclear war,” Scherer wrote on X.

CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale also disputed the version being circulated by Trump’s critics. “This isn’t a direct quote from Trump, and I very much don’t think it’s a correct paraphrase. Trump has repeatedly argued that the consequences of the war, like higher gas prices, are a small price to pay compared to what an unchecked Iran could allegedly do,” Dale said.

This isn’t a direct quote from Trump, and I very much don’t think it’s a correct paraphrase. Trump has repeatedly argued that the consequences of the war, like higher gas prices, are a small price to pay compared to what an unchecked Iran could allegedly do. Last night, in especially rambling and incomplete fashion, he 1) claimed high prices are temporary and suggested they’re “artificial”; 2) contrasted that to the damage of Iran supposedly taking out a city; 3) and then, in especially confusing style, repeated his old point that “this,” as in the consequences of the war, is a small price to pay to avoid something like a a city being wiped out.

It’s Trump’s fault you kinda have to be steeped in TrumpRallySpeak to know what he was saying last night, and of course you can say it’s inappropriate regardless for the president to casually float the possibility of a city being wiped out, but the context exists and is important. — Daniel Dale (@ddale8) October 6, 2026

CNN senior reporter Aaron Blake similarly concluded that Trump was referring to the costs of war rather than endorsing a nuclear attack. “My read: The 'small price to pay' comment refers back to the costs of the war -- like gas prices -- not to the idea of Iran nuking LA and SD,” Blake wrote.

Here are Trump's fuller comments about Los Angeles and San Diego.

My read: The "small price to pay" comment refers back to the costs of the war -- like gas prices -- not to the idea of Iran nuking LA and SD. But Trump speaks so circuitously these days. https://t.co/4aWCkeUkDo — Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) October 6, 2026

Former Trump staffer turned Biden voter Sarah Matthews also rejected the Democratic interpretation. “Unpopular opinion: I don’t think Trump was suggesting letting Iran to attack ‘blue cities.’ I think he meant if Iran gets a nuke, LA and San Diego could be targets considering they’re two major West Coast cities,” Matthews wrote.

Unpopular opinion: I don’t think Trump was suggesting letting Iran to attack “blue cities.” I think he meant if Iran gets a nuke, LA and San Diego could be targets considering they’re two major West Coast cities. The real outrage should be over calling this war a “small price to pay” after 18 U.S. servicemembers have died.

— Sarah Matthews (@SarahAMatthews1) October 6, 2026

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

One account amplifying the disputed clip was Headquarters, which uses the handle @HQNewsNow. The account previously operated as “KamalaHQ” after originally serving as the Biden campaign’s “BidenHQ” rapid response account.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom nevertheless accused Trump of encouraging foreign enemies to strike American cities. “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. He is deranged and dangerous,” Newsom said.

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.

He is deranged and dangerous. — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) October 6, 2026

California gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra also attacked Trump over the remarks. “Thirteen million Californians call LA and San Diego counties home. Their lives are not a ‘small price to pay’ or a punchline for Donald Trump,” Becerra said.

Thirteen million Californians call LA and San Diego counties home. Their lives are not a “small price to pay” or a punchline for Donald Trump.

— Xavier Becerra (@XavierBecerra) October 6, 2026

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accused Trump of treating Americans as collateral damage.

Deranged. Delusional. And soon to be defeated.

Calling millions of Americans collateral damage in his illegal war that nobody asked for takes a special kind of depravity, the kind only a man as weak and feeble as Donald Trump could sink to. — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) October 6, 2026

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy called the comments “such a sick, evil thing to say” and criticized Trump’s supporters for laughing during the rally.

This is such a sick, evil thing to say. Especially because he’s not saying this as a joke.

Just as sick that his supporters are laughing at it. — Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) October 6, 2026

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung dismissed the backlash as a “media freakout” based on claims that were “not rooted in reality.” He said Trump was explaining that American cities would have faced danger if a nuclear Iran had not been stopped.

“He was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn't been stopped. America is safer because of the President. Iran has no nuclear, no navy, no air force, and no money,” Cheung wrote on X.

The White House Rapid Response account was even more blunt in rejecting the Democratic spin. “No, he didn't, you buffoons. 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 — which they would if they had the chance,” the account said.

Gold is the oldest answer. SoundMoney makes owning it as easy as the apps you already use.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.