Trump’s comment about Iran nuking Los Angeles and San Diego was incoherent, not malicious

Nathan Howard/Reuters

President Donald Trump says many bizarre and even hateful things. But signaling he would allow Iran to nuke Los Angeles and San Diego is not one of them.

During a rally in Nebraska on Monday night, Trump “ weaved ” his way right into a controversy that had critics, some in the media and even a GOP congressional candidate accusing him of rhetorically conceding major population centers on the West Coast to America’s sworn enemy. And you could be forgiven for reading the president’s comments that way.

But context and recent history make clear that Trump’s crime was less indifference to the fate of Californians and more his increasingly profound incoherence.

Which, to be clear, is still a major problem for the most powerful man in the world.

First, let’s recap what Trump said.

“They can take out a city,” he said of Iran . “Let them take – let it – let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego. That’s – this is a very small price to pay.”

It wouldn’t be totally out of character for this to be another Trumpian verbal excess, given his recent past. This is a president who has repeatedly spoken about withholding disaster aid from states that vote against his party, and he has demonstrated some indifference to blue states . His Energy Department recently admitted in court that it canceled clean energy grants “ based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state .”

The road to the 2026 midterms starts now

Each week, Aaron Blake cuts through the political noise with sharp analysis of the races, candidates and trends that could decide control of Congress. Sign up for 20/26 Vision, a weekly newsletter focusing on this year’s midterms .

Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont accused Trump of saying the small price to pay was the “annihilation of two major American cities.” Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut called it “ such a sick, evil thing to say .” Even GOP congressional candidate Jim Desmond, who serves on the San Diego County board of supervisors, said what Trump did was “ write off American cities as an acceptable price of war .” Desmond “vehemently” disagreed with it.

But that is pretty clearly not what Trump was trying to say.

For one, immediately before the above quote, he had been talking about other costs of the Iran war — apparently referring to gas prices — being that “small price to pay.”

“And again, remember — with the word — it’s just artificial, it’s a little bit high,” Trump said. “It’s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe.”

(You can see Trump’s full speech here .)

Trump didn’t initially say he was referring to gas prices, mind you (though he did say that later). But this is precisely how he’s been talking about them for a long time — as a “small price to pay” for preventing a nuclear Iran:

He said March 8 on Truth Social that “short term oil prices … is a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and World, Safety and Peace.”

On March 16, he called high gas prices “a very small thing compared to allowing them to have” nuclear weapons.

On May 5, he called high gas prices “a very small price to pay for getting rid of a nuclear weapon.”

He even said it in a separate appearance on Monday — an interview with a local Nebraska TV station : “I say it proudly: a relatively small price to pay for keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of a lunatic nation.”

Also, three days ago, Trump made a very similar argument to the one he made about Los Angeles and San Diego — except about Mobile, Alabama, during a rally there.

“But remember about the oil: You’re paying a price, but boy, is that a small price than what it would be if these lunatics were allowed to have a nuclear weapon and used it on Mobile, Alabama,” Trump said. “OK, not going to happen.”

At his Nebraska rally, Trump basically took that talking point and made it a whole lot more unintelligible.

He bounced around from talking about Kamala Harris and the election, to wanting total victory in Iran, to talking about gas prices being high (but without actually saying “gas prices”). When he made the comment about Iran nuking Los Angeles and San Diego, he used very unfortunate sentence construction that did sound a lot like he would “let them” — Tehran, that is — nuke the two blue state cities.

And then he returned to the gas prices — but again, in an extremely confusing way.

“But it’s gonna end very soon, and it’ll end one way or the other, and your gas and your gasoline and all of the things —” Trump said, before jumping off on a tangent about Venezuela.

It was so confusing that not only did that GOP congressional candidate seem to interpret it in the worst way; so did many in the crowd. Indeed, the ugliest part of this whole episode is that people actually cheered when Trump floated the destruction of Los Angeles and San Diego. That would seem to say something about the movement Trump has cultivated.

But while he wasn’t advocating that, his phrasing does point to a growing problem.

A president is someone you count on to be authoritative and clear, especially when talking about issues of the utmost importance like nuclear war. But Trump’s rhetoric is often anything but.

Look at any recent interview where a transcript is released. Some of Trump’s responses in his Time magazine interview last week , for example, are virtually impenetrable. (Just do a word search for “unintelligible” if you want some examples.) It often feels like he’s engaging in a lengthy bout of free association.

Trump has long spoken like this, to an extent. And by casting his meandering soliloquies as “the weave,” he’s tried to make it sound intentional, allowing his supporters to believe it’s his secret rhetorical genius.

But the “weave” is getting harder to follow — with potentially harmful consequences, too.

内森·霍华德/路透社

唐纳德·特朗普总统说过许多怪异甚至充满仇恨的言论。但他暗示会允许伊朗用核弹袭击洛杉矶和圣地亚哥，这绝对不在其中。

周一晚间在内布拉斯加州的一次集会上，特朗普的言论引发了一场争议，批评人士、部分媒体甚至一位共和党国会候选人指责他言辞不当，将西海岸的主要人口中心拱手让给了美国的宿敌。而你如果这样解读总统的言论，也情有可原。

但结合背景和近期历史来看，特朗普的罪行与其说是对加州人民命运的漠不关心，不如说是他日益严重的语无伦次。

需要明确的是，这对于世界上最有权势的人来说仍然是一个重大问题。

首先，让我们回顾一下特朗普说了些什么。

“他们能攻占一座城市，”他谈到伊朗时说。“让他们攻占——让他们——让他们攻占洛杉矶。让他们攻占圣地亚哥。这——这只是很小的代价。”

鉴于特朗普近期的言行，这或许又是他一贯的夸张言论，也并非完全出乎意料。这位总统曾多次扬言要扣留那些投票反对他所在政党的州的灾难援助，而且他对民主党占优势的州也表现出一定的漠视。他的能源部最近在法庭上承认，取消清洁能源拨款“仅仅基于拨款接受州的政治立场”。

通往2026年中期选举的道路现在开始

每周，亚伦·布莱克都会以犀利的分析，拨开政治迷雾，深入剖析可能决定国会控制权的选情、候选人和趋势。订阅《20/26 视野》周刊，了解今年中期选举的最新动态。

佛蒙特州独立参议员伯尼·桑德斯指责特朗普声称“摧毁两座美国大城市是战争的微小代价”。康涅狄格州民主党参议员克里斯·墨菲称此言“令人作呕，邪恶至极”。就连圣地亚哥县监事会成员、共和党国会候选人吉姆·德斯蒙德也表示，特朗普此举是“将美国城市视为战争的合理代价”。德斯蒙德对此“强烈”反对。

但这显然不是特朗普想表达的意思。

首先，就在他引用上述言论之前，他还在谈论伊朗战争的其他代价——显然是指汽油价格——认为这是“微不足道的代价”。

“再次强调，记住——用这个词——它只是人为的，有点夸张，”特朗普说。“为了维护世界安全，维护我们国家的安全，这是很小的代价。”

（您可以在这里观看特朗普的完整演讲。）

请注意，特朗普最初并没有说他指的是汽油价格（尽管他后来确实这么说了）。但这正是他长期以来谈论汽油价格的方式——将其视为阻止伊朗拥有核武器的“微小代价”：

3月8日，他在Truth Social上表示，“短期油价……对于美国、世界以及安全与和平而言，只是一个很小的代价。”

3月16日，他称高油价“与允许他们拥有”核武器相比，简直是“一件小事”。

5月5日，他称高油价是“为了消除核武器而付出的很小的代价”。

他甚至在周一接受内布拉斯加州当地电视台采访时也说过：“我自豪地说：为了防止核武器落入一个疯狂的国家手中，付出的代价相对较小。”

此外，三天前，特朗普在阿拉巴马州莫比尔市的一次集会上，提出了与他对洛杉矶和圣地亚哥提出的论点非常相似的论点——只不过这次是关于莫比尔的。

“但别忘了石油的事：你们付出了代价，但与如果允许这些疯子拥有核武器并在阿拉巴马州莫比尔市使用相比，这代价简直微不足道，”特朗普说。“好吧，这不可能发生。”

在内布拉斯加州的集会上，特朗普基本上把这个论点说得更加令人费解了。

他一会儿谈论卡玛拉·哈里斯和选举，一会儿又说希望伊朗彻底胜利，一会儿又说汽油价格高（但始终没有直接说“汽油价格”）。当他提到伊朗要用核弹袭击洛杉矶和圣地亚哥时，他的句子结构非常不妥，听起来很像是他会“放任”——也就是德黑兰——用核弹袭击这两个民主党占优势的州。

然后他又回到了汽油价格的话题上——但同样，他的说法令人非常困惑。

“但这很快就会结束，无论如何都会结束，你们的汽油、你们的天然气以及所有这些东西——”特朗普说着，话音未落，就又开始谈论委内瑞拉。

事情如此令人困惑，不仅那位共和党国会候选人似乎以最糟糕的方式解读了特朗普的言论，就连在场的许多民众也持相同看法。事实上，整件事最丑陋的地方在于，当特朗普扬言要摧毁洛杉矶和圣地亚哥时，竟然有人欢呼。这似乎也反映了特朗普所培养的那种运动的本质。

虽然他并没有提倡这样做，但他的措辞确实指出了一个日益严重的问题。

人们期望总统能够权威且清晰地表达观点，尤其是在谈论核战争等至关重要的问题时。但特朗普的言论往往恰恰相反。

看看最近任何一篇有文字记录的采访。例如，特朗普上周接受《时代》杂志采访时的一些回答，简直令人费解。（如果你想找些例子，只需搜索一下“难以理解”即可。）他常常给人的感觉就像是在进行一场冗长的自由联想。

特朗普长期以来一直以这种方式讲话，在某种程度上。他将自己漫无边际的独白称为“精心编织的叙事”，试图让这种做法听起来像是刻意为之，从而让他的支持者相信这是他不为人知的修辞天才。

但这种“编织”越来越难以追踪——而且也可能带来有害后果。