President Donald Trump sparked alarm during a campaign rally in Grand Island, Nebraska, when he discussed the war with Iran. Trump stated that the cost of the war was "a small price to pay" and appeared to suggest that Iran could strike major California cities.
"It’s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe. They can take out a city — let ’em take Los Angeles, let ’em take out San Diego,” Trump said at the rally. He added, “This is a very small price to pay, and it’s going to be over very soon. It’s essentially almost over with.”
On Tuesday, Trump appeared to ignore a reporter’s question seeking clarification on his remarks about Los Angeles and San Diego. The crowd at the rally cheered at the mention of Iran attacking the two cities.
Trump has claimed the war in Iran is necessary to prevent the nation from developing nuclear weapons and to protect Israel. The U.S. and Israel launched coordinated missile strikes across Iran on February 28, initiating the conflict.
California officials were quick to condemn Trump's statements. Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the speech as "dangerous — if not treasonous," writing on X, "Putting a target on two of our biggest cities and one of America’s largest naval hubs." He stated he was directing the State Threat Assessment Center to monitor the situation in case foreign actors interpreted Trump’s remarks as an invitation to target California.
San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria released a statement saying, “President Trump should retract these remarks and apologize to the people of San Diego. A President does not get to decide which American communities are worth protecting.”
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the president’s remarks “dangerous,” urging him to focus on protecting Americans rather than encouraging attacks on U.S. cities.
The White House referred HuffPost to a statement by White House Director of Communications Steven Cheung on X, which stated Trump “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.”
Legal experts largely dismissed the idea that Trump's comments constituted treason. Greg Magarian, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told HuffPost that the constitutional definition of treason is narrow, requiring the act of levying war against the U.S. or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. He noted that Trump’s remarks were made in the context of discussing winning the war, not assisting Iran.
Carlton Larson, a law professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law, agreed that treason requires the use of force and the provision of aid and comfort to an enemy, and Trump's speech alone did not meet this threshold.
Luke Winslow, a professor of rhetorical studies at Baylor University, commented on Trump's communication style, stating that wartime rhetoric typically aims to unite the country. However, he characterized Trump’s approach as on-brand for his presidency, designed to attract attention and excite crowds.
Robert Rowland, a communications professor at the University of Kansas, suggested that the crowd's laughter reflected resentment towards perceived elites rather than amusement at the idea of an attack. He noted that Trump's rhetoric often focuses on divisions and personal resentments, which historically can risk activating extremist groups or feeding political violence.