Donald Trump has drawn criticism after invoking the destruction of Los Angeles and San Diego during a speech defending his Iran war. His remarks prompted condemnation from California leaders and a Republican congressional candidate. Ordinary residents have expressed anger and alarm, too.
Speaking in Grand Island, Nebraska, on October 5, Trump discussed the economic costs of the conflict. He then named two American cities as potential targets, using language that sounded to critics like permission for an attack.
“Let ’em take out Los Angeles, let ’em take out San Diego,” he said. The White House insists that he meant the opposite: that his administration was preventing such a catastrophe.
Ordinary people are angry, too
The Guardian interviewed ordinary residents who expressed anger and alarm, including a Los Angeles hairstylist shocked by Trump’s remarks. Their reactions deserve attention alongside statements from elected officials. However, individual interviews cannot establish what Americans as a whole think.
For anyone hearing their hometown discussed this way, the stakes are personal. A city contains families, schools, hospitals and workplaces. A president discussing its possible destruction owes those people clarity and care.
The political criticism also crossed party lines. Republican congressional candidate and Navy veteran Jim Desmond rejected treating American cities as an acceptable wartime loss. He stressed that protecting Americans comes first.
Meanwhile, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass warned that Trump’s language could endanger public safety. San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria rejected any suggestion that his city was expendable. California Governor Gavin Newsom accused Trump of encouraging a foreign attack.
His words invite that interpretation
Trump’s wording gives listeners reason to interpret his remarks as accepting an attack on American cities. Saying “let ’em take out Los Angeles” naturally invites that reading. Critics did not invent those words, and the White House cannot simply dismiss the alarm they caused.
Communications director Steven Cheung argued that Trump meant his administration was preventing such an attack. FactCheck.org likewise concluded that he most plausibly meant higher gasoline prices were worth preventing a future catastrophe. That context supports a different reading, but it does not make his actual wording clear or reassuring.
The distinction is between what Trump said and what he intended. His words can reasonably sound like permission for an attack, even though they do not establish that he actually wanted one. A president discussing the possible destruction of American cities bears responsibility for communicating clearly.
Americans deserve clear answers about war
The president should explain the costs, objectives and risks of war in language people can understand. Citizens should not have to reconstruct a rambling speech to work out whether he considers their safety negotiable.
Nor should an administration dismiss every alarmed response as bad faith. When a president’s words leave room for such a disturbing interpretation, explaining himself is part of the job. Americans deserve a clear commitment to protecting their lives, wherever they live and however they vote.
