We reported earlier about how the Usual Suspects in the mainstream media and on the left are rushing to manufacture yet another "very fine people" hoax against President Donald Trump after remarks he made during a Monday stop in Nebraska on behalf of Sen. Pete Ricketts' (R-NE) senatorial campaign.
To briefly recap, Trump talked about many things, including the importance of keeping the Senate in Republican hands. But when the subject turned to Iran, the press and Democrats pounced and seized on comments Trump made as supposed evidence that he was advocating for Iran to strike two cities in California: San Diego and Los Angeles, as my RedState colleague Kyle Becker documented:
...he was talking about the economic costs of the Iran war and arguing that temporarily higher prices were a relatively small cost compared with the national-security threat that would be posed by a nuclear-armed Iran.
Here is the relevant passage: "And again, remember, with the war, it's just artificial. It's a little bit high. 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 out Los Angeles. Let 'em take out San Diego. This is a very small price to pay and it's gonna be over with very soon. It's essentially almost over with."
Not surprisingly, a whole host of California Democrat politicos melted down, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and Sen. Alex Padilla, with Newsom going full Drama Queen in stating that he was "directing the State Threat Assessment Center to actively monitor the situation in the event that foreign actors interpret the President’s remarks as an invitation to target California."
They were no doubt egged on by fake reports like this one from "news" outlets like the Los Angeles Times (which Newsom responded directly to without bothering to watch the actual clip):
Trump suggests letting Iran 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego at campaign rally https://t.co/2pkkOAR8MR
— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) October 6, 2026
... and CBS Evening News:
California Gov. Gavin Newsom rebuked President Trump after he appeared to suggest letting Iran "take out" Los Angeles and San Diego if the country developed a nuclear weapon. https://t.co/PhDAMXFNP8
— CBS Evening News with Tony Dokoupil (@CBSEveningNews) October 6, 2026
Surprisingly, two notoriously anti-Trump media figures have reluctantly come to his defense on this, tweeting through gritted teeth that many people were getting his remarks wrong.
First up, CNN's notoriously biased "fact checker" Daniel Dale, who had to throw in some anti-Trumpisms in there, of course, so his leftist fan base wouldn't get the wrong idea. Here, he was responding to a video from a Kamala Harris-affiliated X account that went viral:
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.
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
Then there was former Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake, who is now a colleague of Dale's at CNN:
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
Relatedly, the leftist rag "The Guardian" tacked on this correction at the end of their hit piece:
CORRECTION OF THE DAY: "This article was amended on 6 October 2026. Trump suggested that Iran could “take out” the two cities, but did not suggest that it do so, as the original headline indicated." https://t.co/XUuPP2YuL3
— Mickey Kaus (@kausmickey) October 6, 2026
Some people might say that all Newsom and other TDS sufferers are guilty of, in this instance, is being too lazy to watch the full clip in context before reacting. I disagree. They weren't being lazy. They knew exactly what they were doing, and the contextual video has been out long enough that they've had time to amend or retract what they said, but they won't, because they don't give a rip about the truth, just as we saw with their "very fine people" hoax nonsense, a falsehood that persists nine years later.