Trump's suggestion Iran could attack LA and SD sparks bipartisan criticism

President Donald Trump drew sharp criticism from both parties on Tuesday after suggesting Iran could destroy Los Angeles and San Diego during a campaign rally in Nebraska. The remarks, made as he addressed midterm voters, implied that American cities might be targeted in retaliation for the ongoing US-Israeli war against Iran.

California Governor Gavin Newsom called the comments dangerous and urged Congress to limit presidential actions. Newsom, who is eyeing a 2028 presidential run, pointed to previous conflicts between his administration and the White House. He noted that a federal judge already ruled against Trump’s deployment of federal troops to the state last December, adding that the president “just invited Iran to take out Los Angeles and San Diego.”

Republican officials also pushed back. Jim Desmond, a congressional candidate running near San Diego, stated that no American city is expendable and emphasized the military's duty to protect civilians. US Representative Kevin Kiley, who is seeking re-election in northern California, described the remarks as unhelpful.

The White House quickly defended the president, dismissing the backlash as a media overreaction. Communications Director Steven Cheung argued that Trump was referring to historical threats that existed before Iran's military capabilities were dismantled. “America is safer because of the President. Iran has no nuclear, no navy, no air force, and no money,” Cheung wrote on social media.

The controversy arrives as California prepares for November's midterm elections, which will decide control of the House of Representatives. The state holds 52 congressional seats, making its voters highly influential. Republican lawmakers view the midterms as a chance to secure their majority, a result that will shape the final two years of Trump's second term.