Whether you're a Republican or Democrat, if you read this headline from The New York Times, you'd be appalled at President Donald Trump's seemingly callous comments about the Iran war and high gas prices: "Fury in California After Trump Suggests Iran ‘Take Out’ L.A. or San Diego."
Like California Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic Party, you might be filled with righteous indignation and conclude that Trump deserves every bit of the backlash. How could a president talk like this about two of America's great cities?
His actual words don't sound much better. "They can take out a city. Let them take, let them take out Los Angeles; let them take out San Diego," Trump said of the Iran war at an Oct. 5 campaign rally in Grand Island, Nebraska. "This
is a very small price to pay, and it’s going to be over with very soon. It’s essentially almost over with."
But you'd be wrong.
Trump did talk about high gas prices driven by the Iran war – and he did say those words. But context matters. His phrasing was clumsy, but he has never so much as hinted that he wants a foreign power to attack our homeland. He went to war with Iran to stop it from getting a nuclear weapon and to deter future attacks.
That hasn't stopped Democrats and liberal media outlets from running headlines and social media clips stripped of context to smear him. Their reaction to these comments reveals a bizarre eagerness to spread a nasty, false narrative.
Does Trump really want Iran to attack LA?
Here's the context. Trump was boasting about falling gas prices – he said he'd passed stations in Iowa selling gas for $1.95 and $1.85 a gallon – before turning to the war: "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."
Only then did he say, "They can take out a city." He closed the thought by promising the war would "end very soon, and it'll end one way or the other, and your gas and your gasoline and all of the things."
None of that is coherent, cohesive or compelling by any reasonable standard. Trump is long-winded and rambling, with a stream-of-consciousness style. Even on his best day, he will never be as charming and articulate as President Ronald Reagan was, or even as simple and crisp as President George W. Bush.
But to suggest Trump was goading Iran into attacking LA or San Diego is asinine.
That didn't stop Newsom's office from declaring within hours that "the President is advocating for an attack on 10+ million U.S. residents in two of America's largest cities."
Newsom later posted on X that Trump's remarks were "dangerous – if not treasonous – putting a target on two of our biggest cities and one of America's largest naval hubs." The Democratic Party's X account called the comments "disgusting and dangerous."
Democrats and the media are being disingenuous
Can we stop with the pearl clutching, feigned moral outrage and blatantly misleading clips? No wonder Americans' trust in the media is so low. According to Gallup, two-thirds of Americans have "not very much" confidence in the media or "none at all."
Trump seems to be arguing that high gas prices are the short-term cost of crippling Iran – and far better than the cost of Iran attacking our homeland. He has made a version of this argument before: on Truth Social in March, when he called short-term oil prices "a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and World, Safety and Peace"; to New Yorkers on the campaign trail in August; and at a North Carolina rally in September.
Rather than stripping his remarks of context so a grim sound bite could inflame already-angry voters, leftists and the media might have considered that Trump could be right. Temporarily high gas prices are a small price to pay to prevent a nuclear attack on our homeland.
The White House's rapid response account on X fired back at one of the early headlines Oct. 6: "No, he didn't, you buffoons. He was saying the U.S. is fighting to STOP Iran from having the ability to take out LA and San Diego with a nuclear weapon – which they would if they had the chance."
It was a valid retort, but it didn't matter. The late-night headlines had already run, ready to be picked up and shared the next morning. The false narrative was out, and the context was conveniently omitted.
Nicole Russell is an opinion columnist with USA TODAY. She lives in Texas with her four kids. Sign up for her newsletter, The Right Track, and get it delivered to your inbox.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: The media is losing it over Trump's 'take out' LA remark | Opinion
