Metro, on Iran, 6 October 2026

3.0out of 10Minor

Trump jokes about letting Iran bomb Los Angeles and San Diego

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.3 findings

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Up Next Previous Page Next Page While speaking at a rally in Nebraska, Donald Trump suggested paying a ‘small price’ and letting Iran ‘take out’ Los Angeles and San Diego. Speaking about the ongoing war in Iran, Trump called the increased gas prices facing Americans ‘artificial’ and ‘a little bit high’. He added: ‘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, let ’em take out Los Angeles, let ’em take out San Diego.

That’s—this is a very small price to pay.’ Trump pivoted the conversation to speaking about how Iran could take out a large American city if allowed to develop nuclear weapons, but the comments have sparked furore online. The President spoke to a large rally in Nebraska (Picture: Getty) as an cost of a conflict overseas. Trump’s suggestion was slammed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who wrote on X: ‘Let’s be clear: The President is advocating for an attack on 10+ million U.S. residents in two of America’s largest cities. ‘This is not normal.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article never says that US defence officials have stated Iran lacks the capability to strike the US mainland. Without it a reader of the headline may believe Iran can bomb Los Angeles or San Diego.

How we know

None of this is. And we will continue to remind folks of that every day.’ The conflict in Iran is at a standstill as the Strait of Hormuz remains blocked and gas prices around the world skyrocket. Despite growing discontent with the war, Trump has continued to vow to ‘beat the f***ing s***’ out of the country. Trump has repeatedly said the war in Iran is nearly over (Picture: Getty) This week, Trump removed all US bombers from RAF Fairford after a specific threat from Iran.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article quotes only Newsom's reading of the remark and never gives the White House's reply, that the remarks were taken out of context and that Trump meant US cities would have been threatened by a nuclear Iran. Without it a reader takes Newsom's interpretation as undisputed.

How we know

Fighter jets, including B-1s and B-2s, were seen flying out of the Gloucestershire base more than a week after it was embroiled in the suspected attack on September 27. UK military bases, including Fairford -which was home to US Air Force jets until yesterday – have been on high alert since the incident. Speaking to reporters, Trump said the US knew of a ‘threat’, which led them to move the bombers. ‘They didn’t fly out by accident. There were some threats and rather than tempting the enemy, we will capture the enemy and beat the enemy.

But why should we leave them there?’ Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk. For more stories like this, check our news page.

Read the original article on metro.co.uk (opens in a new tab)
What we found (3)

Metro puts 'acceptable' in quotation marks as if Trump had used the word, when nobody in the article said it. It quotes only Newsom's reading of the remark and leaves out the White House reply that the remarks were taken out of context. It also never says that US defence officials have stated Iran cannot strike the US mainland.

  1. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “No other US President has suggested a foreign country should bomb or attack a US city”

    Why this matters
    In its own voice Metro says Trump suggested a foreign country 'should bomb or attack a US city', with no attribution.
    The impression it gives
    That it is settled fact that Trump called for or endorsed an attack on Los Angeles and San Diego.
    The context
    This is Newsom's reading, not an established fact. Metro's own S6 says Trump went on to speak about what Iran could do if it got nuclear weapons. The White House said the remarks were taken out of context, and conservative activists argued he meant gas prices were the small price.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “‘acceptable’”

    Why this matters
    Metro puts 'acceptable' in quotation marks as if it were Trump's word.
    The impression it gives
    That Trump called an attack on a US city 'acceptable'.
    The context
    Nobody in the article uses the word 'acceptable'. Trump's quoted words were 'a very small price to pay', and the coverage dispute whether that referred to gas prices or to the cities.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  2. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article quotes only Newsom's reading of the remark and never gives the White House's reply, that the remarks were taken out of context and that Trump meant US cities would have been threatened by a nuclear Iran. Without it a reader takes Newsom's interpretation as undisputed.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

  3. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article never says that US defence officials have stated Iran lacks the capability to strike the US mainland. Without it a reader of the headline may believe Iran can bomb Los Angeles or San Diego.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Metro

  1. 20 OctTwo men re-arrested for helping 'Iran intelligence' in RAF Fairford probe6.0
  2. 15 OctUS considers using the Mother of All Bombs against Iran - how powerful is it?6.0
  3. 12 OctIran 'almost certainly' coordinated RAF Fairford incident says Burnham3.0
  4. 28 SeptRAF Fairford incident carries 'all the hallmarks of Iranian involvement'6.0

Everything we scored from Metro