Newsom Calls for 25th Amendment After Trump Iran Remarks
Left 67%
Center 0%
Right 33%
2 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
On Monday, President Donald Trump spoke at a rally in Nebraska about a war involving Iran and elevated U.S. gasoline prices. In remarks that later circulated widely, he said, “They can take out a city. Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego,” and called that “a very small price to pay.” On Tuesday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom told The Hill that Trump is “mentally ill” and called for invoking the 25th Amendment, which provides a process for the vice president and Cabinet to transfer presidential powers if a president is unable to discharge the duties of the office; Newsom also wrote on X that Trump was “saying our foreign enemies should ‘take out’ Los Angeles and San Diego.” The same day, ABC’s The View co-host Sunny Hostin said Trump is “deranged” and that it might be time to consider the 25th Amendment. The White House Rapid Response account rejected characterizations that Trump had proposed allowing Iran to attack those cities, stating he was arguing the United States is fighting to stop Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon that would give it “the ability to take out LA and San Diego.”
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 3 articles
3 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 3 of 3
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Gavin Newsom and Sunny Hostin
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 3
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
- Credits another outlet 0 of 3
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 3
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 6, 16:48 UTC by The Hill, naming its source.
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Left-leaning coverage presents Trump's Nebraska remarks as an invitation for Iran to destroy two California cities, while right-leaning coverage presents them as a warning about what a nuclear Iran could do. That invitation framing appears in The Hill, which said Trump suggested he would allow Iran to take out Los Angeles and San Diego. The warning framing appears in Breitbart, which says the surrounding argument was that elevated gas prices were a small cost of keeping Iran from gaining that capability. The omitted dispute decides whether Newsom is answering a threat against Americans or a disputed excerpt.
Right-leaning coverage puts a White House rebuttal at the center of the story. Left-leaning coverage never records one. The rebuttal in Breitbart comes from the Rapid Response account, which rejected the idea that Trump offered up the cities. Left-leaning coverage in The Hill leads with Democratic outrage and Newsom's demand and does not mention any competing reading of the speech.
Does any coverage print the full Nebraska remarks so a reader can test both readings?
Bottom line
A reader of The Hill would not know anyone claimed “let them take out Los Angeles” was about the cost of stopping a nuclear Iran rather than a sacrifice Trump accepted.
The receipts — 1 fact one side's coverage lacks
- At least one House GOP candidate joined California Democrats in outrage at the remarks
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage and Democratic officials treated the Nebraska remarks as a suggestion that Trump would allow Iran to destroy two major California cities. The Hill reported that he was “stoking outrage among California Democrats” after he “suggested at a midterm rally that he would allow Iran to ‘take out’ Los Angeles and San Diego,” and that Newsom “led the charge.” Newsom called Trump “mentally ill,” posted “TIME FOR THE 25TH!,” and, citing Trump’s prior deployment of the National Guard and Marines in California, wrote that Trump was “now saying our foreign enemies should ‘take out’” those cities, calling him “deranged and dangerous” and the “SILENCE” from Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio “deafening.” Hostin said the comments were “so crazy” because San Diego is the nation’s eighth-largest city and home to “critical U.S. military infrastructure,” including Navy SEALs, and because the two cities represent “10 million Americans”; she said it was time to “start taking seriously the possibility of maybe the 25th Amendment” and that “this man is deranged.”
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage argued that a clipped version of the remarks was false and that Democrats and “corporate media” ran with it anyway. Breitbart said “the full context of Trump’s remarks disproves the clipped version,” asserting he was discussing high gas prices as “a small price to pay for peace,” explaining that a nuclear-armed Iran “would be able to take out Los Angeles or San Diego,” then returning to prices—not “allowing Iran to wipe out two U.S. cities.” Rapid Response, reacting to a Los Angeles Times headline, said “No, he didn’t, you buffoons” and that 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.” Breitbart labeled Newsom “Far-left” and “Anti-Trump,” noted he had previously called a July election-integrity speech a “legitimate 25th Amendment moment” and “the rambling of a mad king,” and presented Hostin’s The View comments as part of the same overreach.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is the face value of the circulated line—“Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego”—paired with “a very small price to pay,” which Newsom and Hostin treat as evidence of unfitness given the cities’ civilian population and military infrastructure. The right’s strongest argument is that the surrounding discussion of gasoline prices, the Iran conflict, and “keeping the world safe” supports reading “small price” as the economic cost of the war, with the city names as a warning about Iranian nuclear capability rather than an invitation to strike, as Rapid Response stated. The central unresolved tension is whether those words, in the full sequence of the Nebraska speech, amount to suggesting Iranian strikes on U.S. cities would be an acceptable cost, or a poorly sequenced argument that preventing that capability is worth temporary pain at the pump.
3 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.