California Governor Gavin Newsom has ordered the state’s central threat-analysis center to actively monitor for possible attacks after President Donald Trump’s remarks at a Nebraska rally appeared to invite foreign adversaries to target Los Angeles and San Diego.
In a post on X, Newsom called the comments “dangerous — if not treasonous,” saying they placed a target on two of the state’s largest cities and one of the country’s most important naval hubs. “I am 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,” he wrote.
What the State Threat Assessment Center does
The State Threat Assessment Center, or STAC, serves as California’s central hub for intelligence sharing and threat analysis. It gathers and synthesizes information from state, local, federal, tribal, and private sources to identify and respond to potential dangers. The center is jointly operated by the California Highway Patrol, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), and the California Department of Justice. Newsom’s decision to activate it signals how seriously his administration views the situation.
The remarks at the center of the dispute
The controversy stems from a rally in Nebraska, where Trump spoke about Iran and the two California cities. According to the transcript cited by Newsom and other critics, the president said: “Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego.” Critics say the crowd responded with loud applause. Some commentators have argued that Trump’s words were misinterpreted, but critics maintain that the transcript makes the meaning clear.
Newsom’s broader criticism
Newsom has described the remarks as “disgusting and disqualifying.” His office’s response, critics note, goes beyond rhetoric: it involves a concrete step to strengthen monitoring.
The article’s author points out that Iran does not currently possess nuclear weapons and lacks the ballistic missile technology needed to reach the West Coast. Even so, the author argues that the comments are reckless. By calling for the destruction of two major American cities, the author contends, Trump implied that their populations deserve to be wiped out. The author also questions whether the risk comes only from foreign governments, noting that radical Islamist groups are unlikely to follow such a command, while asking what the response might be from far-right extremists.
Critics of the president say his language could encourage violence by his supporters against residents of Los Angeles and San Diego. Newsom’s office has not indicated that any specific threat has been identified, but the governor has said the state will remain vigilant.
