CNN Pushes Let Them Take Out Los Angeles Clip After Its Own Fact-Checkers Debunk Narrative

According to RedState, the controversy began with Trumps Monday speech in Nebraska, where he argued that temporarily higher gas prices were a small price to pay compared with the catastrophic alternative of allowing Iran to attack major American cities. He framed the choice starkly, warning that it was better to absorb short-term economic pain than to risk a scenario in which the regime in Tehran might take out Los Angeles or San Diego. Critics on the left and in the press quickly seized on the line, twisting it into a claim that Trump was somehow inviting or encouraging Iran to strike those cities, a reading that ignores both the plain language and the broader context of his remarks.

Even some journalists not known for being sympathetic to Trump rejected that spin. As my RedState colleague Sister Toldjah noted, CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale and political reporter Aaron Blake both acknowledged that Trumps small price comment clearly referred to gas prices, not to American lives or cities. They each posted early Tuesday morning that the language showed Trump was talking about the economic trade-off, not urging Iran to take out Los Angeles or San Diego, undercutting the narrative that quickly spread among Democrats and liberal commentators.

October 08, 2026

Yet despite those clarifications from within her own network, CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins pressed Trump on the distorted version anyway. During an exchange later on, Collins asked him what he meant by let them take out Los Angeles and San Diego, a framing that mirrored the mischaracterizations already circulating online. A clip shared on social media was captioned, President Trump declines to answer when asked what he meant by let them take out Los Angeles and San Diego, suggesting evasiveness where there was, at best, a questionable premise and, at worst, a bad-faith question.

President Trump declines to answer when asked what he meant by let them take out Los Angeles and San Diego. That was the line CNN pushed, even though the video itself appears to show Trump already turning away as Collins speaks. From the footage, it is not at all clear that he even heard the question, making the claim that he declines to answer highly dubious and raising legitimate concerns about whether viewers were being misled about what actually happened.

The decision to air and promote that framing, despite the earlier corrections from Dale and Blake, underscores why so many Americans no longer trust legacy outlets. When a network knowsor should knowthe full context of a remark and still chooses to highlight the most inflammatory, least charitable interpretation, it looks less like journalism and more like narrative-building. It is precisely this kind of behavior that fuels Trumps repeated charge that CNN and similar outlets are fake news, and it explains why his supporters see the press as an active political actor rather than a neutral referee.

This pattern is not new; it has been a defining feature of media coverage of Trump for nearly a decade. Its been a decade of CNN pretending theyre so dumb that they dont understand what Trump is saying, one critic observed, capturing the frustration of many on the right who believe the network routinely feigns confusion to justify hostile coverage. Another post asked pointedly, Are we seriously on year 11 of the Fake News pretending not to understand what hes saying? Your own colleague answered the question already, highlighting the internal inconsistency of CNNs approach.

Beyond the partisan gamesmanship, there is a real-world cost to this kind of distortion. When media figures and Democratic politicians repeatedly portray Trump as recklessly inviting attacks on American cities, they inflame the most unhinged corners of the political landscape. Once again, this is a narrative that tends to whip up the crazies, the RedState piece warned, noting that the media and the Democrats have already done so much of that over the past 10 years against Trump and dont seem to care about what the dangerous results of spreading such bull might be. After years of threats and actual violence directed at political figures, the willingness to keep stoking that fire is not just irresponsible; it is dangerous.

Some conservatives hold out a faint hope that corporate changes at CNN might eventually rein in this behavior. I would like to hope that the new changes with the merger and Skydance taking over CNN will help with this nonsense, the author wrote, while candidly adding, Im not sure I believe they will truly change. But we shall see. Until the network shows it is willing to prioritize context over clickbait and accuracy over activism, it should not be surprised that Trump, and millions of Americans with him, continue to see CNN as part of the problem rather than part of the solution.