• 持续更新Houthis claim missile and drone attacks on Aramco sites in Saudi Arabia — 0 个来源
  • 新报道French and Rosenthal offer contrasting plans for Texas Railroad Commission
  • 新报道DHS secretary says agency and FBI stopped alleged Mall of America attack plot
  • 持续更新NYPD confirms federal-agent shooting in Marble Hill; person shot conscious in hospital — 0 个来源
  • 持续更新NYPD confirms federal-agent shooting in Marble Hill; person shot conscious in hospital — 0 个来源
  • 持续更新Federal judge sets aside DOJ’s nationwide voter-roll policy — 0 个来源
  • 新报道FBI arrests 18-year-old accused of plotting attack at Minnesota’s Mall of America
  • 新报道Fox interview says released documents show FBI tracked Susie Wilds and Trump family travel
  • 渲染中Rachel Dissipates After Flooding Homes, but Inland Flood Danger Continues
  • 制作中NYPD confirms federal-agent shooting in Marble Hill; person shot conscious in hospital

政治 · 加州相关言论

特朗普称将保护洛杉矶和圣迭戈，此前的言论引发威胁监测

他在德克萨斯州作出的保证，明确增加了保卫这两座城市的承诺，但没有撤回此前的措辞，也没有说明加州的预防性监测发现了什么。

播出 文字 阅读需 11 分钟121 个来源

通过 RSS 关注

原语言视频

文字实录 · 正在加载

译自英文原文。

新闻追踪第 7 天

1 篇报道77 家媒体121 个来源11 个视频

  • 暂无标注日期的事件
  1. 第 1 次更新特朗普称将保护洛杉矶和圣迭戈，此前的言论引发威胁监测当前位置

唐纳德·特朗普辩称，伊朗战争带来的经济代价只是换取美国安全所付出的一点小代价，这引发了一场更重大争议：他的话是否将美国城市视为可以牺牲的对象。在一段引发加州下令开展预防性威胁监测、甚至遭到他所背书的一名共和党候选人批评的讲话中，他点名提及洛杉矶和圣迭戈。如今，他已明确承诺保护这两座城市。15 2 3

10月7日星期三，特朗普在圣安东尼奥的弗里曼体育馆再次假设导弹可能击中其中一座城市，随后表示：“我们不会让这种事发生。我们保护我们的城市。我们保护我们的国家。”相关报道发表于10月8日；讲话本身发生在前一天。这是一项实质性保证，但不是撤回此前言论、宣布新的防御措施，也不能证明加州已结束监测。26 27

这一区别很重要。总统表示将保卫美国城市，本应不足为奇。但在此事中，这番保证之所以变得必要，是因为他先前的措辞从战时物价上涨转向城市被摧毁，随后又重复了“付出的一点小代价”这一说法。

这场争议的前因后果

特朗普最初的言论于10月5日在内布拉斯加州格兰德岛芬纳公园的Pinnacle Bank Expo Center发表。当时，他谈到伊朗战争、战争的经济代价，以及阻止伊朗获得核武器。主办方安排他于中部时间下午6点发表讲话，但有争议的几句话具体是在什么时间说的，尚未得到证实。56 73 15

还有，请记住，战争带来的影响只是暂时的。只是有一点高。这是保护世界、保护我们国家所付出的一个小代价。他们可以摧毁一座城市。就让他们摧毁洛杉矶吧；让他们摧毁圣迭戈吧。这——这是一个非常小的代价，而且这场战争很快就会结束。

唐纳德·特朗普 15

《纽约时报》刊出的完整连续引文，比只摘录提到城市的片段，或只保留经济解释而删去后续内容，更有参考价值。第一次提到代价时，说的是战争带来的成本；第二次是在点名城市之后。这一先后顺序解释了为什么批评者认为他接受灾难性损失，但不能确凿证明特朗普的真实意图。15 21

张同时声称伊朗“没有核武器、没有海军、没有空军，也没有钱”，这些说法在此均未得到独立证实。特朗普预测冲突“基本上快要结束了”，并称其“无论如何”很快都会结束，也不能据此确定冲突结局。一些与会者曾欢呼，包括在提到这两座城市时；他们的反应并不能代表在场的所有人。32 9 12

CNN报道称，在德克萨斯州作出保证之前，特朗普在第二天离开白宫、从巴尔的摩返程时，面对提问两次都没有作出澄清。后来的表态明确承诺会保护这两座城市，而此前引发争议的那段话中并没有这样的承诺。4

监测不等于发现了阴谋

州长加文·纽森于10月6日指示加州州威胁评估中心监测可能的威胁，并警告说，外国行为者可能会把特朗普的措辞视为一种邀请。这项指示没有指出任何具体的伊朗阴谋或袭击。CBS还报道称加州提高了警戒系统级别，但具体技术级别、持续时间或终止情况均未获证实。35 37 8

此后也没有已公开的评估结论得到证实。因此，两种说法都同样缺乏依据：加州发现了迫在眉睫的袭击，以及加州的监测一无所获。预防性命令本身无法证明其中任何一种说法。3 4

总统的言论并非已确认的情报披露。《卫报》援引此前的国防评估称，伊朗不具备直接打击美国本土的导弹能力，但没有说明相关官员身份或评估日期。《国会山报》报道称，伊朗没有可投入作战的核武器，也没有经核实能够打击美国本土的洲际弹道导弹。这些限定并不能证明任何袭击都不可能发生；但它们意味着，不能把假设性的核情景说成经证实的迫在眉睫的威胁。13 11

洛杉矶市长凯伦·巴斯表示，这些言论可能危及她所在城市的安全。圣迭戈市长托德·格洛丽亚则断然否定了这种说法：“圣迭戈不是附带损失。我们不是可以牺牲的对象。我们绝不是‘付出的一点小代价’。”13 102

无需夸大其词，也足以看出这些言论涉及的人命关天。纽森的新闻办公室称这两座城市有超过10 million居民，但这一地理范围说法不正确。人口普查局对2025年7月1日的估算显示，洛杉矶市人口为3,869,089，圣迭戈市人口为1,406,106。13 75 76

关键事实

  1. 5,275,195两座城市的合计人口 7576
  2. 12,977,182两县的合计人口 505479

泽维尔·贝塞拉称两县约有13 million人口，这与县级人口估算相符。城市和县不能混为一谈。圣迭戈的海军重要性也确实存在，但具体而言，圣迭戈海军基地是太平洋舰队水面舰艇的主要母港，而非太平洋舰队总部；总部位于夏威夷。13 79 41 55

政治影响，而非经测量的选民态度变化

获特朗普背书的共和党国会候选人、圣迭戈县监事吉姆·德斯蒙德表示，他强烈反对这些言论：“没有任何美国城市可以被牺牲，任何美国家庭都不应该被当作附带损失。”他在加州第48选区的民主党对手玛妮·冯·威尔珀特称这些言论骇人、令人恐惧，并足以成为弹劾理由。德斯蒙德的反对表明共和党内部有人持异议，但不能代表所有共和党人的立场。32 5 90

没有经核实的证据表明，这场讲话导致选民态度发生变化。报道称冯·威尔珀特领先3个百分点，这一结果来自SurveyUSA于8月27日至9月1日对可能投票选民进行的民调：她得45%，德斯蒙德得42%，另有13%尚未决定。报道称误差区间约为5个百分点。这项民调早于相关言论；MS NOW将这场选举描述为“倾向民主党”，也早于相关言论。87 5

同样，路透社/益普索的民调显示，特朗普支持率为32%、不支持率为65%；该调查于9月30日至10月5日进行，访问了4,506名成年人。调查在内布拉斯加州集会当天结束。因此，它无法证明受访者对那几句话作出了反应。95

纽森和参议员亚历克斯·帕迪利亚主张援引《宪法第二十五修正案》，参议员科里·布克则批评共和党人保持沉默。截至10月8日，没有证据表明有人针对这些言论启动第四条款的声明程序或弹劾程序。纽森指责特朗普“危险，甚至可以说是叛国”，这是政治谴责，不是法律认定。52 8 5 3

第四条款规定，副总统与行政部门官员中的指定多数，或国会另行设立的替代机构，须提交一份关于总统无法履职的书面声明。此举会将总统职权移交给代总统，而不是移交总统职位本身。州长的要求或参议员的帖子都不会启动这一权力移交。103 104

已确认的后果具体但有限：总统令人警觉的措辞、州政府的预防性监测、跨越党派界限的反对意见，以及随后明确作出的保护承诺。监测是否发现了可采取行动的威胁、何时结束，以及选民是否会因此作出不同反应，仍未有定论。这番保证改变了已有记录，但并未抹去加州官员要求作出保证的原因。

消息来源

电视报道：ABC《世界新闻今夜》1；CBS后续报道2；《卫报》实时报道3；CNN4；MS NOW5；ABC《Live Prime》6；CTV7；CBS《Takeout》8；《独立报》9；WRAL10；《国会山报》11；Scripps12；《卫报》原始报道13。

言论及背景：《纽约时报》15；《联合论坛报》16；《洛杉矶时报》17；NBC洛杉矶18；《耶路撒冷邮报》19；CBS洛杉矶20；PolitiFact21；集会参考资料22；Snopes23；FactCheck.org24；《福布斯》25；《华盛顿邮报》26；NBC27；《人物》28；《海湾新闻》29；《底特律新闻》30；《费城问询报》31；路透社32；TribLive33；CNN14。

加州方面的回应：《迈阿密先驱报》34；Politico35；IBTimes36；《国会山报》37；《沙漠太阳报》38；《卫报》45；《新闻周刊》46 52；Fox News53；美联社67；《新闻周刊》后续报道68；Nebraska.tv69；CNA70；NCIJ71；IBTimes后续报道72；《内布拉斯加州观察家报》73；GMA74；纽森帖子97；转发内容98 99；格洛丽亚的帖子、个人资料和声明100 101 102。

地理和人口：海军基地相关资料39 40；美国海军41 55；《圣迭戈时报》42；美国人口普查局43 50 51 54 75 76 77 78 79 80；FRED44；太平洋舰队相关资料47；加州财政部48；人口数据查询工具49；布鲁金斯学会81；集会日程56。

宪法相关资料：国会及政府出版物57 58 59 60 63 65 103 104 115 116 117 119 120；传统基金会61；康奈尔大学62 64 66 121；耶鲁大学105；修正案参考资料118。

选举报道：《联合论坛报》87；Ballotpedia88；Axios89；Politico90；《纽约时报》91；《底特律新闻》92；Wealth Adviser93；Just the News94；CNBC TV1895；路透社帖子96；RealClearPolitics106；Cook107；Midterm Mondays108。海军相关报道：《卫报》82；WRAL83；《西雅图时报》84；《汉密尔顿观察家报》85；DefenseWatch86；World Ports109；USNI110；《星条旗报》111；《纽约时报》112；Army Recognition113；《国家利益》114。

播出原貌 48 行
  1. Trump now promises to protect the cities he named in his disputed Iran remarks.
  2. Los Angeles and San Diego together have more than five million residents. His earlier language prompted California to order precautionary threat monitoring and drew objections from a Republican candidate he endorsed.
  3. What has actually changed: the president’s assurance, California’s security response, or the evidence of a threat?
  4. Trump has explicitly said the United States will protect both cities. That assurance does not retract his earlier words, announce a new defense measure, or establish that California has ended its monitoring.
  5. Trump named the cities on October 5. Governor Gavin Newsom ordered monitoring on October 6. Trump delivered his protective assurance on October 7, not October 8: the later date marks its publication, not the Texas speech.
  6. The reassurance came at Freeman Coliseum in San Antonio, during a rally for Republican Senate nominee Ken Paxton. Trump again invoked the hypothetical danger of a missile hitting San Diego or Los Angeles, then said he would prevent it.
  7. “We’re not going to let that happen. We protect our cities. We protect our country.” Those words add an explicit commitment to protection. They do not settle what Trump privately intended in the earlier passage.
  8. The earlier passage moved from higher wartime costs to a city being destroyed, then repeated the language of a small price. That sequence is why the dispute cannot be explained by quoting only the city names—or only the economic argument.
  9. Trump spoke at the Pinnacle Bank Expo Center at Fonner Park in Grand Island on October 5. The speech lasted nearly an hour and a half. His scheduled start was 6 p.m. Central; the disputed sentences’ exact clock time is unverified.
  10. Trump was discussing the Iran war, economic costs and preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He described costs as “a little bit high,” then said, “It’s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe.”
  11. He then changed the subject of the sentence to a city: “They can take out a city.” The city references followed immediately, with verbal restarts, before he again described a very small price.
  12. He said, “Let them take, let them take out Los Angeles; let them take out San Diego. That’s—this is a very small price to pay.” The wording names both cities. It does not establish a concrete policy to allow an attack.
  13. Shorter versions substitute “him” for “them” and omit the restarts; neither changes which cities he named. Some attendees clapped and cheered, including at the city references. That response does not establish the views of everyone at the rally.
  14. Trump wanted a “tremendous victory” to verify what the United States had done. He called the conflict “essentially almost over with” and predicted an end very soon, “one way or the other.” Those were assertions and predictions, not established outcomes.
  15. He also allowed that Iran might continue longer because of its “big threshold for pain.” He subsequently linked the war’s end to gas and gasoline prices and mentioned Venezuelan oil. None of that establishes that the conflict ended.
  16. The White House’s defense was a counterfactual: Trump meant the danger a nuclear-armed Iran would have posed, not an endorsement of attacks. Communications director Steven Cheung rejected the criticism. His name is Steven Cheung, not Stephen Chung.
  17. The administration also characterized the passage as separate thoughts. But the actual sequence remains: economic-cost language, city references, repeated price language. The sequence explains the competing interpretations; it cannot conclusively establish private intent.
  18. Cheung also asserted that Iran had “no nuclear, no navy, no air force, and no money.” Those sweeping claims are not independently established here. Trump initially gave no clarification when questioned twice the following day, leaving the White House and returning from Baltimore.
  19. No operational Iranian nuclear weapon or verified intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S. mainland is established. Earlier defense assessments described Iran as lacking a direct mainland missile capability, but their officials and dates were unspecified. That does not prove every attack impossible.
  20. The president’s language was not an established intelligence disclosure. A hypothetical nuclear danger is not proof of an operational weapon, a confirmed launch capability or an imminent attack.
  21. Newsom directed the State Threat Assessment Center to monitor possible threats on October 6. His concern was that foreign actors might interpret Trump’s language as an invitation. The directive identified no specific Iranian plot or attack.
  22. California’s alert system was also elevated, but no technical alert level, duration or termination is established. Nor is a subsequent assessment finding. Ordering monitoring does not mean a credible attack has been discovered—or that monitoring has found nothing.
  23. Newsom called Trump “deranged and dangerous,” then described the remarks as “dangerous, if not treasonous.” These were political denunciations, not a medical diagnosis or a legal finding of treason. His descriptions of occupation and an invitation to attack were also characterizations.
  24. Newsom demanded that Congress stand up and later called for the Twenty-fifth Amendment. Those demands matter politically, but they do not themselves transfer presidential powers.
  25. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said the remarks could compromise her city’s safety and rejected treating residents as expendable. San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria said his city was not collateral damage, not expendable and never a small price to pay.
  26. Bass cited approximately 3.8 million Los Angeles residents and an earlier deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and Marines. The troop figure was the deployment she invoked in criticism—not a new order or verified current force strength.
  27. The two cities have 5,275,195 residents combined, not more than 10 million. The July 1, 2025 estimates put Los Angeles city at 3,869,089 and San Diego city at 1,406,106. Newsom’s press office used the wrong combined-city figure.
  28. Those city estimates were released May 14, 2026, and support Bass’s approximate Los Angeles figure. Cities and counties are different geographies; switching between them more than doubles the combined population.
  29. Democratic gubernatorial nominee Xavier Becerra cited approximately 13 million residents in the two counties. That description is consistent with the county estimates: Los Angeles County had 9,694,934 residents and San Diego County 3,282,248, totaling 12,977,182.
  30. The county estimates were released March 26, 2026. A separate fiscal-2025 estimate, released in December 2025, puts San Diego County at 3,336,081. That is a different estimation series, not additional residents to add. Neither series validates more than 10 million in the two cities.
  31. Naval Base San Diego is a principal homeport for Pacific Fleet surface ships and a hub of Navy Region Southwest port operations. It is not Pacific Fleet headquarters. That headquarters is at Joint Base Pearl Harbor–Hickam in Hawaii.
  32. Navy Region Southwest’s headquarters at San Diego’s Broadway Complex is a different command. San Diego is a major naval hub; calling it the fleet’s headquarters conflates homeport and command headquarters.
  33. Trump-endorsed Republican candidate Jim Desmond said he vehemently disagreed with the comments. “No American city is expendable, and no American family should ever be treated as collateral damage.” He said protecting Americans and the homeland was the president’s first responsibility.
  34. Desmond’s Democratic opponent, San Diego City Council member Marni von Wilpert, called the comments appalling and terrifying and an impeachable offense. Her name is Marni, not Marnie. They face each other in California’s 48th Congressional District.
  35. Both advanced from the June 2 top-two primary. The district covers inland San Diego and Riverside counties. Darrell Issa did not seek reelection after the Proposition 50 redraw. Desmond’s statement establishes Republican dissent, not the views of every Republican.
  36. Senator Cory Booker criticized Republican silence. An earlier absence of public responses does not establish that other Republicans endorsed the remarks or stayed silent indefinitely. Senator Alex Padilla called for the Twenty-fifth Amendment; that was advocacy, not an invocation.
  37. Von Wilpert’s 45%, Desmond’s 42% and the 13% undecided were measured before the remarks. The likely-voter poll ran August 27 through September 1 and was published September 4. It cannot demonstrate a reaction to the October 5 speech.
  38. A secondary compilation gives a sample of 522. The reported credibility interval was approximately five percentage points, larger than the three-point lead. That lead does not establish a decisive advantage.
  39. The race was rated Lean Democratic, with a move from Toss-up described as months earlier, but the exact dated change is not independently established. Other assessments were Lean Democratic and Tilt Democratic. These are judgments, not election results or measured speech effects.
  40. Trump’s 32% approval and 65% disapproval were measured among 4,506 adults from September 30 through October 5. Approval was unchanged from September’s career-low reading. Fieldwork ended on the rally date, so this was not a post-remarks measurement.
  41. A separately reported registered-voter subset had 36% approval and 64% disapproval. Those denominators are not interchangeable. With the midterms about four weeks away, no verified post-remarks poll establishes that the comments changed voting intentions.
  42. No Section 4 declaration or impeachment proceeding over these remarks is established as of October 8. A governor’s demand, a senator’s post or a candidate’s accusation is not the constitutional action needed to begin a transfer of powers.
  43. Section 4 requires the vice president and a majority of the principal executive-department officers to send a written declaration of presidential inability to the Senate president pro tempore and House speaker. The vice president then immediately assumes presidential powers as Acting President.
  44. The amendment also permits another body created by Congress, but Congress has not created one. Section 4 concerns inability and transfers powers; it does not remove the president from office.
  45. If the president declares no inability, the vice president and required majority have four days to counter it. Congress then decides, assembling within 48 hours if not in session, with a 21-day decision period.
  46. That period runs from receipt of the subsequent declaration or the required assembly date. Continuing the Acting President’s exercise of powers requires two-thirds of both houses. Otherwise, the president resumes those powers.
  47. Impeachment is separate. The House can impeach by majority vote; Senate conviction and removal require two-thirds of senators present. Political condemnation is not a finding of inability, a completed impeachment or a transfer of presidential powers.
  48. The change is an explicit protective assurance following precautionary monitoring and bipartisan objections—not an established attack or new defense measure. Whether monitoring uncovered an actionable threat or will be stood down remains unresolved. No electoral effect caused by the remarks is established.

来源

121 个来源74 家媒体11 个视频3 篇通稿

来源地图

追溯本篇报道的依据。图谱展示其关联；下方链接可打开本文引用的来源。

来源图谱将在您阅读时加载。

探索完整的新闻编辑室图谱 ↗

译文更新于

修订记录

  1. r1首次发布。