Staff Reports
President Trump’s off-the-cuff line at a Nebraska campaign rally — “They can take out a city. Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego. … This is a very small price to pay” — exploded into a full-blown media and political feeding frenzy. The next day, ABC’s The View co-host Sunny Hostin called the president “deranged” and urged people to “start taking seriously the possibility of maybe the 25th Amendment.” The moment turned a rambling rally riff into a national debate about temperament, television outrage, and what counts as a real constitutional crisis.
Trump’s rally remark: context and crowd reaction
At the Nebraska rally, President Trump was defending the costly consequences of the conflict with Iran in blunt, unvarnished language. Portions of the crowd reacted aloud when he said a foreign power “can take out a city” and then dismissed that prospect as a “small price to pay.” Critics say the remark reads like casual acceptance of American casualties; supporters call it loose campaigning rhetoric meant to stress deterrence. Either way, a short clip of the line found its way to cable and morning shows and instantly became the story.
Television outrage and the 25th Amendment suggestion
Sunny Hostin’s reaction — labeling the president “deranged” and floating the 25th Amendment — is the immediate media development. That TV segment pushed the controversy into politics-fast-forward: Governor Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria all condemned the comment as reckless and dangerous. Cue the predictable soap-opera version of public life: a daytime host asks for a constitutional remedy, state officials demand answers, and the arguments ricochet across social platforms.
The 25th Amendment is not a late-night punchline
Legal reality vs. TV drama
Let’s be clear: Section 4 of the 25th Amendment is a weighty constitutional tool, not a hashtag. It requires the vice president and a majority of Cabinet members (or a body Congress could create) to declare a president unable to carry out duties; Congress then votes. It has never been used to forcibly remove a sitting president. So when a talk-show panel suggests invoking it on impulse, they reveal less about constitutional safeguards and more about how performative politics has become. The White House shot back through Communications Director Steven Cheung, calling the coverage a “media freakout” and arguing the president was narrating an avoided threat, not inviting attack.
Why the spectacle matters — and what voters should do
Rhetoric matters. A president’s words carry weight, especially when they touch on war and American cities home to millions and critical military assets. Still, turning a campaign remark and a TV host’s hot take into a call for constitutional removal is political theater, not governance. If you’re worried about leadership and judgment, watch actions and policies, not just sound bites and scream-TV. Voters, not daytime hosts or headline-chasing governors, are the ultimate check. Focus on the record, the choices about war and the economy, and the next election instead of offering constitutional remedies as cable-show stunt props.
