On February 28, 2026, Trump released an eight-minute video during the night announcing that the United States had initiated “major combat operations” in Iran. The article says he had not publicly explained or debated the purpose of the war with Congress, U.S. allies, or the American public, and had discussed it only with Israel. The announcement came without what the author describes as advance planning or consultation.

The author argues that a broader debate would have raised questions about the Strait of Hormuz, military supply logistics, and oil-market volatility — the strait being the narrow corridor between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman and one of the world’s critical chokepoints for oil shipments. Seven months into the conflict, the article says, Trump had not articulated consistent reasons or specific objectives for the war. It cites his varying statements that the United States had already won, that Iran faced “total annihilation,” and that the war would end “very soon.” That absence of debate intersects with a constitutional division of authority: Article I, Section 8 places the power to declare war with Congress, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities while limiting unauthorized engagement to 60 days.

The White House released Trump’s announcement in a video.

Trump’s comments about California

At a Republican campaign rally in Grand Island, Nebraska, on Monday night, Trump described rising prices resulting from the war as a “small price to pay” for long-term security. He then said that attacks on California cities could also be considered an acceptable cost. Discussing Iran, Trump said:

“They can take out a city. 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, and it’s going to be over with very soon.”

The article characterizes the remarks as potentially inviting an attack on U.S. soil, while acknowledging that it is unclear whether Trump intended to encourage such an attack or understood the implications of his statement. It argues that his comments presented Los Angeles and San Diego as acceptable collateral in the conflict.

San Diego is a major U.S. military center. According to information from the San Diego Military Advisory Council, the city supports more than 115,000 active-duty service members and contains one of the country’s largest concentrations of military assets. Naval Base San Diego is the largest surface-ship homeport on the West Coast and the principal homeport of the Pacific Fleet, with more than 50 ships across 13 piers — a role that places the city at the center of the Navy’s Pacific operations.

The city is also home to Naval Base Coronado, Naval Base Point Loma, and Marine Corps facilities including Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, and Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego.

The article’s author argues that publicly suggesting, joking about, or minimizing the possibility of an attack on those facilities by Iran during an active conflict could have serious legal consequences. It references Article III, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution — the only crime the document itself defines — which limits treason to levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies while giving them aid and comfort. The Constitution Annotated the relevant constitutional text.

The article further states that “aid and comfort” is not necessarily limited to weapons or classified information and may include moral or psychological support that strengthens an adversary’s resolve or weakens that of the United States. It argues that statements from a president suggesting or minimizing an attack on American cities could carry particular weight during a military conflict. The article also speculates that Iran’s clerical leadership could interpret Trump’s remarks as encouragement or as an offer connected to ending the war.

Officials respond

The response to Trump’s comments was swift. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called them “deranged and dangerous,” said Trump was “mentally ill,” and urged his removal under the 25th Amendment — the 1967 amendment that allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to declare a president unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office, transferring those powers to the vice president. In an online statement, Newsom wrote:

“After sending the National Guard and Marines to occupy California, Donald Trump is now saying our foreign enemies should ‘take out’ Los Angeles and San Diego.”

The remarks were also criticized by Jim Desmond, a Trump-endorsed Republican candidate for a U.S. House seat in California. Desmond, a Navy veteran, said he “vehemently” disagreed with Trump:

“As a Navy veteran, I served to protect Americans, not write off American cities as an acceptable price of war. Our job is to keep Americans safe, stand up to our enemies, and make sure a threat like that never becomes reality. No American city is expendable, and no American family should ever be treated as collateral damage.”

The NBC News report and Reuters coverage documented the reaction from Newsom and other officials.

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung defended Trump’s remarks, saying criticism of them was “not rooted in reality.” Cheung said Trump had meant that U.S. cities “would have faced threats” if a nuclear-armed Iran had not been stopped.

The article disputes that explanation, stating that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had not been eliminated despite administration claims. It also says Trump’s assertion that the United States had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program conflicted with intelligence assessments and subsequent military escalation. The article describes the “obliteration” claim as inaccurate.

It concludes by citing defense analysts who have warned that Iran may be better positioned for a prolonged war on its own territory than the United States. The author suggests that Trump may be seeking to shift the conflict to the United States, where Fox News could help shape public support. The article ends by arguing that, if Congress and the Cabinet were functioning as the author believes they should, Trump could face imprisonment. How Congress and the Cabinet respond — or decline to respond — to both the war’s stated objectives and the fallout from the remarks remains the unresolved thread as the conflict continues.

The article was written by Sabrina Haake, identified as a political analyst and federal trial attorney with more than 25 years of experience specializing in First and Fourteenth Amendment defense. She writes the The Haake Take Substack.