Today’s review examines reactions to Donald Trump’s governing style and his statements on security. Particular attention focused on warnings about a possible threat from Iran to Los Angeles, as well as support for CNN’s lawsuit against the president. Commentators have also criticized his administration for prioritizing personal and political interests over its stated agenda aimed at the public good. The material is based on reports by Sinaloa Hoy and Instagram (Venezuela).
Controversy in the US and Chile Intensifies After Controversial Statements
Harsh statements by politicians in the United States and Chile sparked public and political backlash: in California, Donald Trump was criticized for remarks about a possible Iranian threat to American cities, while in Chile, lawmaker Javier Olivares came under fire for sexism after commenting on Michelle Bachelet’s possible return to presidential politics.
According to Sinaloa Hoy, at a rally in Nebraska, Trump said that Iran could “destroy” Los Angeles or San Diego as “a small price to pay.” He linked the statement to the confrontation with Tehran and Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions.
For California authorities, this rhetoric was not an abstract discussion of international politics but a direct reference to the safety of residents in the state’s two largest cities. California Governor Gavin Newsom called Trump’s words “disgusting and disqualifying.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass stressed: “The president’s job is to protect the country, not threaten it.”
San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria demanded that Trump retract his remarks and apologize. In his view, the city’s residents deserve a president who values their lives and takes the duties of commander in chief seriously.
The White House later attempted to clarify the statement, saying that Trump meant American cities could face a risk if Iran were not deterred. However, the explanation did not resolve questions about the content and tone of the speech.
The Mexican publication examines the situation primarily through the reaction of American authorities and does not reflect Venezuela’s position. It contains no comments from Venezuelan politicians, experts, or civil society organizations, nor does it analyze Caracas’s relations with Tehran and Washington or the possible economic and domestic political consequences for Venezuela. At the same time, the story may resonate politically with Venezuelan criticism of US sanctions, pressure, and military rhetoric, although the publication itself does not draw that connection.
Meanwhile, in Chile, the possible return of former President Michelle Bachelet to the presidential race became the subject of heated debate. A post by Vivo al Día Valparaíso quotes her response to a question about running for a third time: “I think so.” The cautious phrase once again raised the possibility of a Bachelet campaign to return to La Moneda Palace.
Javier Olivares, a lawmaker from the People’s Party, criticized the legacy of Bachelet’s two administrations, linking their decisions to Chile’s current problems in education and taxation. But the personal part of his statement drew the greatest backlash. Olivares told the former president to “go home,” look after her grandchildren, and stay out of political debate.
He also said that Bachelet should follow Evelyn Matthei’s example and “prepare and make good cazuelas”—a traditional Chilean home-cooked dish. In the Chilean context, the reference to cazuela was especially revealing: a familiar image of domestic cooking was used as an argument against women’s participation in public politics.
Critics viewed the lawmaker’s words not merely as disagreement with Bachelet’s political legacy, but as gender-based humiliation of a woman who had twice held the country’s highest office. Olivares has the right to dispute the results of her administrations; however, according to his opponents, reducing the discussion to her role as a grandmother and homemaker replaces debate about programs and reforms with stereotypes about the “proper” place of women.
The comparison with Matthei was also politically charged. Evelyn Matthei represents the right and previously served as a mayor, while Bachelet remains one of the leading figures in Chilean center-left politics. By contrasting the two influential women, Olivares effectively called on both of them to abandon their political roles.
The controversy showed that Bachelet retains considerable symbolic influence in Chile: even the suggestion of a new campaign immediately mobilizes both supporters and opponents. The dispute concerns not only assessments of her two presidential terms, but also the broader conflict over “old politics,” elites, reforms from the past decade, and the limits of acceptable rhetoric toward women politicians.
