Body
California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Wednesday there was no “imminent threat” to the state from Iran, even after an FBI warning that Iran could send drones to the West Coast in retaliation for the war in Iran. Speaking in Sacramento, Newsom said the information had already been on officials’ radar and that state planning focused on readiness rather than panic.
Newsom said drone-related concerns “have always been top of mind,” adding that officials were aware of the information and framing the response as “a posture of preparedness for worst-case scenarios,” according to his remarks reported by the Associated Press. He said the state was operating with that preparation even though the warning originated from federal law-enforcement channels rather than a confirmed threat.
The FBI’s warning to police was posted on X by an FBI spokesperson after a report by ABC News. In that alert, the FBI said it was “unverified information” and described, at a broad level, a scenario in which Iran could “aspir[e] to conduct a surprise attack using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) from an unidentified vessel off the coast of the United States homeland,” targeting unspecified locations in California “in the event” the United States conducted strikes against Iran.
The alert also said, “We have no additional information on the timing, method, target, or perpetrators of this alleged attack.” It did not provide details that local agencies could treat as a concrete, immediate threat, and the language in the bulletin left questions about whether any attack would occur, when it would be carried out, or who would carry it out.
Leavitt, the White House press secretary, disputed the premise of a threat in her own remarks on X. She wrote, “No such threat from Iran to our homeland exists, and it never did.” President Donald Trump was also asked about the warning Wednesday at Joint Base Andrews, and he said, “It’s being investigated, but you have a lot of things happening. All we can do is take ’em as they come.”
Federal-to-local intelligence warnings can vary in urgency and specificity, according to Brian Kohlhepp, an adjunct lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a former member of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. Kohlhepp said bulletins are often used to raise awareness for local law enforcement about issues the FBI has seen on its radar “that they feel has enough credibility that they just want to raise that awareness,” rather than necessarily indicating an immediate operational need.
Kohlhepp added that if the FBI required urgent or immediate action, it would be more likely to arrange faster coordination, such as a conference call with needed partners or more direct contact. Under that framework, the effect of an “unverified” alert can be measured less by certainty about timing and more by whether agencies adjust readiness and surveillance posture.
In California, police departments said they were monitoring developments for potential risks and coordinating with higher levels of government. Los Angeles and San Francisco officials said they were working closely with state and federal authorities while watching world events for any possible danger to their cities.
The Associated Press reported that the story was updated after publication to correct the name of the criminal justice expert, with a previous version incorrectly identifying Brian Kohlhepp’s first name.