It's one of dozens if not hundreds of memory-safe languages. The false marketing claim that Rust somehow invented it is absolutely infuriating.
Language adoption isn't just about technical merits (although those have to be there). The ecosystem, tooling, core team, learning resources, and overall community have to be there, too.
To your point - if I want to get started in another language that is 1) statically compiled, 2) non-garbage collected, and 3) memory-safe by design, as far as I can tell my only other mainstream options are Swift / Objective-C, Ada / SPARK, and Nim. I don't see nearly as much activity in those language's open source ecosystems, and "basic" libraries might not even exist due to the small communities.
Care should be taken to not be in so much of a bubble, to not realize that other languages have viable solutions too or are developing alternatives to what's presently available. If our choice for one or the other, is more a matter of personal preference, it would arguably be better to acknowledge such.
This is the second time I've seen someone say this in the last week or so, but I've never seen this claim in the wild, and certainly not by Rust's core team or organization. It's also not a secret that Rust's memory management is heavily influenced by Cyclone. Can you show an example of someone making this claim?