President Trump seemingly threatened to escalate the war in Iran and leave the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery where up to 25% of the world’s oil travels through, to other countries that use it for their oil.

He said this might cause “our non-responsive ‘Allies’” to get “in gear, and fast!!!”

This comes after Iran closed off the Strait of Hormuz and began targeting shipping and oil tankers in response to US and Israeli attacks on Iran.

Trump said over the weekend, “Many Countries, especially those who are affected by Iran’s attempted closure of the Hormuz Strait, will be sending War Ships, in conjunction with the United States of America, to keep the Strait open and safe.” He specifically called out “China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint,” saying securing the Strait “should have always been a team effort, and now it will be.”

However, the countries quickly rebuffed his demand and instead called for and instead urged the United States to end the war.

Iran has also said the Strait is open to all except “those who are attacking us and their allies.”

Trump has threatened to attack Iran’s energy infrastructure and completely destroy the country’s ability to exist, but suggested he is saving those targets “for later.”

It appears that Trump’s latest threat would be a final end to the war and the complete destruction of Iran.

I wonder what would happen if we ‘finished off’ what’s left of the Iranian Terror State, and let the Countries that use it, we don’t, be responsible for the so called ‘Strait?’” Trump said.

“That would get some of our non-responsive ‘Allies’ in gear, and fast!!!”

I wonder what would happen if we “finished off” what’s left of the Iranian Terror State, and let the Countries that use it, we don’t, be responsible for the so called “Strait?” That would get some of our non-responsive “Allies” in gear, and fast!!! President DJT

As The Gateway Pundit reported, Trump, fed up with the refusal of allies to defend shipping in the Strait, declared on Tuesday, “WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!”

“This was a great test because we don’t need them, but they should have been there,” he said, noting that “We, as the United States, have to remember that because we think it’s pretty shocking.”

MORE:

(VIDEO) Trump Says US Doesn’t need NATO, Japan, South Korea, and Australia in Strait of Hormuz After They Snub Request for Help – “WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!”

The post Trump Threatens to “Finish Off” Iran and Let Asia and NATO “Be Responsible” for the Strait of Hormuz appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

While waste and California go together like peanut butter and jelly, even this latest example will blow your mind.

City Journal’s Chris Rufo broke an explosive story on Wednesday, revealing how Gavin Newsom’s California somehow spent $114 million on the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing (WAWC) over the course of four years. The crossing features an overpass for animals atop ten lanes of the 101 Freeway in Agoura Hills.

The stated goal of the project was to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions by providing safe passage to the animals. The species that were supposed to benefit included the endangered cougars in the area and the monarch butterflies.

During a ceremony announcing the project, Newsom boasted that the state would provide $54 million in funding to complete the crossing. It was supposed to cost $92 million in total, with the remaining funding from private philanthropists.

Officials projected the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing would open in 2025, but now it is over $20 million over budget with no finish in sight. And you can thank good old-fashioned political corruption for it, along with the person in charge of the project, a loony cougar-sweater-wearing ‘environmentalist’ named Beth Pratt, who serves on WAWC’s Partner Leadership Team.

From City Journal:

Why has a project primarily consisting of a bridge for animals cost over $100 million? One reason is that Newsom and WAWC’s philanthropic supporters apparently don’t mind it becoming a patronage program. As the WAWC-endorsing Wildlife Crossing Fund notes, citing the California Department of Transportation’s estimate, “for every $1 billion spent” on wildlife crossings, “13,000 jobs are created.”

Some of these jobs are absurd. The National Wildlife Federation’s WAWC website claims that “[o]ur Native Plant Nursery”—apparently funded by the nonprofit SAMO Fund and other “partners”—“has prioritized hiring Indigenous team members to help steward the plants that will vegetate the bridge.” The nursery’s co-manager said she makes an “offering” after collecting seeds, sometimes including pieces of her hair.

Or consider the ways one of the nursery workers and her associates have spent their time. The nursery’s founding manager worked with “helpers and volunteers” to “seed scout[]” across the Santa Monica Mountains. Her associates on the “design team” received “feedback from all the various project partners”—including state and federal bureaucrats—for their plant list.

A group of experts apparently adds to the operation’s expense. A fungi whiz, Pratt says, worked as a WAWC habitat designer, periodically scrutinizing root samples under a microscope. A contracted soil scientist said his process involves assessing local dirt to “rebuild it . . . as close to nature as possible.”

Pratt, who serves on WAWC’s Partner Leadership Team, does not think the cost or budget overruns are too big a deal.

“There’s no boondoggle given the times we’re living in,” she said in a Facebook video back in January.

She also blamed President Trump, citing his tariffs and inflation.

WATCH:

Beth Pratt is the left-wing activist in charge of building Gavin Newsom’s $114 million cougar and butterfly bridge. She’s turned the bridge into a boondoggle, and now blames Trump for blown deadlines and increased costs. Her bio does not note any previous construction experience. pic.twitter.com/eepoIW4vhd

— Christopher F. Rufo (@christopherrufo) March 18, 2026

When she saw Rufo’s piece on Wednesday, Pratt came up with a new excuse, blaming the weather and “unprecedented biodiversity collapse.”

Yes, really.

BREAKING: @BethPratt, the woman responsible for California’s $114 million animal bridge boondoggle, has responded to our investigation with a rambling Facebook post blaming the weather and “unprecedented biodiversity collapse.”

This is what happens when you put crazy in charge. pic.twitter.com/tGK4C8jyh0

— Christopher F. Rufo (@christopherrufo) March 18, 2026

For real answers, she should look in the mirror and at her governor.

The post Insanity: Newsom’s California Blows OVER $100 MILLION on a ‘Butterfly and Cougar’ Bridge With No End in Sight – Project Director Blames Trump and the Weather appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The U.S. House of Representatives just passed landmark legislation aimed at slamming the door shut on illegal immigrants who have been shamelessly looting welfare programs designed for citizens only.

The bill, dubbed the “Deporting Fraudsters Act,” passed by a vote of 231–186, with nearly every Democrat voting against it and Republicans uniting behind the measure.

JUST PASSED THE HOUSEH.R. 1958, the Deporting Fraudsters Act of 2026.

This bill will crack down on fraud, protect Americans’ tax dollars, and uphold the rule of law.

We’re putting AMERICANS FIRST again! pic.twitter.com/X6U9rmUtgX

— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) March 18, 2026

The legislation would amend federal immigration law to make welfare fraud a deportable offense, ensuring that illegal immigrants caught defrauding taxpayer-funded programs can be removed from the country.

Republican lawmakers framed the bill as a long-overdue safeguard for American taxpayers, arguing that public benefits should be reserved strictly for U.S. citizens and legal residents.

Despite growing concerns nationwide about fraud and misuse of welfare systems, 186 Democrats voted against the bill.

On the House floor, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) delivered a blunt message:

Republicans are protecting American taxpayers from fraud committed by illegal aliens.

Why are Democrats so against this?

: @RepMcClintock pic.twitter.com/AdYh0UUjPz

— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) March 18, 2026

More from Fox News:

The bill, sponsored by Rep. David Taylor, R-Ohio, would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to explicitly define fraud as a deportable offense. Republicans said the legislation is necessary to ensure that noncitizens who steal taxpayer dollars are no longer eligible for immigration relief services or legal protections.

“If you admit to or you’re convicted of fraudulently receiving public benefits, you are out of here on the next plane and can never return,” Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., said Wednesday on the House floor.

Democratic lawmakers largely opposed the GOP-authored bill, arguing that noncitizens convicted of fraud are already eligible for deportation.

“Another week, another redundant and completely unnecessary immigration crime bill,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said during debate on the measure.

Democrats also sharply criticized the measure for eroding legal immigrants’ due process rights by permitting noncitizens to be deported prior to prosecutors securing a conviction.

“By bypassing the conviction requirement, this legislation would hand a liberal get-out-of-jail free card to immigrants who commit fraud by deporting them without going through the criminal justice system and giving their victims a day in court,” Raskin said.

The bill now heads to the Senate, where RINOs and Democrat holdouts are already sharpening their knives.

But after years of Biden-Harris border chaos that flooded the country with millions of illegals, many of whom immediately signed up for every handout imaginable, House Republicans have finally drawn a line in the sand.

The post BREAKING: House Narrowly Passes Legislation to Deport Illegal Immigrants Participating in Welfare Fraud appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) on Wednesday skewered a left-wing attorney during testimony before the Judiciary Committee hearing after he admitted his beliefs that taxpayers should pay to house illegals in jail instead of deporting them, local police should not cooperate with federal immigration agents, and American taxpayers should provide healthcare benefits to illegals. 

The heated exchange occurred during the Committee’s hearing on the 1982 Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe, which required states to provide illegal aliens a free K-12 education. Gill sparred with liberal witness Thomas A. Saenz, President & General Counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Gill kicked off his questioning with the simple question of “if somebody crosses the border illegally, what should happen to them?”

Saenz gave the long, drawn-out response of “Federal law indicates that there are steps that can be taken to remove them. Now that can happen at the border, or it can happen when they are integrated into society. There are protections once you are integrated in society, especially depending on how long.”

During several minutes of back and forth on whether or not illegals should be allowed to come in and later commit crimes, Saenz said he believes that Americans should be forced to rehabilitate illegals instead. He further claimed that simply deporting illegal alien criminals is “too facile,” while arguing that rehabilitation at the expense of US taxpayers is “for the benefit of society.”

He then doubled down, saying that even if “police arrest an illegal alien for breaking into somebody’s home in the middle of the night,” they “should be put through the criminal law system that we have” and not given to immigration officials. Then, he attempted to avoid the question of whether the illegal should be handed over to immigration authorities after being convicted and serving their sentence or whether they should be released back into the community. “There are too many repercussions of a policy like that,” he said. “You’re putting it in the context of a single instance, so it’s very difficult to answer the question.”

Gil then asked, “Should American taxpayers pay for Medicaid for illegal aliens?’ That’s when Saenz flat-out admitted, “In many circumstances, yes.” He continued, “And not just American taxpayers, but immigrant taxpayers who also pay taxes as well. As you know, sir, there is no exception for tax paying based on immigration status.”

Gil further asked if he believes illegals should receive Social Security benefits, but Saenz claimed his question was “misleading” and refused to answer, instead claiming there are no illegals receiving Social Security.

However, President Trump revealed last August that his administration identified and “kicked nearly 275,000 illegal aliens off of the Social Security system.” Additionally, “12.4 million names where they were over 120 years old,” were removed from the list.

Gil concluded his questioning in response to Saenz’s Social Security claims, firing back, “It’s a really basic question, and you don’t want to answer it because you’ve got a crazy, radical open borders agenda that we can all see.”

WATCH:

Gill: Mr. Saenz, if somebody crosses the border illegally, what should happen to them?

Saenz: Federal law indicates that there are steps that can be taken to remove them. Now that can happen at the border, or it can happen when they are integrated into society. There are protections once you are integrated in society, especially depending on how long.

Gill: If we find them crossing into the country illegally, they should be deported, to put it simply. Is that right?

Saenz: If someone does not have a right to enter, yes, there is a right under federal law to interdict them and prevent them from entering. That’s been a basic element of immigration law for a very long time, including during Plyler.

Gill: Do you believe that American tax dollars should be used to rehabilitate criminal and legal aliens within our own borders?

Saenz: I believe it’s in our own interest to rehabilitate anybody who commits a crime.

Gill: Including criminal illegal aliens that never should have been—

Saenz: If it happens within our borders, it’s to the benefit of all of us to rehabilitate them. Rehabilitation of those who are convicted criminals is not for their own benefit! It’s for the benefit of society.

Gill: How many criminal illegal aliens should we rehabilitate?

Saenz: Again, anyone who commits a crime and is convicted of a crime should be rehabilitated for the benefit of the entire society.

Gill: So if an illegal alien comes into our country and murders or rape somebody, we ought to rehabilitate them, is your view, and there’s no limit to the number of illegal alien criminals we should rehabilitate. Is that your testimony?

Saenz: I wasn’t asked to testify about that, Congressman. I was asked to testify about Plyler. I’m not sure what this has to do with Plyler.

Gill: I’m clarifying your position, which you just attempted to lay out.

Saenz: I think my opposition is quite clear. Thank you.

Gill: Okay, how much money should we spend on rehabilitating criminal legal aliens?

Saenz: We should spend as much money as necessary to rehabilitate anyone who is convicted of crime in this country again, let me just note Congressmember, it has nothing to do with Plyler versus Doe. These are children, and with an education, they are far less likely to ever commit a crime!

Gill: We’re getting there, and you’re here to answer my questions, actually. Couldn’t we just secure the border and deport illegal aliens as opposed to rehabilitating them on our own tax dollars?

Saenz: That’s too facile, Congressmember, and I think you should understand that. The simple fact is, society benefits from rehabilitation. It’s not a gift to anyone who’s convicted of a crime. It’s for society.

Gill: Society’s paying for rehabilitation it sounds like. Do you believe that there should be a strict wall of separation between local law enforcement and immigration officials?

Saenz: Do I believe there should be such a law? Yes, I do.

Gill: That there should be a strict wall, to be clear, a strict wall of separation.

Saenz: All laws are strict. I’m not aware of Congress or any legislature passing a lenient law.

Gill: It’s walls, W, A L, L.

Saenz: Oh, wall. I thought you said law. I think a wall would be incredibly ridiculous, frankly.

Gill: A wall of separation between local law enforcement and immigration officials.

Saenz: Oh, a wall of separation. Okay. Yes, Congressmember, yes. Again, I do believe there should be a law of separation. And if you want to describe that law metaphorically as a wall, I would accept that.

Gill: Okay. I was using— I was actually using your words where you said there should be a strict, strict wall of no cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. That’s something that you had said in an interview with NPR in November of 2016. So police arrest—

Saenz: I’ve just acknowledged that, so I’m not sure why you’re putting myself to myself. I’m sure that interview was not about Plyler.

Gill: I’m the one asking questions here, not you. If police arrest an illegal alien for breaking into somebody’s home in the middle of the night. Should they turn that illegal alien over to immigration officials?

Saenz: So, Plyler versus Doe guarantees an education—

Gill: It’s just a yes or no question.

Saenz: And as a result, that means that those kids who receive that education are far less likely to break into anyone’s home, Congressmember.

Gill: But I’m asking, let’s say they do, should they be turned over to immigration officials? It’s just a yes or no question.

Saenz: No, no, no. They should be put through the criminal law system that we have.

Gill: But what about after serving their, let’s say they’re convicted, and they serve a sentence, and this is a criminal and legal alien. They broke into somebody’s home. They’re convicted, they serve, let’s say, a five year sentence. Instead of releasing them onto the street, should local law enforcement or prison officials give them over to immigration officials?

Saenz: There are too many repercussions of a policy like that. You’re putting it in the context of a single instance, so it’s very difficult to answer the question.

Gill: It’s very clear that your answer is no.

Saenz: No, that’s not clear. That’s not clear, sir. Please don’t put words in my mouth. You have my words from NPR, and what I say here, you don’t need to put words in my mouth.

Gill: Should American taxpayers pay for Medicaid for illegal aliens?

Saenz: In many circumstances, yes. And not just American taxpayers, but immigrant taxpayers who also pay taxes as well. As you know, sir, there is no exception for tax paying based on immigration status.

Gill: Should American taxpayers pay for Social Security for illegal aliens? It’s a yes or no question. I think the answer is no, so I’m asking you.

Saenz: It’s not a yes or no question. It doesn’t happen. We don’t provide Social Security benefits to undocumented people. I wasn’t aware that was a topic of today’s hearing.

Gill: I don’t think that should happen, and I’m asking you if you think it should happen.

Saenz: I don’t believe that that’s a question when we doesn’t happen. It’s misleading to suggest it does. No one who’s undocumented receives Social Security.

Gill: It’s a really basic question, and you don’t want to answer it because you’ve got a crazy, radical open borders agenda that we can all see.

 

The post WATCH: Rep. Brandon Gill DESTROYS Leftist Attorney After He Claims Americans Should Pay for Illegals’ Welfare – “You’ve Got a Crazy, Radical Open Borders Agenda” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Wednesday admitted that illegal aliens vote in US elections.

Schumer made the admission during a marathon debate on the SAVE America Act on the Senate floor.

“The core of the bill is handing the voter rolls over to DHS, putting them through an algorithm designed by… Musk that knocks – supposedly knocks out illegal immigrants from voting – but the evidence is that almost no illegal immigrants vote!” Schumer said.

Shouldn’t Schumer be outraged by even one illegal immigrant vote that steals the vote of an American citizen?

WATCH:

The US Senate on Tuesday voted to advance the SAVE America Act in a 51-48 vote.

Earlier Tuesday, it was reported that allies of President Donald Trump are reportedly preparing to “take over the Senate floor” today to push for action on the SAVE America Act.

A marathon debate on the SAVE America Act is now underway.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, Trump has already threatened to withhold his signature from all future legislation until the Senate delivers proof-of-citizenship voting requirements, strict voter ID, and an end to the Democrat-favorite mail-in ballot fraud machine.

Unfortunately, the SAVE America Act has stalled because it requires 60 votes in the Senate, and unless the filibuster is nuked, the measure is dead on arrival.

DOJ official Harmeet Dhillon said illegal aliens are registered to vote and they are voting.

“The review of 50–60 million voter records has revealed there are thousands of ineligible and outdated registrations—including non-citizens,” Harmeet said.

“Some of them voted. More to come!” Harmeet said on Tuesday.

The review of 50–60 million voter records has revealed there are thousands of ineligible and outdated registrations—including non-citizens. Some of them voted. More to come!

That is what happens when strong voter ID safeguards are absent—and @TheJusticeDept will not tolerate it. pic.twitter.com/Juljp2S3K8

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) March 17, 2026

The post HERE IT IS: Schumer Slips, Admits Illegal Aliens Vote in US Elections (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.