President Trump took a moment during his White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner speech on Friday to troll the Iranian Supreme Leader and highlight one of his accomplishments that “the media never talks about.”

Trump tossed the political correctness that the left-wing media complex is accustomed to out the window, telling them that Iran is “now being run by a gay dictator.”

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s son and successor, Mojtaba Khamenei, is believed to be a gay man. The leader of the brutal theocratic regime is ironically believed to have had a long-term sexual relationship with his male childhood tutor.

Trump is said to have laughed out loud when briefed by intelligence officials, while others in the room also found it hilarious, according to sources who spoke to the New York Post.

“While I have all of the press here in one place, I have to say that we’re having an amazing load of accomplishments that the media never talks about,” Trump said.

“For example, under my administration, a once-feared and powerful regime that relentlessly attacked America has finally been toppled.”

Trump continued, “Their former leaders have been removed, and they’re now being run by a gay dictator facing internal divisions.”

WATCH:

US forces continued strikes against Iran this week, completing 13 consecutive nights of attacks against Iranian military capabilities in and around the Strait of Hormuz since the fighting resumed earlier this month.

Video from CENTCOM shows the most recent attacks from the nearly two-week-long airstrike campaign:

Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader hasn’t even been seen publicly since the start of the military conflict between Iran and the US.

The 56-year-old Mojtaba Khamenei is believed to have been injured, possibly critically, since the first US strikes on February 28, which killed his father and other top Iranian officials.

Notably, Khamenei did not even attend his own father’s funeral earlier this month.

The post LOL! Trump Calls Iranian Leader Khamenei a “Gay Dictator” During White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Jack Smith’s lawyers responded to House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan’s criminal referral.

On Wednesday evening House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) criminally referred former special counsel Jack Smith to the Justice Department for prosecution.

In a letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Chairman Jordan said Jack Smith’s testimony included “intentionally false statements designed to obstruct the Committee’s oversight.”

“All individuals have an obligation to comply with a duly authorized congressional inquiry. Mr. Smith, a former public servant, is no different,” Jordan wrote in a letter to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on Wednesday. “Yet his testimony included intentionally false statements designed to obstruct the Committee’s oversight.”

“His conduct can only be understood as an effort to thwart the Committee’s inquiry by intentionally making false statements and representations before Congress,” Jordan added, according to Fox News.

At issue is Jack Smith’s testimony to the House Judiciary Committee last December.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley last Tuesday revealed that Jack Smith spied on 44 members of Congress and actually read their text messages.

Jack Smith lied when asked if the records he requested included the contents of calls and texts.

WATCH:

A defiant Jack Smith pushed back on Jim Jordan on Friday.

“Mr. Smith agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee fully cognizant of the risk that President Trump’s Justice Department would try to find something in his testimony to serve as the basis for a criminal charge,” Jack Smith’s attorneys wrote in the letter obtained by Fox News.

“This risk existed not because Mr. Smith would make a false statement, but because President Trump has repeatedly ordered that Mr. Smith be prosecuted and jailed. That is not the rule of law. And it contravenes the principles that are critical to the vitality of our democracy.”

Jack Smith’s attorneys argued that the former special counsel was referring to the toll record subpoenas during the line of questioning.

“During his testimony, Mr. Smith provided truthful, responsive answers and candidly discussed his work as Special Counsel. This referral reflects a chilling eagerness to weaponize the justice system by attacking a career, nonpartisan public servant who faithfully and fearlessly performed his duties by following the facts and the law,” the lawyers wrote, according to Fox News.

“The toll record subpoenas that were the focus of those questions did not call for the content of text messages. The questions and answers preceding and following these exchanges also make clear that the focus of the questions was on the toll records subpoenas. Notably, the referral letter does not contest the truthfulness of Mr. Smith’s answers.”

Chairman Jordan blasted Jack Smith during an appearance on Fox News on Thursday morning.

WATCH:

pic.twitter.com/dYICd5CT65

— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) July 23, 2026

The post A Defiant Jack Smith Responds to Jim Jordan’s Criminal Referral appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A Biden-appointed majority on the First Circuit Court of Appeals handed President Donald Trump a major setback Saturday, refusing to lift an injunction blocking key election-integrity provisions of his executive order in 23 states and the District of Columbia.

The three-judge panel denied emergency stay requests filed by the Trump administration and 12 Republican-led states, leaving in place a lower-court order that prevents the Department of Homeland Security from distributing federal citizenship lists and blocks the U.S. Postal Service from applying new mail-ballot requirements in the plaintiff states for elections held on or before November 3, 2026.

Judges Gustavo Gelpí and Julie Rikelman, both appointed to the First Circuit by Joe Biden, formed the majority.

Trump-appointed Judge Joshua Dunlap concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing that the states lacked standing to block DHS from merely providing citizenship information.

The ruling is not a final decision on the administration’s appeal. Instead, the 20-page court order denies the administration’s request to suspend the injunction while the appeal proceeds.

The administration could now seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.

President Trump issued Executive Order 14399, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” on March 31 to enforce existing federal law that reserves federal elections exclusively for U.S. citizens and to bring basic accountability to the chaotic, fraud-prone mail-in ballot process.

The order directed DHS, working with the Social Security Administration, to compile state-by-state lists of confirmed American citizens who would be eligible to vote in upcoming federal elections. Those lists were scheduled to be transmitted to state election officials by September 4.

Trump’s order also instructed the USPS to create new safeguards for mail-in and absentee ballots, including uniquely serialized barcodes and state-provided lists identifying voters authorized to vote by mail.

Under the proposed system, the Postal Service would not transmit certain mail ballots unless the voter appeared on the appropriate state-specific participation list.

The order further directed the Justice Department to prioritize investigations and potential prosecutions involving election officials who knowingly issue federal ballots to people who are not legally eligible to vote.

In other words, the Trump administration sought to use existing federal citizenship data, modern tracking technology, and the Postal Service’s nationwide infrastructure to help ensure that only eligible American citizens participate in federal elections.

Naturally, Democrat officials raced to court.

A coalition consisting of California, Massachusetts, Nevada, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, through Democrat Governor Josh Shapiro, along with the District of Columbia, sued to stop the order.

Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ultimately declared Sections 2 and 3 of Trump’s order “ultra vires” and in violation of the separation of powers. Her final judgment prohibited federal officials from implementing those sections in the plaintiff jurisdictions for the 2026 elections.

The Trump administration and 12 intervening states, Alabama, Missouri, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas, asked the First Circuit to freeze Talwani’s injunction while the appeal moved forward.

The Biden-appointed majority refused.

First Circuit Judges Gelpí and Rikelman rejected the DOJ’s emergency motion. Biden-appointees claimed the Democrat-led states would suffer “pocketbook injuries” over envelope costs and “credible threats of prosecution” if federal law was enforced

Notably, the administration’s emergency motion focused on standing and ripeness. It argued that the states’ lawsuit was premature because DHS and USPS were still developing their final implementation plans.

The majority responded that the approaching election deadlines had already forced states to spend money, divert staff and prepare for potential changes.

“The Plaintiff States have no practical choice but to respond to the EO now,” the majority wrote.

The judges also cited the possibility that election officials could face investigations or prosecution if ballots were issued to people missing from DHS’s admittedly incomplete citizenship lists.

That reasoning effectively allows Democrat-run states to claim “injury” merely because they must prepare to comply with election-integrity safeguards months before a federal election.

The majority also claimed the administration had failed to establish that allowing two different mail-ballot systems, one for the plaintiff states and another for the rest of the country, would create irreparable operational confusion for the Postal Service.

The injunction does not prevent the Trump administration from implementing the order in states that did not join the lawsuit. It also does not prevent federal agencies from preparing to use the system nationwide in elections held after November 3.

This means the ruling could force USPS to operate a bizarre two-tier election-mail system in 2026: enhanced safeguards in participating states and the old system in the Democrat-led states that sued to block them.

Judge Joshua Dunlap rejected the majority’s conclusion concerning the DHS citizenship lists.

Dunlap pointed out that Section 2(a) merely directs DHS to provide information to state officials. It does not require states to remove anybody from their voter rolls or take any action based on the lists.

“Section 2(a) thus merely orders the provision of information to States,” Dunlap wrote. “It does not order States, including Plaintiffs, to take any action.”

Because the states were not required to do anything with the citizenship lists, Dunlap concluded that their alleged injury was “speculative and hypothetical.”

Dunlap would have lifted the injunction against the compilation and distribution of those lists. He also would have allowed the Justice Department to prioritize enforcement of existing federal laws prohibiting noncitizen voting.

However, Dunlap agreed that the injunction should remain in place against the USPS portion of the order because several plaintiff states had already purchased ballot envelopes that might not comply with the proposed requirements.

Separate D.C. Circuit Victory Remains

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, the Trump administration recently won a separate battle before the D.C. Circuit involving the USPS mail-ballot rule.

In that case, the D.C. Circuit stayed an order issued by Judge Emmet Sullivan in litigation involving the NAACP and a settlement agreement left over from the 2020 election.

The D.C. Circuit concluded that USPS had made a strong showing that it was likely to succeed and could suffer irreparable harm if prevented from finalizing the rule before the November midterms.

Saturday’s First Circuit ruling involves a different lawsuit filed directly by the coalition of states. It does not overturn the D.C. Circuit’s decision, but it leaves the Trump administration unable to apply key portions of the election order in nearly half the country while the appeal continues.

The First Circuit majority has not yet issued a final merits decision affirming that Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional. It merely refused to pause Judge Talwani’s injunction.

The Justice Department previously warned that it could be forced to seek intervention from the Supreme Court if the First Circuit refused to grant relief, according to Reuters.

The post BREAKING: Far-Left Activist First Circuit Judges Block Trump’s Historic Election Integrity Executive Order in 23 Blue States — Protecting Mail-In Ballot Chaos Ahead of 2026 Midterms appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

(Note: Thank you for supporting businesses like the one presenting a sponsored message below and working with them through the links below which benefits Gateway Pundit. We appreciate your support!)

While it may sound crazy, there’s a much easier way to pay down debt (and faster) by using a credit card.

Some of the top credit card experts identified their favorites that put interest on ice until 2027 on balance transfers while offering up to 5% cash back on qualifying purchases while earning a welcome bonus of up to $200.

Talk about the best of both worlds!

Click here to learn how to apply and start paying down debt faster.

The post Insane Cards Charging 0% Interest Into 2028 (With Welcome Bonuses Up To $200) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The Minnesota mother who has been at the center of a racial firestorm since last year has just broken her silence after a far-left jury convicted her earlier this week of a speech ‘crime.’

As The Gateway Pundit’s Cassandra MacDonald reported, a Minnesota jury on Thursday night delivered a split verdict in the disorderly conduct trial of Shiloh Hendrix.

The jury found the 37-year-old mother not guilty on the count related to her words directed at the eight-year-old Somali boy who was stealing from her, but guilty on the count stemming from her comments to the man who filmed and confronted her at a Rochester playground.

Judge Christa M. Daily sentenced Hendrix to a $1,000 fine, 200 hours of community service, supervised probation, and a stayed 90-day jail term.

Last April, Hendrix was at the park with her toddler when the boy reached into her diaper bag and took an applesauce pouch. She confronted the child and allegedly used the N-word.

A Somali man named Sharmake Beyle Omar, who was not the child’s father, began recording the scene, became extremely confrontational with Hendrix as she was holding her toddler, and continued filming as he demanded and provoked her to repeat the slur.

BREAKING: Shiloh Hendrix charged for the viral video of her saying a slur. She now is facing jail. pic.twitter.com/9or7jGIDO3

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) August 26, 2025

Independent Journalist Tom Hennessy, who has been in close contact with Hendrix since her ordeal first began, just released a statement from her regarding the unjust verdict.

Hendrix began her letter by expressing relief at being back home with her sons, whom she “missed so much,” and that “her family’s hearts would have been broken” had she been jailed.

The Minnesota mother went on to thank her husband and lawyer, along with Hennessy, for their support.

Then Hendrix added an important note: she is NOT on social media, and someone is trying to impersonate her. One can only hope X will soon take down the account responsible.

Hendrix also called the verdict “unfair and unjust” while confirming there would be an appeal, vowing always to continue fighting.

She then closed by thanking everyone else around the country who has backed her.

Shiloh Hendrix post trial update

Hello!

I hope everyone is doing well!

I just got back home to my sons yesterday after being away from them for several days due to my trial. It’s the longest time I’ve ever been separated from them. I missed them so much. I can’t even… https://t.co/ICYlXg5LEt pic.twitter.com/CgWQII7taI

— Tom Hennessy (@Tomhennessey69) July 25, 2026

Here is her full letter:

Hello!

I hope everyone is doing well!

I just got back home to my sons yesterday after being away from them for several days due to my trial. It’s the longest time I’ve ever been separated from them. I missed them so much. I can’t even imagine if they had jailed me for this. My family’s hearts would have been broken. I’m so grateful to be home.

I have had an excellent team with me throughout this whole thing. My husband has never left my side. Tom Hennessy was reporting the truth the whole time to keep you all updated. My lawyer, Brian Karalus, has proven to be the perfect person for this case. I also had a group of patriots serve as my security. I am so thankful for them all.

I also wanted to add that I am not on social
media. I have been told that there is someone out there impersonating me. Don’t fall for their tricks.

We all know the verdict. We all know how unfair and unjust it is. This is why I will be appealing. Things are already in motion to do so. I will never stop fighting, and all of you give me so much strength and hope to keep my head in the battle. I don’t know what I would do without all of your support. You’ve all proven time and time again how great we can be when we stick together. It makes my heart happy.

Thank you for staying by my side.

Thank you for showing the world what we can do.

Thank you for helping me protect my family.

Thank you for everything.

Shiloh

The post NEW: Minnesota Mother Shiloh Hendrix, Who was Filmed Saying N-Word in Viral Video, Breaks Her Silence After Woke Jury Convicts Her of “Disorderly Conduct” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.