The year was 2001. The President was a Republican. Nearly nine in ten Americans—87%—said they were extremely or very proud to be an American. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents were all within a handful of points of agreement on just how proud they were. When the 9/11 terrorist attacks hit, pride increased and remained or grew even higher over the next few years.

Two decades later, in 2020, the President was once again a Republican. Just a little over six in ten Americans (63%) said they were extremely or very proud to be an American—a new low. Democrats and Republicans were split by 46 points on just how proud they were (88% for Republicans, 42% for Democrats). Independents came in at 64%.

Five years later, in 2025, the President again was a Republican—the same Republican. Now, according to a new Gallup report published Monday, pride in being an American has hit a new record low: just 58% say they are extremely or very proud to be an American.

READ MORE: Democratic Reps Say FEMA Cuts Are Leading to Hurricane Katrina-Level Disaster

Republicans’ pride in being American has now risen to 92%. Democrats’ pride in being American has dropped to a historic low: just 36% say they are extremely or very proud to be an American. For independents, that number, also a historic low, has dropped to 53%.

The Associated Press calls Gallup’s findings “a stark illustration of how many — but not all — Americans have felt less of a sense of pride in their country over the past decade.”

“The split between Democrats and Republicans, at 56 percentage points, is at its widest since 2001. That includes all four years of Republican President Donald Trump’s first term.”

Gallup also finds that “each new generation” is “significantly less likely than the previous one to say they are extremely or very proud to be an American.”

For Gen Z, those born between 1997 and 2012, only a minority—41%— say they are extremely or very proud to be an American, during the years from 2021-2025.

Overall, Gallup reports, these “changes have occurred mostly over the past decade, and have done so amid greater pessimism about the economic prospects for young people, widespread dissatisfaction with the state of the nation, greater ideological divides between the parties, unfavorable images of both parties, and intense partisan rancor during the Trump and Biden administrations.”

READ MORE: Ketanji Brown Jackson Compares SCOTUS Planned Parenthood Ruling to Jim Crow in Dissent

Image via Reuters

President Donald Trump took umbrage at Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declaring victory in the war with Israel. Trump said he knew where the Ayatollah was hiding and stopped Israel from killing him.

On Thursday, Khamenei posted to X, formerly Twitter, declaring victory over both Israel and the United States in the war that started on June 13, ending with a ceasefire agreement brokered by Trump on June 24. During the war, Israel’s attacks killed at least 610 people, compared to 28 Israelis killed by Iran’s attacks.

With all that commotion and all those claims, the Zionist regime was practically knocked out and crushed under the blows of the Islamic Republic.

— Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) June 26, 2025

“With all that commotion and all those claims, the Zionist regime was practically knocked out and crushed under the blows of the Islamic Republic,” Khamenei posted.

READ MORE: Trump Says News Media ‘Caught Cheating Again’ For Questioning Iran Claims

“My congratulations on our dear Iran’s victory over the US regime. The US regime entered the war directly because it felt that if it didn’t, the Zionist regime would be completely destroyed. It entered the war in an effort to save that regime but achieved nothing,” he added in another post.

My congratulations on our dear Iran’s victory over the US regime. The US regime entered the war directly because it felt that if it didn’t, the Zionist regime would be completely destroyed. It entered the war in an effort to save that regime but achieved nothing.

— Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) June 26, 2025

Trump took offense in a Friday Truth Social post at how the Ayatollah framed things .

“Why would the so-called ‘Supreme Leader,’ Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, of the war torn Country of Iran, say so blatantly and foolishly that he won the War with Israel, when he knows his statement is a lie, it is not so. As a man of great faith, he is not supposed to lie. His Country was decimated, his three evil Nuclear Sites were OBLITERATED, and I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life. I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH, and he does not have to say, ‘THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP!'” Trump wrote.

Trump then said that the Israel strike that happened shortly after the ceasefire was announced would have been “the final knockout” had he not demanded Israel “bring back a very large group of planes.” He also said that until he heard Khamenei’s statement, Trump was considering lifting sanctions on Iran “which would have given a much better chance to Iran at a full, fast, and complete recovery.”

“They have no hope, and it will only get worse! I wish the leadership of Iran would realize that you often get more with HONEY than you do with VINEGAR. PEACE!!!” Trump added.

The brief war started when Israel made a surprise attack on Iran’s nuclear sites including scientists and military figures like the Iran’s chief of staff of the armed forces, Maj. Gen. Mohammad Bagheri; commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Gen. Hossein Salami; and the head of the IRGC Air Force, Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh.

Israel’s defense minister Israel Katz confirmed that the country had wanted to kill Ayatollah Khamenei as well. Though reporting suggested that the United States had talked Israel out of this, Katz said permission wasn’t needed. Rather, he said, Khamenei survived because there was “no operational opportunity,” according to Al Jazeera.

On June 22, the U.S. attacked three of Iran’s nuclear sites in Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan. There were no casualties. Nor were there any casualties when Iran retaliated with a strike on a U.S. base in Qatar.

Trump made the order to attack Iran without informing Congress beforehand. The U.S. strike was controversial, with Rep. Al Green filing an article of impeachment alleging Trump violated the War Powers Act, but the article was quickly tabled.

Trump has repeatedly claimed the U.S. attacks had “obliterated” the Iranian sites. Early intelligence reporting seen by CNN and the New York Times said that the destruction had been overstated. Later reports from the CIA said the sites were “severely damaged.” However, it is still unknown whether Iran’s supply of enriched uranium was destroyed as Trump says, or moved before the strike.

Image via Reuters

Justice Elena Kagan called Friday morning’s Supreme Court porn ruling “confused,” saying it flies in the face of established First Amendment case law.

In Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, the Supreme Court upheld a Texas state law that requires adults to provide official identification in order to view websites where at least one-third of the content on it is “harmful to minors.” The case was decided 6-3 on ideological lines, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing the majority opinion, and Justice Kagan writing the dissent.

The Court found that the 2023 Texas law did not run afoul of the First Amendment, in part because the state has an interest in protecting minors from harmful material. That part of the ruling was widely agreed upon. Where the issue lies is whether the specific law was well-tailored enough to not infringe on protected speech.

READ MORE: Louisiana Adults Must Now Show Drivers’ Licenses to Access Porn Online

Kagan and the other liberal justices disagreed on this point. She argued that while the state clearly has the right to declare certain speech obscene for minors and legally prohibit them from engaging with it, adults must still be allowed access. Kagan said that Friday’s ruling runs counter to cases brought before the Court “on no fewer than four prior occasions,” where the Court has “given the same answer, consistent with general free speech principles, each and every time.”

Kagan argued that the concept of “strict scrutiny” should have been applied to the Texas law, which requires the “least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest.” The ruling however, said that the ID requirement only hit the level of “intermediate scrutiny,” which does not require the state to answer the “least restrictive means” question.

“The majority’s opinion concluding to the contrary is, to be frank, confused. The opinion, to start with, is at war with itself. Parts suggest that the First Amendment plays no role here—that because Texas’s law works through age verification mandates, the First Amendment is beside the point. But even the majority eventually gives up that ghost. As, really, it must,” Kagan wrote.

She argued that the law would cause some people not to access these objectionable-to-minors websites, saying that people may not want to “identify themselves to a website (and maybe, from there, to the world)” as someone who enjoys pornography. The reference to “the world” refers to concerns raised by the Free Speech Coalition that the Texas law could leave citizens open to hackers if sites do not properly protect the identification information.

“But still, the majority proposes, that burden demands only intermediate scrutiny because it arises from an ‘incidental’ restriction, given that Texas’s statute uses age verification to prevent minors from viewing the speech. Except that is wrong—nothing like what we have ever understood as an incidental restraint for First Amendment purposes. Texas’s law defines speech by content and tells people entitled to view that speech that they must incur a cost to do so. That is, under our First Amendment law, a direct (not incidental) regulation of speech based on its content—which demands strict scrutiny,” Kagan wrote.

After the law passed, some pundits warned that if it were upheld, it could lead to other laws against content deemed objectionable. The Free Speech Coalition argued that porn can be the “canary in the coal mine of free speech,” and Harvard Law Professor Rebecca Tushnet agreed.

“If the Court is open to revisiting the First Amendment framework that structured the last 70 years or so of constitutional history, then many things will be up for grabs, including defamation law, political speech regulations, and compelled speech. Speech about abortion and LGBTQ issues would be the obvious next targets,” she said.

Image via Shutterstock