A clearly frustrated former President Donald Trump sounded a defiant tone during a Monday evening rally in Clive, Iowa, after a federal judge put him under a partial gag order earlier in the day.

At one point during the rally, Trump said that if need be, he would gladly go to jail if it meant a victory for the Constitution.

“U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case involving charges related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol Building, issued the order after Smith’s team argued that Trump’s statements on social media and elsewhere endangered court staff, the court itself, and federal officers associated with the trial. They also argued that Trump’s words were an attempt to taint the jury pool ahead of a trial,” Conservative Brief reported on Tuesday.

“First Amendment protections yield to the administration of justice and to the protection of witnesses,” Chutkan said Monday as she issued the gag order, the outlet Politico reported. “His presidential candidacy does not give him carte blanche to vilify … public servants who are simply doing their job.”

During his rally, Trump decried the order but appeared to refrain from directly criticizing the judge before making his sensational claim.

“They’re getting beaten very badly by me in the polls. They think the only way they can catch me is to stop me from speaking, they want to take away my voice. A judge gave a gag order today. Did you hear that? On speech. Which I believe is totally unconstitutional, what she did,” Trump said at one point, per a video posted by RSBN to the X platform.

The former president was ordered to keep quiet after he made a public post on his Truth Social platform about a law clerk during his New York civil fraud trial last week.

“Given that the defendant—after apparently reviewing opposition research on court staff—chose to use social media to publicly attack a court staffer, there is cause for concern about what he may do with social media research on potential jurors in this case,” Smith wrote in her motion.

Smith wrote that protections for prospective jurors are necessary for a number of reasons, but “chief among them is the defendant’s continued use of social media as a weapon of intimidation in court proceedings.”

WATCH: