speech

May 11 (UPI) — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledged a bigger, bolder, more optimistic direction for Britain, with a much closer relationship with the European Union at its heart, as he fought to hold onto his job on Monday following a disastrous showing by his party in elections.

In a speech in London, Starmer acknowledged making mistakes, but said he would prove wrong those who doubt his ability to deliver solutions to the country’s problems, saying Labour needed to bring “a bigger response” than they had believed was necessary when they came into office.

“Incremental change won’t cut it on growth, defense, Europe, energy. We need a bigger response than we anticipated in 2024 because these are not ordinary times, and this is a political challenge, just as much as it’s a party challenge,” he said.

While insisting his government had got “the big political choices right” on issues such as not getting involved in the Iran war and “investment in public services,” Starmer promised to do much more on apprenticeships, technical excellence colleges and special educational needs to guarantee a job, training or internship to every young unemployed Briton.

He also promised the most significant overhaul of ties with the EU since Britain officially left the bloc in 2021.

“This Labour government will be defined by rebuilding our relationship with Europe, by having Britain at the heart of Europe, standing shoulder to shoulder with the countries that most share our interests, our values and our enemies. That is the right choice for Britain,” he said.

Taking questions from reporters afterward, he kicked the question of rejoining the EU single market or customs union down the road to beyond the next election — but did not rule either out.

Starmer vowed he would see off any attempt to topple him after Nigel Farage’s Reform UK made historic gains in English council elections and parliamentary elections in Wales and Scotland, at Labour’s expense, and warned those who wanted him out that it could clear the way for Farage.

“We are not just facing dangerous times, but dangerous opponents, very dangerous opponents,” he said, saying Labour was the only thing preventing the country from going down a very dark path.”

“This is nothing less than a battle for the soul of our nation, and I want to be crystal clear about how we will win, because we cannot win as a weaker version of Reform or the Greens. We can only win as a stronger version of Labour, a mainstream party of power, not protest,” Starmer said.

Starmer had faced possible internal party challenges from senior party figures seeking to replace him and wider calls to set a timetable for his departure after the party’s disastrous performance.

However, the BBC said Starmer’s speech appeared to have defused the immediate threat to Starmer of a contest for the leadership of the party — and therefore the prime ministership — with backbench MP Catherine West criticizing his speech as “too little, too late” but backing down from her threat to force a leadership election today.

However, she said she still wanted him gone by September.

“The results last Thursday show that the PM has failed to inspire hope. What is best for the party and country now is for an orderly transition. I am hereby giving notice to No. 10 that I am collecting names of Labour MPs to call on the Prime Minister to set a timetable for the election of a new leader in September,” she wrote in a post on X.

West said she had the backing of 10 of the 81 MPs required under party rules to formally kick off a challenge by an MP. If and once a nomination receives sufficient backing, that would likely trigger a full-blown race for the leadership.

Assuming he does not resign, as sitting prime minister, Starmer is an automatic candidate in any leadership election if he so wishes. Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn fought and won a contest to remove him in 2016, consolidating his authority, although he was leader of the opposition only and not prime minister.

While Labour leaders have resigned under pressure from the party, the cabinet or the public, none has been removed in a formal leadership challenge in post-war Britain.

West is not seeking to replace Starmer herself.

Walt Disney Co.’s ABC is forcefully resisting Federal Communications Commission efforts to soften the network’s programming, accusing the federal agency of an overreach that violates 1st Amendment freedoms.

Last week, the FCC took the unusual step of calling in the licenses of eight Disney-owned television stations for early review. The move — widely interpreted as an effort to chill the network’s speech — came a day after President Trump demanded that ABC fire late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel over a joke about First Lady Melania Trump.

The FCC separately has taken aim at ABC’s daytime discussion show, “The View,” which delves deeply into politics.

The FCC has questioned whether the show, which prominently features Trump critics Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, could continue toclaim an exemption to rules that require broadcasters to provide equal time for opponents of political candidates.

In its filing this week with the FCC, Disney’s Houston television station raised the stakes in the dispute over “The View,” calling the commission’s actions “unprecedented” and “beyond the Commission’s authority.” The ABC station’s petition for a declaratory ruling said “The View,” has long qualified as a “bona fide” news interview program with freedom to conduct interviews of legally qualified political candidates.

“The Commission’s actions threaten to upend decades of settled law and practice and chill critical protected speech, both with respect to The View and more broadly,” the Houston station KTRK-TV said in the filing.

The network’s firm stance sets up a clash with the Trump administration, including the president’s hand-picked FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who has made no secret of his disdain for Kimmel and other ABC programming. Earlier this year, Carr announced that decades-old exemptions from the so-called “equal time rule” for news programs, including “The View,” were no longer valid.

ABC’s strenuous arguments mark a departure for the Disney-owned outlet.

In December 2024, a month after Trump was elected to a second term, the network quickly settled a lawsuit over statements made by news anchor George Stephanopoulos that Trump found offensive. ABC agreed to pay Trump $15 million to end his legal fight — sparking an outcry among free speech advocates, who accused the network of caving on a case it could have won.

“Some may dislike certain—or even most—of the viewpoints expressed on The View or similar shows,” the station said in its filing. “Such dislike, however, cannot justify using regulatory processes to restrict those views. The government does not get to decide ‘what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.’”

The station noted that, while the FCC has questioned the exemption for “The View,” which dates back to 2002, the FCC hasn’t showed interest in regulating programs on other networks, “including the many voices — conservative and liberal — on broadcast radio.”

“The danger is that the government will simply decide which perspectives to regulate and which to leave undisturbed,” ABC said.

On April 28, Carr called for a review of Disney’s broadcast licenses two years before any of them were set to expire, citing the agency’s year-old inquiry into Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies and whether they violated federal anti-discrimination rules.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday gave students their biggest free speech victory in decades, ruling that a disappointed high school cheerleader could not be punished for a social media post on Snapchat that included profane words.

In an 8-1 decision, the justices said a Pennsylvania school district violated the 1st Amendment when it suspended Brandi Levy from the cheerleading team in response to her post.

The court in an opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer said her words may have offended school officials, but they did not otherwise disrupt the school. And he said courts should be skeptical of efforts to discipline students for what they say or post on their own free time.

“It might be tempting to dismiss B. L.’s words as unworthy of the robust 1st Amendment protections discussed herein. But sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary,” he wrote in Mahanoy School District vs. B.L.

Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented and said he does not believe students and children have such protected rights.

American Civil Liberties Union lawyers who represented Levy welcomed the outcome.

“Protecting young people’s free speech rights when they are outside of school is vital, and this is a huge victory for the free speech rights of millions of students who attend our nation’s public schools,” said David Cole, legal director of the ACLU.

The incident in this case occurred in May 2017, when Levy was in ninth grade. She graduated in 2020 and is now a freshman in college.

“The school went too far, and I’m glad that the Supreme Court agrees,” Levy said in a statement. “I was frustrated. I was 14 years old, and I expressed my frustration the way teenagers do today. Young people need to have the ability to express themselves without worrying about being punished when they get to school. I never could have imagined that one simple snap would turn into a Supreme Court case, but I’m proud that my family and I advocated for the rights of millions of public school students.”

Her case posed a question that has divided courts in recent decades. Are students entirely free to say what they wish on social media — even if it includes vulgar, harassing or racist comments — or can they be disciplined by school officials?

During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that students retained their free speech rights when they went to school, so long as their protests did not cause “substantial disruptions” there. But that landmark ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines has provided little guidance for how to view a student’s posts on social media.

Breyer’s opinion did not set a clear rule or say students are always protected for what they post. But he said those from “off-campus will normally fall within the zone of parental, rather than school-related, responsibility. …When it comes to political or religious speech that occurs outside school or a school program or activity, the school will have a heavy burden to justify intervention.”

The case began when Levy learned she had been passed over for the varsity cheerleading team.

On a Saturday afternoon, she took a photo of herself and a friend with their middle fingers raised and posted it on Snapchat. She included a caption repeating the F-word for “school … softball … cheer … everything.”

The post could be seen by 250 of her friends, including other cheerleaders, and they in turn showed it to the two cheerleading coaches for Mahanoy High School in central Pennsylvania.

They decided she had violated team rules that required showing “respect” to others and avoiding “foul language,” and they suspended her for the year from the junior varsity squad.

She and her parents appealed the decision to school officials and the school board. And when that failed, they sued in federal court, alleging a violation of her 1st Amendment right to the freedom of speech.

A federal judge ruled for Levy, who said her Saturday afternoon posting did not disrupt her school. The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia agreed and ruled the school’s authority did not extend to off-campus speech.

LONDON — President Trump sang the praises of King Charles III after the monarch’s state visit this week. He even lifted some tariffs on Scotch whisky as a favor to the British monarch.

The king delivered a diplomatic master-class on the trip, mixing praise for his host with subtle criticism. It’s unclear, though, whether it will make a major difference to a trans-Atlantic relationship troubled by divisions over issues including the Iran war.

“In the short term probably yes, in the long term probably no,” said Kristofer Allerfeldt, a University of Exeter professor specializing in American history. But he said Charles had “definitely clawed back some of the prestige of the monarchy” in his homeland with his assured performance.

“He’s done us proud,” Allerfeldt said.

Like all royal visits, the four-day trip to Washington, New York and Virginia by the king and Queen Camilla was a carefully choreographed diplomatic event carried out at the request of the U.K. government. Timed to help mark the United States’ 250th birthday, it was a chance to heal rifts between the U.K. government and the Trump administration.

Trump has criticized Keir Starmer

The president has lambasted Prime Minister Keir Starmer — whom he once praised — over his unwillingness to join U.S. military attacks on Iran, dismissing Britain’s leader as “not Winston Churchill,” the World War II prime minister who coined the phrase “special relationship” for the U.K.-U.S. bond.

It’s part of a wider split between Trump and the United States’ NATO allies, whom he has called “cowards” and “useless” for not joining action against Iran.

None of that has soured Trump’s fondness for the British monarchy, which seems to have been deepened by the president’s unprecedented second state visit to the U.K. in September.

Some U.K. opposition politicians had called for the king’s reciprocal trip to be canceled, lest the president do or say something to embarrass the monarch.

In the end, there was much warmth and few awkward moments — though Trump did not always adhere to the convention that conversations with the monarch should remain private.

At a white-tie state dinner on Tuesday, Trump said “Charles agrees with me, even more than I do” that Iran must never have nuclear weapons.

Trump also said that “if that were up to him,” the king “would have followed the suggestions we made with respect to Ukraine.”

Buckingham Palace appeared relaxed about Trump’s Iran comment, noting that “the king is naturally mindful of his government’s longstanding and well-known position on the prevention of nuclear proliferation.”

The king’s speech chided Trump policies

On Ukraine, however, differences were clear. The U.K. has been one of Kyiv’s strongest supporters in its fight against Russia’s invasion, and in a speech to Congress the king underscored the importance of the need for “unyielding resolve” to support Ukraine.

It was one of several implicit rebukes to the “America first” U.S. administration in the speech, the centerpiece moment of the trip.

With regal understatement and in a cut-glass accent, Charles stressed the essential role of NATO, the importance of checks on executive power, the threat posed by climate change and the strength drawn from “vibrant, diverse and free societies.” He spoke of his pride at having served in the Royal Navy, a force Trump has disparaged.

“It’s difficult to imagine he could have gone much further in what he said and what he didn’t say,” historian Anthony Seldon told The Guardian. “He judged it incredibly well: very brave, very smart, very clever.”

Allerfeldt noted the “extraordinary” reception from both sides of the political aisle to the speech, which drew multiple standing ovations.

“Apart from the section on the natural world and the environment, both Republicans and Democrats stood up and applauded,” he said.

In a less formal speech at the state banquet, the king even drew laughs when he joked about British troops burning down the White House in 1814.

The king alluded to Epstein’s victims

The trip was judged a success despite the shadow of the king’s younger brother Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who has been stripped of his royal title of Prince Andrew, exiled from public life and put under police investigation over his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. He has denied committing any crimes.

Epstein victims had urged the king to meet with them and other sexual abuse survivors. He didn’t, but he did refer obliquely to the issue in his speech to Congress, mentioning the need to “support victims of some of the ills that, so tragically, exist in both our societies today.”

Andrew Lownie, author of a biography of the former Prince Andrew called “Entitled,” praised the speech as “the best defense of the monarchy in years.”

After the royal couple left the U.S., Trump announced he was lifting certain tariffs on Scotch “in honor of the King and Queen of the United Kingdom.”

Buckingham Palace toasted the announcement, saying the king “sends his sincere gratitude for a decision that will make an important difference to the British whisky industry and the livelihoods it supports.”

Trump called the king “a phenomenal representative” for his country, before turning back to a familiar theme: criticizing Starmer.

The president told Sky News that Charles is “a much different person than your prime minister.

“Your prime minister has to learn to deal the way he deals, and he’ll do a lot better,” he said.

Lawless writes for the Associated Press.

LONDON — In the world of diplomatic faux pas, it could have been a lot worse.

At Tuesday’s state dinner honoring King Charles III and Queen Camilla, President Trump said that during a private meeting earlier in the day the British monarch had agreed with him that Iran should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

“We’re doing a little Middle East work right now … and we’re doing very well,” Trump told the audience. “We have militarily defeated that particular opponent, and we’re never going to let that opponent ever — Charles agrees with me, even more than I do — we’re never going to let that opponent have a nuclear weapon.”

While many Britons would agree with the president’s sentiment, the comment triggered mild consternation among pundits in the U.K.

By convention, people aren’t supposed to relay private conversations with the monarch. That is partly because the king has to remain above the political fray, but also because the sovereign doesn’t have the ability to wade into a public debate and correct the record if he’s misquoted.

“Generally, as a matter of protocol, I think I would expect discussions between heads of state to be sort of behind the scenes, in those closed meetings, for those to be sort of kept private,” said Craig Prescott, an expert on constitutional law and the monarchy at Royal Holloway, University of London. “And, you know, this was something that the U.K. government wanted to avoid.”

There had been a fair amount of jitters before the king’s trip to the United States, which comes amid Trump’s very public frustration with U.K. Prime Minster Keir Starmer over his failure to support U.S. actions in the Iran war.

Like all royal visits, this is a carefully choreographed diplomatic event carried out at the request of the U.K. government, which hopes that warm relations between the king and Trump can help repair the rift.

But Trump is an unconventional leader who has a penchant for breaking protocol, and there were concerns about just what he might say or do.

At least in this case, the king’s comments seemed clearly within the bounds of existing U.K. government policy.

“The King is naturally mindful of his government’s long-standing and well-known position on the prevention of nuclear proliferation,” Buckingham Palace said in a statement designed to provide context to the president’s remarks.

Prescott said that “in a sense, this was always the issue, just what Trump would do or say — would he put the king in an embarrassing position?’’ Prescott said.

“You always had that sort of issue of what he would post on social media,” he said. “And I think, you know, this could have been much, much worse.”

Before the state dinner, Charles gave a speech to a joint session of U.S. Congress. The king received repeated standing ovations during the address, which celebrated the longstanding bonds between the U.S. and Britain while nodding to differences over NATO, support for Ukraine and the need to combat climate change.

Now, from the U.K. government’s point of view, the trip is shifting to safer ground as the king and queen leave Washington behind and head to New York, where the focus will be on the city’s creative industries, rather than politics.

The most difficult part of the trip may be over, Prescott said.

“If this is the only controversy arising out of this phase of the state visit, I think overall this has been an enormous success for the king and the British government, because the king was able to make some quite pointed remarks in Congress and it hasn’t really yielded any sort of negative reaction from the president.”

“In a sense,” he said, “you get the feeling that the king rather charmed Washington with his speech to Congress and, you know, his very witty speech at the state banquet.”

Kirka writes for the Associated Press.

Britain’s King Charles III has used a speech in front of the United States Congress to pledge NATO unity and call for support for Ukraine amid Russia’s ongoing invasion.

The address on Tuesday came during the royal’s four-day visit to the US, with the US-Israel war with Iran, US President Donald Trump’s criticism of NATO, and trade tensions between the longtime allies looming large.

But Charles avoided any reference to specific frictions during his speech at the US Capitol, instead striking a light tone in his joke-heavy opening.

He praised what he called the shared history and values of the two countries, quipping at one point that Washington, DC was “a tale of two Georges”, the first US President George Washington and his ancestor, the UK’s King George.

He assured lawmakers, to laughs, he was not in the US “as part of some cunning rearguard action” in a delayed continuation of the Revolutionary War.

“I am here on this great occasion in the life of our nations to express the highest regard and friendship of the British people to the people of the United States,” the sovereign said to repeated standing ovations.

But amid broad themes of unity, more pointed messages lurked.

Charles did not directly address the US-Israel war with Iran or Trump’s outspoken criticism of NATO allies who have rejected joining Washington’s war efforts.

Instead, he praised support for NATO and the alliance’s invocation of its Article 5 collective defence treaty in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

“We answered the call together, as our people have done so for more than a century, shoulder to shoulder through two world wars, the Cold War, Afghanistan and moments that have defined our shared security,” he said.

He then turned to funding for Ukraine, an increasingly pointed issue in the Republican-controlled US Congress.

“Today, Mr Speaker, that same unyielding resolve is needed for the defence of Ukraine and her most courageous people,” he said, referring to House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In one instance, Charles hailed the “$430 billion in annual trade that continues to grow, the $1.7 trillion in mutual investment that fuels that innovation”.

Last week, Trump threatened to impose a “big tariff” on the UK if it did not drop a digital services tax on US tech companies.

At another point, Charles pointed to global environmental concerns.

“We ignore, at our peril, the fact that these natural systems, in other words, nature’s own economy, provide the foundation for our prosperity and our national security,” he said.

Trump has called climate change a “con job” and withdrew from the landmark Paris Agreement climate accords during his first and second terms. His administration has since pursued deregulation of fossil fuels and pivoted away from green energy, an approach embraced by many members of the president’s Republican party.

Other messages appeared to gently reference political trends in the US, where critics have accused Trump of using the Department of Justice for political retribution and of overturning long-standing norms of presidential authority.

Charles described the “common ideals” of the US and UK: “The rule of law, the certainty of stable and accessible rules, an independent judiciary, resolving disputes and delivering impartial justice”.

He also drew a throughline between the Magna Carta, the 13th-century document that established that the British king was subject to law, and constitutional and legal precedent in the US, calling it “the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances”.

The address came shortly before Trump was set to host Charles and his wife, Queen Camilla, for an official state dinner.

The pair were then set to visit New York and Virginia, before an official farewell ceremony at the White House on Thursday.

LONDON — The challenge for King Charles III as he arrives in the United States this week is, as always, to live up to his mother’s example.

The late Queen Elizabeth II wowed Congress in 1991 with a speech that celebrated the shared democratic traditions of Britain and the United States, quoted Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ralph Waldo Emerson, and highlighted the deep bonds between the two nations.

Those themes will also be at the top of Charles’ agenda as he celebrates America’s 250th birthday and seeks to calm tensions surrounding Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s refusal to support President Trump’s war against Iran, said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University in Texas.

“We’ve got to always make the distinction that there’s a difference between the government of the U.K. and the kings and queens of Great Britain, who are really always coming to try to put [on] a good face,” Brinkley told the Associated Press. “Politics come and go; prime ministers, presidents, come and go; but there’s something deeper about the special relationship between the United States and the U.K.”

Charles and Queen Camilla begin a four-day trip on Monday, when they will have tea with the president and First Lady Melania Trump, then tour the White House beehive, in a nod to the king’s focus on the environment.

The formal arrival ceremony will take place Tuesday, with a 21-gun salute, brass bands playing the national anthems of both countries and a contingent of U.S. service members passing in review. The ceremonies will be followed by a meeting between Trump and Charles.

Behind the scenes

But beneath the pomp and pageantry will be a carefully choreographed diplomatic event staged, like all royal visits, at the request of the British government. Starmer resisted pressure to cancel it after Trump belittled the British military’s sacrifices in Afghanistan and criticized him personally for failing to back the U.S. in its war alongside Israel against Iran.

Despite those tensions, Trump has continued to speak warmly about Charles.

“History has shown that President Trump really tries to be impressive whenever he’s dealing with British royalty,” Brinkley said. “And I’m sure it’ll be the same this time around.”

Ever since 1939, when King George VI became the first British monarch to set foot on the soil of the country’s former colony, there’s been a special sort of excitement whenever the royals come to the United States.

Take that first visit, which took place as World War II loomed over Europe. The royals toured the East Coast and attended a picnic at President Roosevelt’s private home in Hyde Park, N.Y. “King tries hot dog and asks for more,’’ declared the New York Times.

But the big moment was when the royals traveled to Mount Vernon to lay a wreath at the tomb of George Washington. It showed respect at a time of isolationism.

“People could see the handwriting on the wall and know that it was going to be important for the United States and Britain to stay strong for fighting against Hitler,” said Barbara Perry, a presidential scholar at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center.

But bonding over sausages had broader benefits, helping the royals build links to the general public as well as its leadership. After war broke out in September 1939, Queen Elizabeth, the wife of George VI and mother of the future Elizabeth II, wrote to First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt to say how moved she’d been by letters from Americans who enclosed small sums for British forces.

“Sometimes, during the last terrible months, we have felt rather lonely in our fight against evil things, but I can honestly say that our hearts have been lightened by the knowledge that friends in America understand what we are fighting for,’’ she wrote.

The queen’s connection

Queen Elizabeth II built on those relationships, making four state visits to the U.S. during her 70-year reign. She joined President Ford in celebrating America’s bicentennial in 1976 and met with President George W. Bush in 2007 as British and American forces fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Smoothing turbulent waters and reminding both sides about their common bonds were what those trips were all about.

Charles’ visit will be no different. It includes a commemoration of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a ceremony honoring fallen service members and an event to be attended by Queen Camilla to mark the 100th anniversary of Winnie the Pooh stories by British author A.A. Milne.

Certain events will be avoided.

The royals won’t meet with Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, despite calls for the king to address his accusations related to his brother Andrew’s links to the convicted sex offender. Nor are there plans for Charles to meet with his son Prince Harry, who has been a critic of the monarchy since giving up royal duties and moving to California.

Those issues aren’t the priority, said Robert Hardman, author of “Elizabeth II: In Private. In Public. The Inside Story.”

“He’s going because 250 years ago the Founding Fathers of the USA kicked out his great-times-five grandfather, and he’s going to say, `No hard feelings, it’s been a great divorce, we’ve had a lovely 250 years and let’s reflect on the high points,’’’ Hardman said. “I mean, there are going to be some very, very large elephants in the room during that visit … but, you know, there are plenty of other things for the king to focus on.”

History, not politics

Charles’ speech to a joint session of Congress offers the chance to deliver the message that long-term friendship is more important than transient disputes.

He is also likely to offer a bit of humor, as his mother did when she addressed lawmakers in 1991.

Wearing soft peach amid a sea of gray suits, the diminutive monarch began her remarks with a joke about an earlier blunder at the White House when her lectern was so tall it obscured the audience’s view of her.

“I do hope you can see me today from where you are,’’ she deadpanned.

The chamber erupted in laughter. A standing ovation followed. Then she launched into a speech about democratic values, the rule of law and the Atlantic Alliance — the foundation of NATO.

Those are values that critics of the current U.S. administration say it has retreated from in recent years. But Charles will offer his own take on those ideas, Brinkley said.

“The theme of the speech is going to be American exceptionalism, American history, the importance of U.S.-British alliance, and some memories from the past,” he said. “But also about the love affair the two countries share with each other, even though it goes over rocky rapids from time to time.”

Kirka writes for the Associated Press.

President Obama is planning to speak in the “near future” on U.S. policy in the Mideast, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday.

“It’s a speech to a broader audience than just the Arab world,” Carney said at his televised briefing. He didn’t specify when or where the president will speak, but said it will be in “the relatively near future.”

Obama is scheduled to begin a five-day European trip May 23.

The speech will come as the United States faces a slew of issues in the Middle East, including pro-democracy uprisings in several countries, a stalled Mideast peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, and the ongoing issue of nuclear proliferation and Iran.

The speech also will come within weeks of the U.S. raid in Pakistan during which terrorist leader Osama bin Laden was killed. The raid has raised questions from some about the future of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, which the West invaded seeking to end the Taliban state that was sheltering terrorists after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The raid has also raised questions about what Pakistan leaders knew about Bin Laden and whether the founder of Al Qaeda was being protected by elements of the Pakistani intelligence community.

Obama is scheduled to meet next week with Jordan’s King Abdullah II, a strong U.S. ally, and with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been invited to address Congress. Efforts to bring peace between Netanyahu’s government and the Palestinians have bogged down despite early U.S. efforts. Complicating that issue is the apparent reconciliation between Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian National Authority, and Hamas, which controls Gaza, the other part of the Palestinian entity. Israel and the United States view Hamas as a terrorist group.

In 2009, Obama visited Cairo in what was billed as an overture to the Islamic world, still smarting from the Bush years and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama mainly spoke of the positive power of Islam as a world force.

Since then, much of the Arab world has been shattered by ongoing pro-democracy revolutions and, in some cases, civil wars and extensive state repression.

In some countries, notably Syria and Libya, where the United States has had long-term questions about the rulers, the United States strongly condemned the use of force against citizens and took even more severe actions. The Obama administration helped engineer a United Nations resolution that has imposed a no-fly zone on Libya, which is being enforced by NATO. The Obama administration has also spoken out forcefully against Syria’s violence against its citizens.

Though it has condemned state violence, the Obama administration has been less forceful with some nations with friendlier governments, such as Yemen and Bahrain, and it was slow to condemn Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, who was eventually deposed by the military after extensive demonstrations.

Michael.muskal@latimes.com

Twitter.com/LATimesmuskal

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, leading a Pentagon prayer meeting, quoted a fictional bible verse taken from a violent monologue in Quentin Tarantino’s 1994 film “Pulp Fiction,” originally delivered by actor Samuel L. Jackson just before his character shoots a helpless man to death.

The secretary used the prayer to frame the war in Iran as an act of divine justice, the same justification Jackson’s character cites in the film before pulling the trigger.

Hegseth told the audience at a monthly Pentagon worship service held Wednesday that he learned the prayer from the lead mission planner of a team called “Sandy 1,” which recently rescued downed Air Force crew members in Iran.

Hegseth said the verse is frequently spoken by combat search-and-rescue crews, who call the prayer “CSAR 25:17, which I think is meant to reflect Ezekiel 25:17” from the Bible.

“And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to capture and destroy my brother,” Hegseth recited. “And you will know my call sign is Sandy 1, when I lay my vengeance upon thee.”

The infamous Ezekiel 25:17 speech from “Pulp Fiction” is almost entirely a screenwriter’s creation; only the final refrain is loosely inspired by the actual biblical verse. The majority of the monologue in Tarantino’s film is adapted from the opening of the 1976 Japanese martial arts film “The Bodyguard,” with action star Sonny Chiba.

Hegseth’s minute-long prayer closely followed those scripts, with only the last two lines resembling language from the Bible. In Hegseth’s version, he replaced “and they shall know that I am the Lord,” from the book of Ezekiel with the call sign for a U.S. A-10 Warthog aircraft.

Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell said some outlets accused Hegseth of mistaking Jackson’s Golden Globe-winning performance with actual scripture, and called that narrative “fake news.”

“Secretary Hegseth on Wednesday shared a custom prayer, referenced as the CSAR prayer, used by the brave warfighters of Sandy-1 who led the daylight rescue mission of Dude 44 Alpha out of Iran, which was obviously inspired by dialogue in Pulp Fiction,” Parnell wrote on X. “However, both the CSAR prayer and the dialogue in Pulp Fiction were reflections of the verse Ezekiel 25:17, as Secretary Hegseth clearly said in his remarks at the prayer service. Anyone saying the Secretary misquoted Ezekiel 25:17 is peddling fake news and ignorant of reality.”

Hegseth has frequently used his prayer sessions to call for violence in the ongoing Iran war. In last month’s sermon, he asked God to “grant this task force clear and righteous targets for violence.”

The services are not mandatory, a senior defense analyst with knowledge of Pentagon operations told The Times, but some who work closely with Hegseth’s office feel an “implied pressure” to attend and “fill seats.”

The effect — some feel — is less attention on the Pentagon’s wartime efforts, and more on supporting political stunts, according to the source, who is not authorized to speak to the media and requested anonymity.

“We have managers and leaders that are missing mission critical work to go listen to ‘Pulp Fiction’ quotes,” the source said. “It delays our ability to make operational, mission related war-fighting decisions.”

The prayer came amid an ongoing clash between the Trump administration and Pope Leo XIV, who has spoken out in recent weeks against the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran. Statements from the Vatican were met with a series of reprisals from President Trump, who said he doesn’t “want a pope” who criticizes the president of the United States.

On Thursday, the pope released a statement against military leaders who conflate war with divinity.

“Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic, and political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth,” he said.