Trump talks God in his speech on bombing Iran. What did he say, what religion is he?
President Donald Trump addressed the nation on June 21 about the United States bombing Iranian nuclear sites following an escalating conflict with Israel.
Israel launched the first attacks on June 13 aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear program and missiles. Iran has retaliated with ballistic missiles. Iran and Israel are long-time enemies, and the U.S. is a key ally of Israel.
Trump said the goal behind the U.S. military's "Operation Midnight Hammer" was to destroy Iran's nuclear program, and he hoped the military wouldn't be needed in Iran anymore. But Iran is expected to retaliate.
Trump, a self-proclaimed non-denominational Christian, also evoked God in his four-minute speech. Here is what he said:
Read the transcript: What did Trump say in speech after US strikes on Iran?
How did Trump talk about God in the address about Iran strikes?
Trump signed off his address by thanking everyone.
"And in particular, God, I want to just say, we love you God, and we love our great military," Trump said. "Protect them. God bless the Middle East, God bless Israel, and God bless America. Thank you very much. Thank you."
Trump deemed the strikes a "spectacular military success," but no independent assessment of the damage to the nuclear sites has been conducted as of June 23. Israel also amped up airstrikes on Monday.
Iranian officials have said more than 400 people have been killed since Israel's attacks began, Reuters reported; Iran's counterstrikes have resulted in at least 24 deaths in Israel.
What religion is Donald Trump?
Trump once identified as a Presbyterian, but in 2020 he told Religion News Service he began considering himself a non-denominational Christian.
First lady Melania Trump, however, made news in 2017 when she met the late Pope Francis and revealed she is Catholic when asking the pontiff to bless her rosary beads.
Pope Leo said during a weekly prayer on June 22 that the international community must "stop the tragedy of war before it becomes an irreparable abyss," according to Reuters.
Watch Trump's address to the nation:
Contributing: Sarah D. Wire, Erin Mansfield, USA TODAY
Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@gannett.com. Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @kinseycrowley.bsky.social.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
28 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Trump Wants to ‘Make Iran Great Again'
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. When Donald Trump raised the idea of toppling Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei yesterday, it wasn't just the idea that was surprising. It was the particular phrase he used to describe it. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' he posted yesterday on Truth Social. The phrase became toxic for a reason. Two years ago, an essay in the Claremont Review of Books noted that regime change entered the popular lexicon in 'the early days of the 9/11 wars, when the Bush (43) Administration argued that the security of America and of the entire world depended not merely on defeating hostile countries militarily but on changing their governments into ones more inherently peaceable and favorable to our interests.' Of course, regimes change all the time, but regime change came to mean 'external, forcible transformation from 'authoritarianism' or 'dictatorship.'' This sounds very much like what Trump is discussing. Having switched from discouraging Israeli military strikes against Iran to joining them, he appears to now be toying with broader ambitions. (Trump offers few endorsements stronger than calling something 'politically incorrect.') But the writer of the Claremont Review essay, a prominent right-wing intellectual, warned about such projects. 'We know how that worked out. Regimes were changed all right, but not into democracies,' he wrote. 'And some of them—e.g., the one in Afghanistan—20 years later changed back to the same regime American firepower had overthrown in 2001.' That writer was Michael Anton. Today he is the director of the policy-planning staff at the State Department (a bit of an oxymoron in this administration), and in April, the White House named him to lead the U.S. delegation at technical talks with Iran on a nuclear deal—negotiations that are presumably irrelevant for the time being. Trump's abrupt shift has thrown the MAGA right into acrimony. In truth, the president has never been a pacificist, as I wrote last week. During the 2016 GOP primary, Trump cannily grasped public anger at the Iraq War and turned it against his rivals. Thinkers such as Anton and politicians such as Vice President J. D. Vance then tried to retrofit a more complete ideology of retrenchment and restraint onto it, but Trump is an improviser, not an ideologue. No one should have been too surprised by the president's order to bomb. Still, his rhetorical embrace of regime change was stunning even to those who never bought into his identity as a dove, and certainly to some of his aides. Perhaps Anton was not surprised to see his view so cavalierly discarded; after all, he once likened backing Trump to playing Russian roulette. But Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were unprepared for the change in rhetoric. Rubio solemnly told Fox Business that the U.S. is not at war with the country it just dropped hundreds of thousands of pounds of ordnance on. Vance, on Meet the Press, insisted, 'Our view has been very clear that we don't want a regime change. We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it's already been built out.' A few hours later, Trump contradicted him directly, in what would have been embarrassing for someone still capable of the emotion. Vance's views on foreign policy are deeply shaped by the Iraq War, in which he served. Now his boss is at risk of speedwalking that conflict one country to the east. The Iraq War was the product of months of preparation by the George W. Bush administration: military mobilization, avid though unsuccessful attempts to rally international support, an extended period of manufacturing consensus in Congress and in the American public. Yet despite that work, and as even proponents of regime change in Iran acknowledge, the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War was a disaster, perhaps the worst American foreign-policy blunder in history. The U.S. government had good war plans for getting rid of Saddam Hussein's regime but had not effectively thought through what would happen after that. Trump has done even less of that thinking, and leads a nation far more politically divided and warier of foreign intervention. Americans have long viewed Iran negatively: A Fox News poll before this weekend's airstrikes found that roughly three-quarters of them view Iran as a 'real security threat.' Still, another poll earlier this month found that most don't want the U.S. to get involved in armed conflict there. A Pew Research Center poll in May even found that slightly more Americans think that the United States is its own 'greatest threat' than that Iran is. Trump's flippant transformation of 'Make America great again' into 'Make Iran great again' exemplifies the hubris of the Iraq War project that he had promised to leave behind. Just as U.S. officials claimed that Iraq could be easily and quickly converted into an American-style democracy, Trump wants to export his catchphrase to Iran, where the implementation would be even hazier than it is here. Iran is a country of some 90 million people, not a dollhouse to be rearranged. Can regime change work? The answer depends on how success is defined. In 1973, for example, the U.S. backed a coup in Chile, toppling the leftist leader Salvador Allende. It worked: Allende was killed and replaced by Augusto Pinochet, who created a stable, market-based, U.S.-friendly Chilean government. But doing that involved horrifying repression and the killing and disappearances of thousands of critics, leaving a black mark on the U.S. record. In another case of regime change, the U.S. government helped topple Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. This, too, was an immediate success. Mossadegh was removed, and the Washington-friendly Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was restored to power. But the legacy of the moment stretched on much longer. The shah was also brutally repressive, and Iranians remembered the 1953 coup bitterly. In 1979, a revolution swept Iran, deposing Pahlavi and installing a virulently anti-American government. That regime still rules in Tehran—for now, at least. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Iran launched strikes on a U.S. base in Qatar, which were intercepted by Qatar's air-defense system, according to the Qatari government. The Supreme Court temporarily allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to countries other than their own without giving them the chance to contest their removals. President Donald Trump called on 'everyone' to ' keep oil prices down ' after America's recent attack on Iranian nuclear sites sparked fear of higher oil prices. Dispatches Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read Extreme Violence Without Genocide By Graeme Wood Signs of violent criminality are ubiquitous in South Africa. Electric fences and guard dogs protect homes containing something worth stealing. Reported rapes, carjackings, and armed robberies all occur far more frequently than in the United States. In Bloemfontein, one of the safer cities, I asked a hotel clerk for directions to a coffee shop, and she said it was 'just across the road,' not more than 500 feet away. When I headed out on foot, she stopped me and said that for my safety, 'I would prefer that you drive.' More From The Atlantic Culture Break Play. In Death Stranding 2, people play as an unlikely hero: a courier who trips over rocks and experiences sunburn. It's the Amazonification of everything, now as a video game, Simon Parkin writes. Disconnect. Franklin Schneider has never owned a smartphone. And, based on the amount of social and libidinal energy that phones seem to have sucked from the world, he's not sure he ever wants to.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Media Matters sues to block FTC probe over Musk's X boycott claims
By Jody Godoy (Reuters) -Media Matters asked a court on Monday to block the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's probe into whether media watchdogs coordinated advertising boycotts, calling it retaliation for the group's criticism of Elon Musk, a major donor to Donald Trump's presidential campaign. The FTC demanded Media Matters hand over communications with other groups that evaluate misinformation and hate speech and documents related to lawsuits where Musk's social media platform, X, has accused some groups of orchestrating advertiser boycotts. Media Matters, a Washington, D.C.-based liberal advocacy group, said there is no basis to accuse it of coordinating a boycott, and that the FTC's demands have chilled its ability to publish articles on the agency and Musk. "The Court should put an end to the latest effort by the Trump Administration and Elon Musk's government allies to punish, intimidate, and harass Media Matters for publishing reporting they do not like," the group said. The FTC probe, first reported by Reuters on May 22, marked an escalation in U.S. government scrutiny into whether groups like Media Matters helped advertisers coordinate to pull ad dollars from X after Musk bought the social media site formerly known as Twitter in 2022. Media Matters said in its lawsuit on Monday that the court should block the request, as it did similar investigations by Republican attorneys general in Texas and Missouri. X sued Media Matters in 2023, accusing the organization of defaming it in an article that said ads for major brands had appeared next to posts on X that touted far-right extremist content. Media Matters has denied the allegations, and sued X earlier this year, accusing it of abusive, costly and meritless lawsuits to punish the group for its reporting on advertising on X after Musk purchased the site. The Media Matters said it found advertisements by IBM, Apple, Oracle and Comcast's Xfinity placed alongside posts touting Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party. "X initiated a vendetta-driven campaign of libel tourism, spanning three jurisdictions in three countries, all arising from the same conduct: Media Matters' use of X's platform in accordance with X's Terms of Service and its truthful reporting on the results," the complaint said.
Vox
35 minutes ago
- Vox
The Supreme Court's ugly new decision about torture, explained
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. In a short, one-paragraph order, the Republican justices ruled on Monday evening that President Donald Trump may effectively nullify a federal law and an international treaty that is supposed to protect immigrants from torture. The Court's order in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. does not explain the GOP's justices' reasoning, although Justice Sonia Sotomayor responds to their silent decision in a 19-page dissent joined by her two Democratic colleagues. The Court's order is only temporary, and will permit Trump to send immigrants to countries where they may be tortured while the D.V.D. case is fully litigated. It is possible that one or more of the Court's Republicans could reverse course at a later date. But it is hard to know what arguments might persuade them to do so because the justices in the majority did not explain why they decided this case the way they did. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Federal law requires that the United States shall not 'expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.' This statute implements a treaty, known as the Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified over three decades ago. Trump's lawyers, however, claim that they uncovered a loophole that permits the Trump administration to bypass these laws, at least with respect to some immigrants. Typically, before a noncitizen may be removed from the United States, they are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge. The immigration judge will inform the person facing deportation which countries they might be sent to, allowing the noncitizen to object to any countries where they fear they may be tortured. If the immigration judge determines that these objections are sufficiently serious to trigger the Convention Against Torture's protections, the judge may still issue an order permitting the immigrant to be deported — but not to the nation or nations the immigrant raised objections about. Related Trump asks the Supreme Court to neutralize the Convention Against Torture The D.V.D. case involves noncitizens who have already been through this process. In their case, an immigration judge determined that they may be deported, but not to specific countries. After the hearing process was complete, however, the Trump administration unexpectedly announced that it would deport the D.V.D. plaintiffs to other nations that were not previously under consideration. That means that no immigration judge has determined whether these immigrants may be sent to those particular nations, and the immigrants have not been given a meaningful opportunity to object to the new countries where they are about to be deported. Using this loophole, the Trump administration seeks to deport them without a new hearing. The Trump administration, moreover, appears to have intentionally selected countries where the noncitizens are likely to be unsafe. It wishes to deport many of these immigrants to South Sudan, for example, a country that was recently in a civil war, and where an uneasy peace appears to be collapsing. Others are slated for removal to Libya despite the fact that, according to Sotomayor's dissent, they 'would have landed in Tripoli in the midst of violence caused by opposition to their arrival.' The Trump administration, in other words, appears to have created a deadly trap for immigrants who fear torture in their home nations. These noncitizens may object to being sent home under the Convention Against Torture, and an immigration judge may even rule in their favor. But the Trump administration may still send them somewhere else even more dangerous.
