Connect with us

Diplomacy

The Vatican vs. MAGA: Pope Leo XIV leads a Catholic resistance against Christian nationalism

Published

on

Tensions are quietly escalating in the US between Donald Trump’s “MAGA” base and Christian nationalism on one side, and the Catholic Church under Pope Leo XIV on the other.

According to a report by Vox, the religious right is increasingly utilizing scripture and faith to justify and defend President Trump’s policies and burgeoning Christian nationalist sentiments. In contrast, the American Catholic Church is undergoing a profound transformation under the leadership of Pope Leo XIV.

Through new appointments, directives urging bishops to speak out on immigration, and public statements critical of the US’s trajectory under the Trump administration, the Pope is positioning his bishops and priests as missionaries for human dignity. In doing so, he has established the clergy as a counterbalance to the authoritarian and nationalist tendencies of the right.

While the Church has long played a role in US politics, Christopher Hale—a Catholic author, political activist, and owner of the Letters from Leo blog—argues that Pope Leo’s interventions represent something fundamentally new.

Hale suggests that in the absence of a well-organized “religious left” in the US, Leo’s steps to reform and shake up the American Catholic Church are revitalizing a “Catholic left.” This movement is taking a stand against the moral struggles of the 2020s, particularly regarding immigration and the spread of authoritarianism.

Leo’s plan to reorganize the American Church

According to Hale, Leo’s primary concern was the growing perception of the US Catholic Church as “reactionary.”

In New York, for example, Cardinal Timothy Dolan was known as “personable, charming, and friendly,” yet he was conspicuously identified with the political right.

His successor, Archbishop Ronald Hicks, appears somewhat less comfortable in front of the media but excels in his relationship with parishioners and is widely beloved among lay Catholics.

Hale acknowledges that the liberal dream of “replacing right-wing culture warriors with left-wing culture warriors” is unlikely to be fully realized. However, he points out the importance of recognizing that priests and bishops in the US Catholic Church tend to be significantly more conservative than their international counterparts.

While noting that the Pope attempts to avoid the “culture wars” in the US and does not wish to be “used as a weapon by either the left or the right,” Hale argues it is impossible to ignore Leo when he speaks on immigration and mass deportations.

Will Leo declare war on “MAGA authoritarianism”?

Hale observed that throughout the summer, Leo appeared frustrated by the USCCB (the leadership body of the US Church) for failing to speak with a unified voice, as bishops instead mobilized in a scattered fashion.

“For this reason, in October, he made it very clear that the church could not remain silent and must speak as one on this issue. A month later, the bishops acted almost unanimously, adopting the harshest stance toward the administration seen since the organization’s inception. This would not have happened during the Francis era; it would have been explained away or overlooked. The sensitivity of US bishops—particularly conservative ones—has increased extraordinarily over the past year. They have raised their voices in ways I don’t think they would have during Francis’s papacy.”

Hale further suggests that just as cardinals chose a Polish pope from behind the Soviet “Iron Curtain” to defeat communism, “God has chosen a pope from the Americas to defeat the spread of MAGA authoritarianism.”

“But I want to be very careful: John Paul II did not do this solely for the Polish people, but for the global community.

Similarly, I believe Pope Leo XIV views authoritarianism as something originating from America, but he is working to eliminate it for the benefit of the global community, not just for America’s sake. He reacts as strongly to any American intervention abroad as he does to specific domestic issues.”

Contending that Leo views “authoritarian regimes as a threat to human life,” Hale notes, “While his predecessors spoke extensively about abortion, in the single year Leo has been pope, he has spoken about immigration, war, and ecology a hundred times more often than he has mentioned abortion.”

Christian nationalism: A Protestant-Evangelical alliance against Catholicism

The author argues that the Christian nationalism Trump is associated with has no room for Catholics. “Christian nationalism is evangelical Protestant nationalism. It is vital to understand that the leaders of this movement do not believe Catholics are Christians; they do not believe we can achieve salvation,” he says.

“Christian nationalism and its sibling, MAGA authoritarianism, are inherently anti-Catholic. To be blunt, I am making a classist argument: I am saying that my class and my ethnic identity are excluded from this project. Yes, there is a war; it is a culture war that I welcome. The culture war between multi-ethnic American Catholicism and white evangelical Protestantism is one that the left can win.”

Claiming that the Pope believes the “authoritarian” trend in the US is more dangerous than any other issue, including immigration, Hale asserts, “Even conservative Catholic bishops see the limits of this Christian nationalism project.”

Arguing that they must oppose the Trump administration more directly and cannot rely on the president’s “goodwill and whims,” Hale concludes, “I am not sure of the existence of a religious left in this country, but the second Trump administration has shown me that a Catholic left certainly exists.”

JD Vance in the crosshairs of Catholic criticism

The most direct and sharpest Catholic outcry against the US administration followed the killing of Renee Good by ICE in Minneapolis.

In the aftermath of the killing, the White House—and Vice President JD Vance in particular—faced significant backlash for accusing Good of “terrorism.” In posts on X and during White House briefings, Vance argued that Good’s death was a “tragedy of her own making” and claimed she was “part of a broader leftist network” intent on attacking ICE officers.

In a scathing op-ed published shortly after, the National Catholic Reporter accused Vance of “justifying” Good’s killing, stating his comments were a “moral stain on the collective witness of our Catholic faith.”

Digital editor John Grosso wrote:

“In the past, a politician would offer thoughts and prayers, encourage those reacting to wait for the full results of an investigation, and generally try to calm the atmosphere. A leader could have used the opportunity of a new day to soothe the nation’s broken heart.”

Grosso argued that “as a Catholic,” Vance knows better than to engage in such manipulation and provocation, using harsh terms:

“Vance knows that only God can take a life. Vance knows that protesting, fleeing, or even interfering with an ICE investigation (for which there is no evidence Good did) does not warrant a death penalty. Vance knows that lying and killing are sins.”

The author continued, “He does not care. Vance’s distorted and false understanding of Christianity has been rejected by two popes.”

Grosso further stated that he views Vance’s Catholicism as a “simple tool for his career ambitions and desire for power.”

Immigration policy draws fire from bishops

In 2025, Pope Francis declined to attend an official meeting in the Vatican with Vance, sending Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin in his place to deliver a lecture on “compassion and migrant rights.”

The following day, Francis offered the vice president only a brief Easter greeting.

Francis’s final months were marked by increasingly sharp criticism, describing the mass deportations of the Trump era as “shameful” and “anti-Christian.” Shortly before passing away at the age of 88, he reportedly condemned Vance behind closed doors for the White House’s treatment of migrants.

His successor, Pope Leo XIV, also appears to be distancing himself from Trump’s immigration policy. When Vance traveled to Rome last year to represent the US delegation at Leo’s inauguration mass, the new pope greeted him briefly in public but held private meetings that same day with the presidents of Ukraine and Peru.

A longer meeting with Vance took place a day later, but the Vatican’s statement emphasized humanitarian concerns and “current international issues,” which was interpreted as a subtle signal of disagreement.

Outside of Rome, Catholic criticism of the administration’s immigration campaign has intensified. An article published on the Letters From Leo website stated that the new crackdown policy—supported by Trump’s “ostensibly Catholic Vice President JD Vance”—has led to “increased inhumane treatment” and noted these policies have faced “harsh criticism from two popes and the vast majority of bishops.”

In a lead article titled “Every Catholic Should Resign from ICE,” the text argues: “After a year of inhumane raids and papal condemnations, it is clear that no Catholic can, in good conscience, remain in ICE.”

Pope Leo’s silent resistance to American hegemony

In a speech delivered on January 9, Pope Leo XIV addressed global issues and alluded to his opposition to the Trump administration’s practices.

For example, Leo noted that peace is no longer sought as a gift but “through weapons as a condition for asserting one’s dominance,” and warned that this path “seriously threatens the rule of law.”

“War has come back into fashion, and the passion for war is spreading,” Leo warned, arguing that the principle prohibiting countries from invading their neighbors—established after World War II—has been “completely undermined,” with military force replacing dialogue.

Touching upon the abduction of Nicolas Maduro by the US, the Pope reiterated his call for “respect for the will of the Venezuelan people and the protection of the human and civil rights of all people.”

In his official address, Leo issued a direct jab at the US by condemning “power-based diplomacy” that endangers all peoples.

Following the speech, a tense interaction occurred between the US Ambassador to the Vatican, Brian Burch, and Leo during the formal greetings.

Burch had previously issued a statement suggesting that Leo actually supported Trump, aiming to justify the US invasion of Venezuela.

Like Francis before him, Leo listed conflicts ranging from Ukraine to the Holy Land and called for an immediate ceasefire in war zones.

Furthermore, he called for the revitalization of multilateral institutions, urging the United Nations to refocus on uniting humanity and mitigating the “devastating effects of war.”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Iran rejects Turkish foreign minister’s comparison of regional policy to Israel

Published

10 hours ago

on

13/07/2026

By

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei strongly criticized Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan’s recent statements comparing Iran’s regional actions to those of Israel, calling the comparison “astonishing and incorrect” during his weekly press conference.

In a comprehensive briefing on Monday, Baghaei addressed a wide range of foreign policy developments and regional security matters, including relations with Türkiye, the current state of diplomatic understandings with the United States, and Iran’s nuclear program.

“Hakan Fidan’s comparison is astonishing and incorrect”

When asked about Fidan’s assertions regarding Iran and his comparison of Iranian actions to those of the Israeli government, Baghaei sharply rejected the assessment.

“It is astonishing that a figure of Mr. Fidan’s standing would make such an unwarranted comparison,” Baghaei said. “He knows very well that the Israeli regime is expansionist by nature and seeks to harm the entire region, including Türkiye. How they arrived at such a bizarre comparison remains a major question for us.”

Baghaei asserted that Iran maintains no proxy forces in the region and argued that Israel represents the only true proxy entity in the Middle East. “We ask our Turkish friends to align their analyses with existing realities and to avoid repeating analyses that serve the exploitative interests of the Israeli regime,” the spokesperson added.

The remarks follow recent statements by Fidan, in which he addressed the ongoing conflict involving Hezbollah and Hamas, describing them as Iranian proxies in the region.

“We need to return to a situation where the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every nation is fully recognized,” Fidan had stated. “Iran has long claimed to pursue a preventive security policy by maintaining proxies in these countries, just as the Israelis occupy the rest of the region as part of their own security.”

“The Islamabad Agreement has entered a crisis phase”

Responding to a question regarding the status of the Islamabad Agreement, Baghaei stated: “There is no doubt that this agreement has entered a crisis phase.”

While emphasizing that Iran approaches all negotiations with seriousness and precision, and fulfills its commitments in good faith once an agreement is reached, Baghaei accused the opposing party of failing to honor its pledges.

“They were so eager to breach the agreement that they did not even allow the one-month period specified in Article 5 regarding the Strait of Hormuz to run its course. They began backsliding from the very first days,” Baghaei said. “Looking at the 14 articles of the memorandum of understanding, the Americans dismantled different components of the agreement within this short timeframe. We have maintained from the beginning that it is a matter of ‘commitment for commitment.’ As long as the other party fulfills its obligations, we will remain committed to ours.”

“We reject the IAEA’s request to access damaged facilities”

Asked about the request by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi for inspectors to return to Iran and visit damaged nuclear facilities, Baghaei delivered a flat rejection, stating that the request would not be granted.

Addressing separate reports regarding satellite imagery of nuclear facility reconstruction, Baghaei noted that he had not yet seen the satellite images in question and therefore declined to comment.

“We will not allow the Strait of Hormuz to be threatened by the US”

Commenting on maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz and allegations that the United States is providing military escorts to 20 vessels, Baghaei reiterated Iran’s opposition to the presence of extra-regional forces.

Baghaei stated that regional security can only be achieved without foreign intervention, through consultative mechanisms among regional countries. He added that the US military presence is a source of insecurity in the region.

“We will not allow the Strait of Hormuz to become an area of threat against Iran’s interests,” the spokesperson said. “We made genuine efforts to ensure navigation security, but the US was the party that undermined the process. The claims regarding vessel escorts demonstrate that the US is continuing its interventionist and aggressive policies in the region.”

Regarding the interpretation of Article 5 of the memorandum of understanding, Baghaei stated that the text is clear and leaves no room for interpretation.

He noted that provisions designating the management of the strait to Iran, in consultation with Oman, were included in the text to protect Iranian interests. He added that the US is attempting to establish parallel routes by provoking regional countries, which he warned causes environmental issues and jeopardizes maritime safety.

“The declaration by the three European countries is null and void”

Referring to a joint declaration issued by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Baghaei dismissed the statement as entirely invalid, accusing the European nations of attempting to distort facts.

He stated that the actions of the US and Israel are the source of instability and harm in both the region and the wider world, adding that such declarations do not contribute to any resolution.

Addressing claims made by the French Foreign Minister, Baghaei added that French officials should cease attempting to assume roles in matters that do not concern them.

“We have not conditioned cooperation with Afghanistan on recognition”

Baghaei provided details on a recent visit to Afghanistan by Alireza Jalalzadeh, the Deputy Foreign Minister for Consular Affairs, noting that discussions were conducted within the framework of consular affairs and people-to-people relations.

Highlighting that Iran shares a border of more than 900 kilometers with Afghanistan, hosts a large number of Afghan migrants, and maintains extensive commercial ties, Baghaei said: “We have not conditioned the official recognition of the Afghan administration on the cooperation necessary for the interests of both countries. The recognition process is a legal procedure, and a decision on this matter will be made when the time comes.”

“We do not make decisions on behalf of Lebanon”

Rejecting allegations that Iran is interfering in the internal affairs of Lebanon and Oman, Baghaei said: “We do not make decisions on behalf of anyone. The inclusion of Lebanon’s name in the memorandum of understanding demonstrates Iran’s sense of responsibility toward maintaining international security. In the first article of the text, we emphasized the need to end the war on all fronts, including Lebanon. This is not a matter of decision-making; the decision belongs to the Lebanese people.”

Addressing international pressure regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah, Baghaei stated that the Lebanese people are best positioned to understand the value of the resistance’s weapons in protecting their sovereignty, and that any decision on the matter rests solely with them.

“Trump’s claims are false”

Baghaei denied claims made by former US President Donald Trump regarding Iran’s conduct during nuclear negotiations.

“Lying has become a behavioral pattern and an addiction for the US,” Baghaei said. “The talks held in Muscat on Saturday focused exclusively on the Strait of Hormuz. We attempted to establish a mechanism to ensure the safe passage of vessels through Omani mediation, but this outcome was not reached due to pressure exerted on Oman.”

He added that alleged assassination plots against Trump were never a subject of negotiation.

“The death of Lindsey Graham will not grieve free people”

When asked to comment on the death of US Senator Lindsey Graham, Baghaei remarked:

“The Angel of Death is just. One cannot expect the peoples of the region to mourn a figure who built his life philosophy on aggression, war, and terror, and who boasted of being the greatest supporter of genocide. The death of this aggressive senator will not grieve the heart of any free person.”

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

NATO leadership sees no evidence of Russian preparations for attack on Baltics by 2030

Published

10 hours ago

on

13/07/2026

By

The military and political leadership of NATO sees no evidence that Russia is preparing for a potential attack on the Baltic states by 2030, according to a report by The Times, citing a senior alliance source.

“I see absolutely no sign that Russia is interested in engaging in any conflict with NATO,” the high-ranking source told the newspaper. The official added that they had no intention of speculating on the date of a potential conflict, as some other officials within the alliance have done.

The Times noted that rhetoric suggesting an open military conflict between NATO and Russia could begin in 2030 is primarily being used to mobilize the resources of the alliance’s member states. The report stated that this framing aims to encourage members to meet a defense spending target set at 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035. Speaking to the newspaper on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, Martin O’Donnell, spokesperson for the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), said that allies currently have a “window of opportunity” to build up the capabilities already agreed upon.

Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has previously stated that the militarization of Europe would require Russia to take additional measures to guarantee its national security.

As the implications of these developments continue to play out in the military arena, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda announced on July 9 that NATO leadership has converted the mandate of the Baltic air policing mission from air patrol to a combat footing.

The day before this decision, leaders attending the NATO summit in Ankara pointed to the “long-term threat Russia poses to Euro-Atlantic security and stability” in a joint declaration.

NATO has repeatedly expressed concerns over a potential conflict with Russia. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has urged member states not to be “naive” about threats coming from Russia and to increase their defense spending. Similarly, the commander of the German Army, Christian Freuding, asserted on June 12 that his country must “be ready for a Russian attack” by 2029 or sooner, stating, “We must be ready for war.”

In contrast, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko claimed in a June 22 interview with the Izvestia newspaper that NATO and the European Union are preparing for a military conflict with Russia on the horizon of 2030. Grushko noted that from a military perspective, there is now little difference between NATO and the EU regarding aggressive ambitions toward Moscow, and that their main objective is to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.

The Moscow administration has repeatedly emphasized that it has no intention of attacking Europe. Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that there are no geopolitical, economic, or military reasons to fight the alliance. Nevertheless, Putin has also stated that “all NATO countries are virtually at war with Russia.”

Last year, representatives of NATO countries approved a declaration agreeing to raise military spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. Under this target, 3.5% of spending is projected to go directly to the military budget, while 1.5% is to be allocated indirectly to defense through cybersecurity and the modernization of highways.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Zelenskyy announces sweeping Ukrainian cabinet shakeup as Prime Minister Sviridenko resigns

Published

11 hours ago

on

13/07/2026

By

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has announced a sweeping structural overhaul of the government, confirming that a new prime minister will soon take office.

Following the announcement, the Ukrainian leader held a series of meetings over a two-and-a-half-hour period with potential candidates positioned to succeed Yulia Sviridenko as prime minister.

“Political strategy is changing”

Writing on his Telegram channel, Zelenskyy announced that the structure of the cabinet of ministers will change and that Sviridenko, who is stepping down from her post, will be assigned to a new role.

The Ukrainian president stated that the country is renewing its political strategy. Under the new approach, specific individuals with extensive experience will be put in charge of each priority foreign policy direction to implement agreements reached at the leadership level and to meet the expectations of the Ukrainian people.

Approximately one hour after Zelenskyy’s statement, Sviridenko confirmed her departure from the post of Prime Minister of Ukraine via a message on social media.

Thanking the president for his high valuation of her work, Sviridenko stated that she and Zelenskyy had discussed future steps.

Sviridenko began her career in the Ukrainian government in 2019 as Deputy Minister of Economy. Between 2020 and 2021, she served as deputy head of the presidential office, during which time she participated in negotiations regarding the Donbas.

In November 2021, she assumed control of economic management as First Deputy Prime Minister. In the spring of 2025, she signed a resource agreement with the US on behalf of Ukraine.

Zelenksyy proposed that Sviridenko lead the government in July 2025, and the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, approved her candidacy with 262 votes in a session held on July 17, 2025.

Prior to Sviridenko, Denys Shmyhal had led the cabinet since March 2020. He currently serves as the Minister of Energy.

Priority targets of the new cabinet established

Zelenskyy outlined the primary areas of focus for the renewed government, listing relations with the US—specifically licensing agreements for the production of Patriot systems and security cooperation—as top priorities.

Other core objectives include the European anti-ballistic missile project, the European Union accession process, relations with neighboring states—particularly Poland and Hungary—cooperation with the Middle East, the Gulf countries, and China, as well as relations with international organizations.

The Ukrainian leader also stressed the need to strengthen operations along the front lines and border regions, increase weapons supplies, complete winter preparations, accelerate the transformation of state-owned enterprises, and implement agreements reached with partners regarding the reconstruction of Ukraine.

Who could succeed Sviridenko as prime minister?

The last major reshuffle in the Ukrainian government took place a year ago, with Sviridenko assuming the premiership in July 2025.

Under Ukrainian law, the candidate for prime minister must be proposed by the majority coalition in the Verkhovna Rada.

Once appointed, the prime minister submits the majority of the cabinet members to parliament for approval.

Russian President Vladimir Putin previously stated that the only legitimate power in Ukraine is the Verkhovna Rada. According to Putin’s assessment, the only authority qualified to participate in peace talks is the speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, asserting that Zelenskyy lacks legitimacy and therefore has no authority to sign any document.

According to a report by the Ukrainska Pravda newspaper, citing sources familiar with the matter, potential candidates being considered for the premiership include:

  • Sergiy Koretskyy, Chairman of the Board of Naftogaz and Director of Ukrnafta
  • Denys Shmyhal, Minister of Energy
  • Mykhailo Fedorov, Minister of Defense
  • Ihor Terekhov, Mayor of Kharkiv

Zelenskyy announced that he met with all of these officials, as well as Ukrainian Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko, during the day.

Sources familiar with the matter who spoke to RBC-Ukraine stated that the president’s decision to renew the government came as a surprise to many. The sources informing the publication also put forward Koretskyy’s name for the premiership.

Sources speaking to Bloomberg also pointed to Koretskyy alongside Shmyhal. The agency reported that both Koretskyy and Shmyhal possess extensive experience in the energy sector, which partially explains their candidacy to succeed Sviridenko.

Meanwhile, Verkhovna Rada Deputy Yaroslav Zheleznyak reported that the parliamentary vote on the prime minister’s resignation could take place on July 13 or 14.

Zheleznyak stated that following this vote, the entire government will function in an interim capacity, with Shmyhal temporarily leading the administration in his capacity as deputy prime minister.

According to information shared by Zheleznyak, Sviridenko will become Ukraine’s new ambassador to the US. The Financial Times also reported, citing two sources, that the outgoing prime minister will be appointed to this post.

Zelenskyy stated that he had offered Sviridenko the opportunity to head a new and important direction in relations with a key partner, though he did not share specific details regarding which country or organization this would involve.

Subsequently, a report by the Interfax-Ukraine agency, citing sources, stated that Olga Stefanishyna, who currently serves as Ukraine’s Ambassador to the US, wishes to end her diplomatic service due to personal reasons.

Stefanishyna has held the post for less than a year, with Zelenskyy having signed the decree for her appointment in August 2025.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey