What US adults think about Pope Leo XIV, according to a new AP-NORC poll
WASHINGTON (AP) — Just over a month after Pope Leo XIV became the first U.S.-born pontiff in the history of the Catholic Church, a new poll shows that American Catholics are feeling excited about their new religious leader.
About two-thirds of American Catholics have a 'very' or 'somewhat' favorable view of Pope Leo, according to the new survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, while about 3 in 10 don't know enough to have an opinion. Very few Catholics — less than 1 in 10 — view him unfavorably.
Among Americans overall, plenty of people are still making up their minds about Pope Leo. But among those who do have an opinion, feelings about the first U.S.-born pope are overwhelmingly positive. The survey found that 44% of U.S. adults have a 'somewhat' or 'very' favorable view of Pope Leo XIV. A similar percentage say they don't know enough to have an opinion, and only about 1 in 10 see him unfavorably.
As he promises to work for unity in a polarized church, Americans with very different views about the future of the church are feeling optimistic about his pontificate. Terry Barber, a 50-year-old Catholic from Sacramento, California, hopes Leo will seek a 'more progressive and modern church' that is more accepting of all.
'I'm optimistic. Certainly, the first pope from the United States is significant,' said Barber, who identifies as a Democrat. 'Since he worked under the previous pope, I'm sure he has similar ideas, but certainly some that are original, of his own. I'm looking forward to seeing what, if any changes, come about under his leadership.'
Bipartisan appeal
About half of Democrats have a favorable view of the new pope, as do about 4 in 10 Republicans and independents. Republicans are a little more likely than Democrats to be reserving judgment. About half of Republicans say they don't know enough to have an opinion about the pope, compared to about 4 in 10 Democrats.
Republicans, notably, are no more likely than Democrats to have an unfavorable opinion of the pope. About 1 in 10 in each group view Pope Leo unfavorably.
Victoria Becude, 38, a Catholic and Republican from Florida, said she's excited about the first U.S.-born pope and hopes he can steer the country back to Catholic doctrine and make Americans proud.
'I'm rooting for him,' she said. 'I hope that America can get back to faith, and I hope he can do that.'
Being a political liberal or conservative, of course, isn't the same thing as identifying as a liberal or conservative Catholic. But the poll found no discernible partisan gap among Catholics on Pope Leo, and Catholics across the ideological spectrum have expressed hope that Leo will be able to heal some of the divisions that emerged during the pontificate of his predecessor, Pope Francis.
Pope Leo recently criticized the surge of nationalist political movements in the world as he prayed for reconciliation and dialogue — a message in line with his pledges to make the Catholic Church a symbol of peace.
Before becoming pope, Cardinal Robert Prevost presided over one of the most revolutionary reforms of Pope Francis' pontificate by having women serve on the Vatican board that vets nominations for bishops. He also has said decisively that women cannot be ordained as priests.
Donald Hallstone, 72, a Catholic who lives in Oregon, said he expects that Leo will continue to promote women in governance positions 'at a time when there's a shortage of priests' and other leaders in the church.
'It'd be great to see women in those roles,' he said. 'Women were not excluded in the first centuries.'
On the other hand, some right-wing U.S. Catholics hope Leo will focus on Catholic doctrinal opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion.
Becude, the Republican, said she's against same-sex relationships because she believes that unions should be between a man and a woman, something that Pope Leo has reiterated. Even though she describes herself as 'very conservative,' though, she's in favor of reproductive rights even when church teaching opposes abortion.
'I don't believe that they should stop women from having abortions,' she said. 'We should have our own rights because you don't know the circumstances behind the reason why a woman would want the abortion in the first place.'
Few have negative views — yet
There's plenty of room for views to shift as Leo's agenda as pope becomes clear.
Not all Americans have formed an opinion of the new pope yet; particularly, members of other religious groups are more likely to be still making up their minds. About half of born-again Protestants, mainline Protestants, and adults with no religious affiliation don't know enough to have an opinion about the pope, although relatively few — about 1 in 10 — in each group have an unfavorable view of him.
Older Americans — who are more likely to identify as Catholics — are also more likely than younger Americans to be fans of Leo's. About half of Americans ages 60 and older have a favorable view of Pope Leo, compared to about 4 in 10 Americans under 30.
But even so, only about 1 in 10 U.S. adults under 30 have an unfavorable view of the pope right now.
Mercedes Drink, 31, is from the pope's hometown of Chicago. She still hopes that women will become ordained under his pontificate.
'It's cool; I like him because he brings something different,' said Drink, who lives in Minnesota and identifies as being part of the 'religious nones' — atheists, agnostics, or nothing in particular.
'As a young woman, I hope that he can bring change … considering who he is, he brings something new to the table. I hope he opens the world's eyes to modernizing the church, bringing more people in, having more diversity.'
___
Henao reported from Princeton, N.J.
___
Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
___
The AP-NORC poll of 1,158 adults was conducted June 5-9, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
20 minutes ago
- Axios
Scoop: Trump pressed to take hard line with Iran after Israel strikes
A group of pro-Israel members of Congress is urging President Trump to ensure "zero enrichment, zero pathway to a nuclear weapon" in negotiations with Iran, Axios has learned. Why it matters: The lawmakers — including a Republican, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) — said Israel's strikes against Iranian nuclear sites and other military targets has created a "renewed sense of urgency" on the issue. "This decisive action comes after two months of unsuccessful diplomatic attempts and represents a critical chance to stop the Iranian regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon," they wrote in a letter to Trump first obtained by Axios. The White House did not immediately respond to Axios' Saturday afternoon request for comment on the letter. Driving the news: The letter is led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), a staunchly pro- Israel centrist Democrat, and signed by seven other House Democrats, in addition to Bacon. The nine lawmakers noted that the two-month deadline which Trump set in March for reaching a nuclear deal arrived on Thursday — the day Israel launched its strike. They urged him to add "crushing diplomatic pressure ... to Israel's military pressure" by working with European countries to impose "Snapback" sanctions on Iran for being out of compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal. What they're saying: Trump told Axios' Barak Ravid on Friday that he believes Israel's strike improved the chance of reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran. "I couldn't get them to a deal in 60 days. They were close, they should have done it. Maybe now it will happen," he said. But Iran's foreign minister said that nuclear talks planned for Sunday have been cancelled, and Trump said Saturday that the war between Israel and Iran "should end."
23 minutes ago
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act: no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements. 'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol. 'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.' Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public. As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year. Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most. House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid. In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid. Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals. 'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage. Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs. The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month. The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria. The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether. Republicans have cited what they call the out-of-control spending in federal programs to explain their rationale for the changes proposed in the legislation. 'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment. Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate. The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration. While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans. Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March. And according to AP VoteCast, about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right. Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF, and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community. For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits. He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals. 'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.'
The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
Republicans' stunning flip flops on ‘national emergencies'
In February, President Trump issued executive orders raising tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico. In April, he slapped a 50 percent tariff on countries that the U.S. has a trade deficit with and a minimum 10 percent tariff on all others. The administration claimed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1997 gives the president the authority to declare a national emergency and take immediate action to protect the country. Illicit trafficking in fentanyl along with threats to border security allegedly justified the tariffs imposed on China, Canada and Mexico. America's large trade deficit was the justification for the 'Liberation Day' tariffs imposed on countries throughout the world. Trump's actions marked the first time the International Emergency Economic Powers Act has been used to increase tariffs. Last month, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court on International Trade (comprised of Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees) declared that Trump had overstepped his authority. The tariffs, the judges noted, were not relevant to reducing fentanyl trafficking or illegal immigration. And since the U.S. has had a trade deficit for each of the last 47 years, it is difficult to argue that it constitutes a national emergency. A few days later, an appeals court allowed the administration to continue to collect tariffs while litigation moves through the courts. In the meantime, the silence from Republican members of Congress — the body which, according to Article I of the Constitution, alone has the authority to raise and spend revenue — is deafening. It is worth noting that before Jan. 20, 2025, many of congressional Republicans endorsed a proposal limiting the president's power to act unilaterally by declaring national emergencies. In 2019, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the 'Article One Act.' The bill would have terminated all national emergency declarations after 30 days unless both houses of Congress voted to extend them. Calling for 'real action, as opposed to symbolic show votes that don't address the root of the problem,' Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) signed on as a cosponsor. Fifteen senators, including nine Republicans, signed a bipartisan letter urging Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to have the full Senate consider the Article One Act. The aim of the legislation, the letter indicated, 'is simple but fundamental: Congress cannot continue to cede its powers to another branch, regardless of who is president, and which party holds a majority.' Members of Congress 'who are troubled by emergency declarations,' Lee emphasized, 'only have themselves to blame.' Nothing happened. In 2023, Lee reintroduced the Article One Act. 'Law-making by proclamation,' he asserted, 'runs directly counter to the vision of our Founders and undermines the safeguards protecting our freedom. It is high time that Congress reclaimed the legislative power and restored constitutional balance to our system.' Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), as he endorsed the Article One Act in the House, reminded his colleagues that 'the presidency was never meant to have monarchical power over the American people.' The legislation did not get a floor vote in either chamber. Executive orders and national emergency declarations — used all too frequently by Obama, Trump and Biden to bypass Congress — pose a clear and present danger to the system of checks and balances that has served this country well for over 200 years. And the problem of executive overreach is getting worse. In the first 100 days of his second term, Trump has issued executive orders and declared national emergencies at a faster pace than any president in modern history. But Republicans in Congress no longer seem troubled by executive orders based on emergency declarations. In March, Lee introduced a bill that differed dramatically in substance and tone from the Article One Act. The 'Restraining Judicial Insurrectionists Act of 2025' mandated that a three-judge panel review all lower court injunctions against the president and grants of declaratory relief, followed by an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court. 'American government cannot function if the legitimate orders of our commander-in-chief can be overruled at the whim of a single district judge,' Lee declared. In April, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) refused to permit a floor vote to repeal Trump's 'reciprocal tariffs.' Every president, 'no matter the party,' Johnson opined, has 'a broad degree of latitude' over trade. The Senate rejected a similar measure with a 49-49 vote; neither Lee, Grassley nor any other Republican who signed onto the 2019 Article One Act letter supported the legislation. Justice Anthony Kennedy warned in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), the case declaring the line-item veto to be unconstitutional, that the separation of powers is violated and liberty is threatened when spending is 'determined by the executive alone' and the president has the power 'to reward one group and punish another, help one set of taxpayers and hurt another, favor one State and ignore another.' Clearly, many congressional Republicans agree. But if they continue to choose partisan self-interest over principle, voters will have good reason to blame them — and the Trump administration — for the weakening of our democratic institutions. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University.
