What Pope Leo XIV Means for the U.S. Catholic Church and Trump
Melvin Griggs, left, and Ronald Cashaw talk inside the now closed St. Mary of the Assumption church on Thursday in Dolton, Illinois. Pope Leo XIV grew up in Dolton and was a member of St. Mary of the Assumption.
ROME – The new Chicago-raised Pope Leo XIV faces an immediate challenge in his native country: taming the brawling U.S. tribe of Catholics, riven by political divisions that have thwarted the will of his predecessors.
Because Pope Leo – earlier known as Bob Prevost from the South Side – is an American better versed than past church leaders in the culture of his home country, some church-watchers and experts say, he may be able to navigate the U.S. Church in a way the Argentine Pope Francis could not. However, they said, it will still be a struggle to pry some American church members away from the now-deeply entrenched American habit of seeing faith through a tribal, political lens.
In recent decades the U.S. Catholic Church, like many of the nation's religious groups, has been shaped by secular allegiances. Some who have followed the faith were hopeful that having a spiritual leader from the United States who can speak about the full range of church teachings – from Catholicism's demand to care for migrants, as well as the unborn – could bring some Catholics together.
'Pope Francis was so removed from American realities that … it caused him to really struggle to connect with many U.S. Catholics who didn't recognize themselves, their bishops, or their country in some of the criticisms,' Charlie Camosy, a Creighton University theologian and bioethicist, wrote to The Post in an email. 'Pope Leo XIV's critiques, praise, and invitations to dialogue will come from a place of knowing the U.S. in a far more intimate way.'
'Francis was pastor who was an outsider to the Vatican and U.S. institutions who was deeply committed to a 'poor church for the poor.' That made a lot of people uncomfortable,' said John Carr, who for 20 years led the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Department of Justice, Peace, and Human Development. Pope Leo 'may have opportunities to build bridges.'
Yet some of the issues he is believed to care deeply about, such as helping migrants, run directly against the policies espoused by President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, himself a Catholic convert. That could set up near-immediate conflict.
The question, some U.S. church-watchers said, is what issues Leo will prioritize and how outspoken he will decide to be. Francis engaged in a running battle of words with Trump and, later, Vance, during his papacy over aid to migrants and the poor.
Under Trump's presidencies, it's become politically acceptable for conservative Catholics – both MAGA members and those focused on protecting traditional rituals like the Latin Mass – to insult and dismiss the head of the 1.4 billion-member Catholic Church.
Several U.S. cardinals who spoke to reporters Friday about Leo's selection thought he would want to be a bridge-builder to the administration.
'Is there the same type of freedom in his heart and soul, that was in Francis? I believe yes. But that's different from asking: Is he going to express that freedom in the same exact manner, or the same pathways Pope Francis did,' said Cardinal Robert McElroy, D.C.'s archbishop. 'We're looking for someone following the pathway of Francis, but we're not looking for a photocopy. I believe Pope Leo will not be a photocopy of Pope Francis.'
The other complication for Leo is the makeup of the U.S. church, which contains factions holding directly conflicting views. If he were to speak more than Francis did about traditional doctrines on topics like same-sex marriage, it could irritate and alienate Catholics who see God as prioritizing inclusion and mercy. If he takes up Francis's emphasis on the world as a global family and extends the back-and-forth criticisms with the White House, he could anger theologically traditional Catholics who have sided with Trump politically.
Denise Murphy McGraw, co-chair of the liberal U.S. group Catholics Vote Common Good, sees Leo as a likely ally, especially given his upbringing here.
'He learned at the feet of the master,' she said of Leo, and Francis. The late pope 'wanted everyone to feel they had a place in Catholicism and we have someone now who understands even better, because he understands us. Such a big part of it is he can speak to people in their own language.'
But Ashley McGuire, senior fellow at the Catholic Association, an advocacy group that focuses on promoting Catholic teaching on abortion and other traditional social issues, saw something a bit different ahead for the U.S. church.
'He takes his name from a pope who stood firmly against the negative culture of moral relativism,' she wrote in a statement. 'As a canon lawyer, he is uniquely equipped to help bring about greatly needed doctrinal and moral clarity both within the Church and in a world that so desperately needs it.'
U.S. Catholics are very diverse politically, and their views can fall into different camps depending on whether the issue is theology or secular topics like immigration and democracy. According to a 2024 poll by the firm PRRI, 39 percent said their political ideology was moderate, 35 percent said conservative and 23 percent said liberal. A Pew Research poll found that in 2024, 47 percent of Catholics sided with Vice President Kamala Harris and 52 percent with Trump. Among White Catholics, nearly two-thirds voted for Trump, while Harris won the votes of nearly two-thirds of Hispanic Catholics.
Leo's background has made him as much an international religious figure as an American one. He has spent much of his life in Peru or traveling the world for his religious order (the Augustinians). He also served in Rome, where Francis made him head of the Vatican's powerful bishop-picking agency.
While that may limit his knowledge of current American culture, it could also endear him to more U.S. Catholics, almost 30 percent of whom were born outside the country, Pew Research says, a much higher percentage than the population overall.
'How Leo XIV thinks about the many contested issues within Catholicism is entirely unclear. But he seems almost certain to be an internationalist pope – with a particular concern for migrants and the poor – in an increasingly nationalist age,' University of Notre Dame church historian and provost John T. McGreevy wrote The Post in an email.
Several of the cardinals who spoke to reporters Friday said that Leo's American upbringing had little to do with his selection as pope, either as a counterweight to the Trump administration or as a way of building a bridge to the U.S. president.
Cardinal Blase Cupich, archbishop of Chicago, said he thinks Leo's impact on U.S. Catholicism will be fueled in part by his multinational, multilinguistic background, which will make it easier for him to connect with diverse U.S. Catholic communities. Leo, he said, will hopefully inspire U.S. Catholics to study their faith's social gospel.
'Picking the name Leo is indicative, I think, of the direction he wants to take,' Cupich said, referring to the last Pope Leo, the XIII. The previous Leo 'wrote stirringly about the rights of workers, immigrants, of those who were living at the margins of society. I think it will give him a platform to reintroduce' these teachings to Americans, he said.
'And I think he will be able to put it in language that's comprehensible and also challenging to Catholics in the United States. So that's what I'm looking for. I think that's the promise we saw.'
Cardinal Wilton Gregory, the retired archbishop of D.C., said cardinals who elected the new pope were focused less on nationality than on his potential to bolster Catholicism.
The cardinals looked more for 'who among us can strengthen the faith and bring it to the places where it's grown weak?' Gregory said. 'To places where there seems less enthusiasm or appreciation of the common things that draw us together.'
As he introduced himself to the world Thursday, Leo presented himself as a global citizen. In his remarks to a wildly enthusiastic crowd in St. Peter's Square, he spoke in Spanish, Latin and Italian and gave a shout-out to his longtime home, Peru. He didn't mention the U.S. or speak a word of English.
Robert George, a Princeton University political philosopher who often speaks from a conservative Catholic perspective, said the new pope will challenge Americans by emphasizing Catholic social teaching's call for 'the state to have a role in social life that is less robust than collectivists think it should have, but more robust than libertarians think it should have.'
Francis was generally popular among U.S. Catholics, but as his papacy went on, a passionate minority of traditionalists became more strongly outspoken against him. Some opposed his limits on the traditional Latin Mass, while others despised his vague comments welcoming LGBTQ people into the church without any caveat. Some, like Vance, objected to his more liberal stance on immigration.
Some experts Thursday and Friday said the new pope has a chance for a new relationship with the administration – of a sort.
'It may offer a reset, not in substance, but in style and leadership,' Carr wrote The Post. 'Leo may seek to deliver the same messages but perhaps more diplomatically. Trump and Vance ought to fear alienating Catholics by a lack of respect for a pope who is from America, speaking for a global Church.'
Camosy said it was too early to conclude much about the new pope's approach.
'The pope's opening remarks seemed to suggest a desire to have dialogue and unity.' he wrote. 'I suspect that for some folks [especially younger ones], they are 'gettable' in this regard. But for those who put their secular political commitments ahead of the Gospel, well, I doubt this pope will be able to do much about it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yomiuri Shimbun
12 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Europe Is Escaping Reliance on American Science
BRUSSELS/WASHINGTON/BERLIN (Reuters) — European governments are taking steps to break their dependence on critical scientific data the United States historically made freely available to the world, and are ramping up their own data collection systems to monitor climate change and weather extremes, according to Reuters interviews. The effort — which has not been previously reported — marks the most concrete response from the European Union and other European governments so far to the U.S. government's retreat from scientific research under U.S. President Donald Trump's administration. Since his return to the White House, Trump has initiated sweeping budget cuts to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and other agencies, dismantling programs conducting climate, weather, geospatial and health research, and taking some public databases offline. As those cuts take effect, European officials have expressed increasing alarm that — without continued access to U.S.-supported weather and climate data — governments and businesses will face challenges in planning for extreme weather events and long-term infrastructure investment, according to Reuters interviews. In March, more than a dozen European countries urged the EU Commission to move fast to recruit American scientists who lose their jobs to those cuts. Asked for comment on NOAA cuts and the EU's moves to expand its own collection of scientific data, the White House Office of Management and Budget said Trump's proposed cuts to the agency's 2026 budget were aimed at programs that spread 'fake Green New Scam 'science,'' a reference to climate change research and policy. 'Under President Trump's leadership, the U.S. is funding real science again,' Rachel Cauley, an OMB spokesperson, said via email. European officials told Reuters that — beyond the risk of losing access to data that is bedrock to the world's understanding of climate change and marine systems — they were concerned by the general U.S. pullback from research. 'The current situation is much worse than we could have expected,' Sweden's State Secretary for Education and Research Maria Nilsson, told Reuters. 'My reaction is, quite frankly, shock.' The Danish Meteorological Institute described the U.S. government data as 'absolutely vital' — and said it relied on several data sets to measure sea ice in the Arctic and sea surface temperatures. 'This isn't just a technical issue, reliable data underpins extreme weather warnings, climate projections, protecting communities and ultimately saves lives,' said Adrian Lema, director of the DMI's National Center for Climate Research. Reuters interviewed officials from eight European countries who said their governments were undertaking reviews of their reliance on U.S. marine, climate and weather data. Officials from seven countries — Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden — described joint efforts now in the early stages to safeguard key health and climate data and research programs. Leaning on U.S. As a priority, the EU is expanding its access to ocean observation data, a senior European Commission official told Reuters. Those data sets are seen as critical to the shipping and energy industries as well as early storm warning systems. Over the next two years, the senior official said, the EU plans to expand its own European Marine Observation and Data Network, which collects and hosts data on shipping routes, seabed habitats, marine litter and other concerns. The initiative was aimed at 'mirroring and possibly replacing U.S.-based services,' the senior European Commission official told Reuters. Europe is particularly concerned about its vulnerability to U.S. funding cuts to NOAA's research arm that would affect the Global Ocean Observing System, a network of ocean observation programs that supports navigation services, shipping routes and storm forecasting, a second EU official told Reuters. The insurance industry relies on the Global Ocean Observing System's disaster records for risk modeling. Coastal planners use shoreline, sea-level and hazard data to guide infrastructure investments. The energy industry uses oceanic and seismic datasets to assess offshore drilling or wind farm viability. In addition, the senior EU Commission official said, the EU is considering increasing its funding of the Argo program, a part of the Global Ocean Observing System which operates a global system of floats to monitor the world's oceans and track global warming, extreme weather events and sea-level rise. NOAA last year described the program, in operation for over 25 years, as the 'crown jewel' of ocean science. It makes its data freely available to the oil and gas industry, marine tourism and other industries. The United States funds 57% of Argo's $40 million annual operating expenses, while the EU funds 23%. The European moves to establish independent data collection and play a bigger role in Argo represent a historic break with decades of U.S. leadership in ocean science, said Craig McLean, who retired in 2022 after four decades at the agency. He said U.S. leadership of weather, climate and marine data collection was unmatched, and that through NOAA the U.S. has paid for more than half of the world's ocean measurements. European scientists acknowledge the outsized role the U.S. government has played in global scientific research and data collection — and that European countries have grown overly dependent on that work. 'It's a bit like defense: we rely heavily on the U.S. in that area, too. They're trailblazers and role models — but that also makes us dependent on them,' Katrin Boehning-Gaese, scientific director of Germany's Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, told Reuters. 'Guerrilla archivists' A number of European governments are now taking measures to reduce that dependence. Nordic countries met to coordinate data storage efforts in the spring, Norwegian Minister of Research and Higher Education Sigrun Aasland told Reuters. European science ministers also discussed the U.S. science budget cuts at a meeting in Paris in May. Aasland said Norway was setting aside $2 million to back up and store U.S. data to ensure stable access. The Danish Meteorological Institute in February started downloading historical U.S. climate data in case it is deleted by the U.S. It is also preparing to switch from American observations to alternatives, Christina Egelund, Minister of Higher Education and Science of Denmark, said in an interview. 'The potentially critical issue is when new observations data stop coming in,' the institute's Lema said. While weather models could continue to operate without U.S. data, he said the quality would suffer. Meanwhile, the German government has commissioned scientific organizations, including the center, to review its reliance on U.S. databases. Since Trump returned to the White House, scientists and citizens worldwide have been downloading U.S. databases related to climate, public health or the environment that are slated for decommissioning — calling it 'guerrilla archiving.' 'We actually received requests — or let's say emergency calls — from our colleagues in the U.S., who said, 'We have a problem here … and we will have to abandon some datasets,' said Frank Oliver Gloeckner, head of the digital archive PANGAEA, which is operated by publicly funded German research institutions. About 800 of NOAA's 12,000-strong workforce have been terminated or taken financial incentives to resign as part of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency cuts. The White House 2026 budget plan seeks to shrink NOAA even further, proposing a $1.8 billion cut, or 27% of the agency's budget, and a near-20% reduction in staffing, bringing down the NOAA workforce to 10,000. The budget proposal would eliminate the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, NOAA's main research arm, which is responsible for ocean observatory systems including Argo, coastal observing networks, satellite sensors and climate model labs. It is also reducing its data products. Between April and June, NOAA announced on its website the decommissioning of 20 datasets or products related to earthquakes and marine science. Gloeckner said there were no legal hurdles to storing the U.S. government data as it was already in the public domain. But without significant funds and infrastructure, there are limits to what private scientists can save, said Denice Ross, a senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, a nonprofit science policy group and the U.S. government's chief data officer during Joe Biden's administration. Databases need regular updating — which requires the funding and infrastructure that only governments can provide, Ross said. Over the last few months, the Federation and EU officials have held a series of talks with European researchers, U.S. philanthropies and health and environment advocacy groups to discuss how to prioritize what data to save. 'There is an opportunity for other nations and institutions and philanthropies to fill in the gaps if U.S. quality starts to falter,' she said.
The Diplomat
14 hours ago
- The Diplomat
China and the US-Nvidia Deal: National Security for Sale?
A deal will allow the sale of advanced chips to China – as long as American companies give the U.S. government a cut. For several years – especially since the United States banned ZTE and Huawei in 2018 and 2019, respectively – U.S. export controls on cutting-edge technologies have been framed as a measure to safeguard national security. On the same grounds, the Biden administration banned the sale of certain U.S.-made chips to China in 2022 and 2023. To circumvent such restrictions, Nvidia developed the H20 chip, a downgraded form of its H-100 Graphic Processing Unit (GPU), and AMD developed the MI308, both to serve the Chinese markets. Nvidia's CEO Jensen Huang has often vocally opposed the restrictive export controls targeting China, claiming the policy is counterproductive for the United States' economic and strategic interests. Through active lobbying during the current Trump administration, which is following a more inward-looking approach, Nvidia managed to get an official permit for H20 sales to China – albeit for a fee. In a highly unusual settlement, Nvidia and AMD will hand over 15 percent of their revenue from H20 and MI308 chip sales to China directly to the U.S. government. This arrangement is not a standard export tariff, nor a conventional tax. It is a direct revenue-sharing deal between the government and the two companies, targeted at a single foreign market, i.e., China. According to estimates by Bernstein Research, by the end of 2025, Nvidia will have sold over 1.5 million H20 chips in China, generating about $23 billion in revenue, and AMD is projected to record $800 million in China chip sales. That means the deal could deliver more than $2 billion directly to the U.S. Treasury. Unlike in China, where the provision of 'golden shares' (a shareholding arrangement enabling the Chinese government to buy a certain percentage of shares in private enterprises) highlights the intimate relationship between the Chinese state and its private corporations, such policy moves in the United States are extremely rare. However, the Trump administration in July followed a similar approach when it approved the takeover of U.S. Steel by Japan's Nippon Steel. While the Nippon Steel deal aimed at securing critical industries from falling under foreign control, it also indicated a growing trend of state capitalism in the United States. Now the revenue-sharing agreement with AMD and Nvidia exemplifies a larger pattern where companies are falling into quid-pro-quo arrangements to prevent the imposition of tariffs and preserve their own market position, while pledging to bring jobs, revenues, and market concentration to the United States. However, the deal also risks replacing principle-driven trade policy with ad hoc bargaining, leaving both allies and adversaries uncertain about U.S. red lines. For U.S. chipmakers, it's better to earn some revenue from China than none. While the deal gives direct access to the lucrative China market, it also directly eats into Nvidia's and AMD's profits. This will create ripples in the broader market ecosystem, wherein corporate planning, profit margins, and investor confidence could all be affected. Major U.S. companies with considerable market share in China will be watching closely. If the government is willing to impose a revenue-sharing requirement for chip sales, might it do the same for other strategic sectors? This could prompt firms to rethink their China strategies, diversify supply chains, or intensify lobbying to either pursue or avoid similar arrangements. The message to shareholders becomes clearer after this move: geopolitical risk is no longer an abstract factor; instead, it directly shapes revenue streams. One possible explanation behind the decision is the 'engage to constrain' strategy: selling downgraded chips keeps China reliant on U.S. technology, thereby maintaining a degree of influence over its AI development. The H20 and MI308 chips, being less powerful than flagship models, are intended to fall below the threshold of national security risk. This could prove to be a pitfall for two reasons. First, Washington has previously failed to accurately gauge Chinese firms' ability to refurbish outdated hardware and optimize it for higher-grade applications. This means that even downgraded chips can accelerate China's AI capabilities, including in areas with military applications. Second, the free flow of H20 chips is unlikely to halt China's renewed drive toward indigenous chip development. In fact, the renewed synergies between governments and private chipmakers in China are likely to take advantage of this policy relaxation to prepare themselves for any future restrictions. Thus the new policy, which resolves to protect domestic interests, will again fuel Beijing's determination to achieve chip independence and undermine U.S. strategic objectives in the long term. By reversing the ban and taking a revenue share, Washington risks sending a conflicting message: that security concerns can be waived in exchange for commercial concessions. The shift from safeguarding national security to commodifying strategic concerns poses several questions. If sensitive technology can be sold for a price, how credible will future restrictions appear to allies, adversaries, and U.S. companies alike? More broadly, U.S. allies involved in semiconductor supply chains – Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Netherlands – may see this as a signal to adopt similarly transactional policies, fragmenting the global trade environment. During the Biden administration, these allies were part of the broader export control regime. If this model is perceived as putting a price tag on national security, it could weaken the legitimacy of future export controls, embolden adversaries to test U.S. resolve, and encourage allies to question U.S. consistency. The United States now walks a fine line. Whether this is a masterstroke of transactional diplomacy or a short-sighted policy gamble will depend on whether Washington can secure broader strategic gains without undermining its own credibility.
Yomiuri Shimbun
14 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
White House Announces More Aggressive Review of Smithsonian Museums
The White House will launch a sweeping review of Smithsonian exhibitions, collections and operations ahead of America's 250th-birthday celebrations next year – the first time the Trump administration has detailed steps to scrutinize the institution, which officials say should reflect the president's call to restore 'truth and sanity' to American history. The vetting process would include reviewing public-facing and online content, curatorial processes and guidelines, exhibition planning and collection use, according to a letter sent to Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III on Tuesday and signed by White House senior associate Lindsey Halligan, Domestic Policy Council Director Vince Hale and White House Office of Management and Budget chief Russell Vought. A White House official confirmed the plan, which was posted on the White House website Tuesday and first reported by the Wall Street Journal. 'The Smithsonian's work is grounded in a deep commitment to scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and the accurate, factual presentation of history,' a Smithsonian spokesperson said in a statement Tuesday afternoon. 'We are reviewing the letter with this commitment in mind and will continue to collaborate constructively with the White House, Congress, and our governing Board of Regents.' The institution already planned its own content review, ordered by the Smithsonian's Board of Regents in June amid pressure from President Donald Trump. The regents instructed Bunch 'to ensure unbiased content' across the institution and report back on 'any needed personnel changes.' The board at that time affirmed Bunch's authority amid a high-stakes standoff between the White House and Kim Sajet, whom Trump had attempted to fire as director of the National Portrait Gallery. Sajet later resigned, saying her presence had become a distraction from the Smithsonian's mission. It is not immediately clear whether the White House's action will supersede the Smithsonian's review. The letter states that the initial review will focus on eight museums: the National Museum of American History, the National Museum of Natural History, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Museum of the American Indian, the National Air and Space Museum, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, the National Portrait Gallery and the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. To begin the process, officials requested that the museums provide information within 30 days concerning 250th-anniversary programming, current and future exhibition content, and other material. The White House added that museums were expected to start making changes within 120 days. 'Museums should begin implementing content corrections where necessary, replacing divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions across placards, wall didactics, digital displays, and other public-facing materials,' the letter read. Since returning to office in January, Trump has moved quickly to overhaul the country's most prominent arts and cultural institutions. His focus on the Smithsonian has stoked concerns about political interference at the institution, which is not a traditional government agency and is historically considered nonpartisan. In July, painter Amy Sherald withdrew her upcoming exhibition 'American Sublime' from the National Portrait Gallery, citing concerns that the museum discussed removing from the show her painting of a transgender woman posing as the Statue of Liberty. (The Smithsonian said it discussed pairing the work with a video, not removing it.) That same month, The Washington Post reported that a temporary placard containing references to Trump had been removed from an impeachment exhibit at the National Museum of American History as part of the Smithsonian content review. The museum later updated the display to restore context about Trump's impeachments following swift outcry from members of the public and several Democratic leaders. In March, Trump signed an executive order to eliminate 'divisive narratives' across the Smithsonian museums and 'restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness.' The order, titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,' directs Halligan and Vice President JD Vance to remove 'improper ideology' from the Smithsonian Institution, including its museums, education and research centers and the National Zoo.
