logo
5 things to know about Trump, Pope views on wealth, values and why MAGA worries

5 things to know about Trump, Pope views on wealth, values and why MAGA worries

Yahoo10-05-2025

The American president and the American pope both have their eyes fixed on the late 19th century, but they seem to be drawing very different, if not clashing, lessons.
President Donald Trump has recently waxed nostalgically about the period from 1870 to 1913 in defending his imposition of across-the-board tariffs. Cardinal Robert Prevost, in choosing the papal name Pope Leo XIV, follows in the footsteps of Leo XIII who set forth the concept of Catholic social teaching in 1891.
While theologians point out the two views are not necessarily contradictory, some in the MAGA-verse were ringing alarms louder than the tolling bells in St. Peter's Square after white smoke heralded the selection of a new pontiff on Thursday.
Firebrand Lara Loomer denounced Prevost as "pro-open borders" and Catholics for Catholics President John Yep said he viewed Prevost's election with "great concern."
Here are five things to know.
Trump speaks of the era as one in which America was at its "richest."
Certainly a clique of industrialists and others profited mightily from the country's industrial boom at the time. This was the so-called Gilded Age in U.S. history, in which Manhattan's richest families, such as the Vanderbilts, Astors and Morgans, built palatial estates in Newport, Rhode Island.
But for the vast majority of America, life was a very different experience. Many moved to urban centers in search of work and found jobs in factories where the hours were long and the wages minimal. Labor unrest ensued, sometimes turning violent. Immigrants and others working in factories lived in squalor.
"It was not uniformly a period of strong growth. The analogies to the 1890s are extremely weak," said Edward Alden at the Council on Foreign Relations in an April interview. "If you're learning lessons from that era, they are going to be the wrong ones for sure."
The Progressive Era of American politics ushered in safety protocols, a 40-hour week, anti-child-labor laws and many other workplace reforms.
In calling for broad duties on imports, Trump has extolled the nearly 50 years that spanned the last centuries of the past millennium.
"You know, years ago, 1870 to 1913, we didn't have an income tax. What we had is tariffs," Trump said in one speech. "And the tariff system made so much money. It was when we were the richest — from 1870 to 1913. … It was when we were the richest."
The president has often alluded to wealth, telling Americans he will make them more affluent than ever. He has said he will usher a "golden era" and even redecorated the Oval Office with gold trimmings.
'You see the new and improved Oval Office,' Trump said to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney during their May 6 meeting. 'As it becomes more and more beautiful with love — you know we handle it with great love — and 24-karat gold, that always helps too.'
As pope, Leo XIV has not mentioned the era nor drawn lessons from it, but has alluded to faith and wealth.
In his first homily as pontiff on May 9, Leo XIV cited from the Gospel of Matthew a conversation between Jesus and the disciples in Caesarea Philippi, a place the pontiff said was marked by "luxurious palaces" but "also a place of cruel power plays and the scene of betrayals and infidelity."
There, Jesus was a "completely insignificant person," the pope noted, and once this 'world' saw him as a source of irritation, it opted to "eliminate Him." Others there saw Jesus, Leo XIV said, as a courageous "upright man," similar to other great prophets, but at the moment of "danger," they turned away and abandoned him in disappointment.
"What is striking about these two attitudes is their relevance today," the pope concluded. "Even today, there are many settings in which the Christian faith is considered absurd, meant for the weak and unintelligent. Settings where other securities are preferred, like technology, money, success, power or pleasure."
Sister Maryanne Stevens said the choice of Leo has several messages.
Stevens noted Leo I, also called Leo the Great, worked for peace and kept Attila the Hun from entering Italy. The most recent Leo, the 13th, was the founder of modern Catholic social teachings.
Leo XIII's encyclical "Rerum Novarem" critiqued the excesses of socialism and capitalism. During his 25-year papacy, from 1878 to 1903, the pontiff exhorted people to "come together guided by values" and preached "solidarity between the classes," said Stevens, a theologian and the retired president of the College in St. Mary in Omaha, Nebraska.
According to her, Leo XIII spoke out against "exploitation" of workers by capitalist industrialists but did not agree the "state should take over everything," either. Rather, she said the pontiff recognized the dignity of the human person and called on the broader community to safeguard the rights of people, particular those most vulnerable.
She said Leo XIII wrote there is dignity to every human person and extolled the dignity of work. Stevens said the pontiff pressed capitalists to provide safe environments and healthy environments and create just wages.
"There was a tremendous amount, at the time, of social inequality and exploitation of people and they were problems that had to be faced by both the Church and the state," she said. "That was one of his basic points."
Stevens cautioned against commentary suggesting Leo XIV chose the name in order to send a message to the president.
"I'm not prepared to suggest that Leo chose that name so as to respond to Trump," she said.
Trump's supporters point out the president won election in 2024 by waging a campaign for blue-collar and other workers forgotten and left behind by U.S. free trade and neglectful manufacturing policies in the past 40 years. He vowed, during the campaign, to end taxation of tips and overtime for wage employment.
But once in office, the Trump administration has sought to slash federal spending, including numerous safety net programs for the poorest Americans and the elderly. The White House has also delivered on Trump's harsh rhetoric toward immigrants with equally harsh deportations.
Some in the MAGA-verse were decidedly unhappy over Prevost's immigration tweets, some of which rebuked Trump and Vice President JD Vance's views.
Loomer, a failed congressional candidate in Palm Beach County, wrote on X that the new pontiff "supports illegal aliens and open borders."
Yep said in an interview with Charlie Kirk of the far-right youth group Turning Point USA that he harbored "great concern" because Leo XIV had "an ambiguous scorecard on same sex blessings."
In a statement to The Palm Beach Post, Yep reiterated his belief there is "justifiable apprehension" for what the new papacy will bring due to prior postings on social media. But Yep also said other "praiseworthy actions" by Prevost, such as his emphasis on the "defense of babies in the womb," offer hope.
"We pray that he will work well with the Trump Administration as well as ending immediately the Francis era Secret Accord between the Vatican and the Chinese Communist Party signed in 2018," Yep wrote. "Catholics above all should be praying for this man as undertakes a tremendous responsibility as head of 1.4 billion people."
Antonio Fins is a politics and business editor at The Palm Beach Post, part of the USA TODAY Florida Network. You can reach him at afins@pbpost.com. Help support our journalism. Subscribe today.
This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Trump, Leo XIV cast gaze on Gilded Age but draw different lessons

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

White House responds to the latest Elon Musk jab
White House responds to the latest Elon Musk jab

Miami Herald

time24 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

White House responds to the latest Elon Musk jab

It appears that some distance from Washington, D.C. has given Tesla CEO Elon Musk some clarity about President Donald Trump and his economic agenda. Trump has repeatedly said that balancing the budget was one of his top priorities. In fact, during a recent cabinet meeting, he said that his drive to balance the federal budget was one of the main reasons he won so handily last November. The Department of Government Efficiency was supposed to be a big part of that drive. Related: Trump decision leaves Elon Musk in a serious bind In the same meeting, Musk bemoaned the $2 trillion annual deficit the U.S. government is running, noting that the debt's interest payments exceed the annual U.S defense budget. But that cabinet meeting was three months ago, and since then, a lot has changed about the president's priorities, as well as Musk's. The number one mission on the White House agenda right now is getting the federal spending budget passed by the Republican controlled Congress. Trump has described his bill as big and beautiful, but the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office says it would increase the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion over the next decade. There aren't enough DOGE cuts in the world to pay for extending the Trump tax cuts while increasing entitlement and defense spending. Trump's claim that tariffs would help balance the budget has also proven specious. Musk recently left his post as the head of DOGE, returning to his work at Tesla and SpaceX. He is using his newfound freedom to speak up. Image source:After being fully in the tank for Trump, Musk has begun exercising his free speech about his recent disagreements with the administration. Last week, he told CBS, "I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing." Musk once made it a point to sport a red hat that read 'Trump Was Right About Everything,' but now he says he is a free thinker. "It's not like I agree with everything the administration does...I mean, I agree with much of what the administration does, but we have differences of opinion on the things that I don't entirely agree with," Musk told CBS. Related: Elon Musk explains DOGE mission, takes shot at government On Tuesday, he took his criticism a step further. "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it, you know you did wrong. You know it," Musk tweeted out. Musk tweeted that Tuesday afternoon before the daily scheduled White House press briefing, which gave Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt a chance to respond on behalf of the White House. Leavitt, who has had no issue being combative with people who have questioned the administration in the past, took a more respectful tone with Musk. "The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill. It doesn't change the president's bill. This is one big, beautiful bill, and he's sticking to it," Leavitt said. The budget isn't the only issue where the White House and Musk clash. In early April, Musk went after Trump Senior Advisor Peter Navarro over tariffs, before Navarro returned fire and Trump backed Navarro. Since then, Musk's criticisms have been more muted. It's something he acknowledged in the CBS interview. "It's difficult for me to bring that up in an interview, because it creates a buildup of tension. So I'm stuck in a bind where I don't want to speak up against the administration, but I also don't want to take responsibility for everything the administration is doing," he said. Related: Tesla execs question Elon Musk over controversial X post The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.

Trump administration pulls $4 billion in federal funding for California high-speed rail
Trump administration pulls $4 billion in federal funding for California high-speed rail

San Francisco Chronicle​

time25 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Trump administration pulls $4 billion in federal funding for California high-speed rail

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration plans to pull the plug on federal funding to California's high-speed rail project. Following a review of the $4 billion in federal funds allocated to California's bullet train project launched in February, the Transportation Department said it plans to terminate federal funding for the project, according to a report released Wednesday. 'We have $4 billion that has been authorized to go to California to build this project and we don't want to invest in boondoggles,' Transportation Sec. Sean Duffy told Fox News Wednesday. The state will have 30 days to make the case that it has complied with the grant's terms and any corrective action it plans to take before the federal government can terminate funding. The Transportation Department is not asking for the state to repay federal funding previously given for the project, but said it could do so in the future — although any attempts to do so would likely be unsuccessful. 'What started as a proposed 800-mile system was first reduced to 500 miles, then became a 171-mile segment, and is now very likely ended as a 119-mile track to nowhere. In essence, (the California High-Speed Rail Authority) has conned the taxpayer out of its $4 billion investment, with no viable plan to deliver even that partial segment on time,' Drew Feeley, acting administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, said. The federal government 'cannot continue to commit taxpayer dollars to (the California High-Speed Rail Authority's) Sisyphean endeavor,' Feeley said. California's high-speed rail project is a 'story of broken promises and of waste of Federal taxpayer dollars.' The Trump administration has 'been laying the groundwork for this for month. They're completely hostile, not just to California high-speed rail, but rail in general and public transportation,' state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, told the Chronicle. 'This is a Neanderthal administration that probably thinks public transportation is a communist plot.' Wiener, a staunch proponent of the bullet train, acknowledged the project's challenges. 'We certainly have to do better in California in terms of project delivery, but … it's not a reason to start canceling major, transformative public infrastructure projects. We need to find a way to get these projects done more efficiently and more effectively,' Wiener said. The first Trump administration pursued terminating the project's funding in 2019, but the Biden administration negotiated a 2021 settlement with the state to continue supporting the segment from Bakersfield to Merced. The project's costs — initially estimated to be $33 billion and now expected to cost between $89 billion and $128 billion — have ballooned and its timelines have been repeatedly delayed. Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Democrats have not backed down on funding for high-speed rail in past budgets, despite opposition from Republicans. Newsom has acknowledged for months that Trump would try to claw back money for the project, just as Trump did during his first term. Newsom has promised to fight any efforts to revoke the money. The high-speed rail funding is just one bucket of federal money Trump has threatened to withhold from California, along with federal health care and education funding. 'There still is the rule of law, still the court system, there's still due process,' Newsom told reporters in January when he unveiled an initial version of his 2025-26 state budget proposal. 'You can threaten, as Trump has consistently done ... but ultimately those federal dollars will be recovered.' Since January, California's budget outlook has deteriorated significantly, and the Newsom administration now predicts California faces a $12 billion shortfall, which will make it harder for state officials to backfill any federal funding cuts. Newsom and lawmakers are negotiating over the state budget for the upcoming fiscal year and must reach a deal on how to balance the budget this month to meet constitutional deadlines. Even with the state's difficult financial situation this year, Wiener said he expected the project to move forward because 'it's not about one year, this is about the long-term health and economic strength of California.' Republicans have for years decried the project's skyrocketing costs and lack of progress. President Donald Trump told reporters Feb. 5 that he would personally investigate the high-speed rail project. Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Rocklin (Placer County), introduced legislation on Jan. 6 to make the project ineligible for further federal funding, the same day Newsom drove a symbolic spike in the ground to celebrate the rail line's first 22-mile segment, from the border of Tulare and Kern counties to Poplar Avenue in Wasco (Kern County). Republicans in the Legislature sent a letter to Trump Feb. 13 expressing support for his probe and saying they have a duty to constituents to 'carefully examine the viability of this project.' 'I want to see high-speed rail in America,' Duffy said. 'Why it can't be built in America and why it can't be built within time frames that work for the people that invest in these projects makes no sense to me.' State leaders have focused largely on finishing the stretch of high-speed rail track from Merced to Bakersfield, with the idea of linking it to two other bullet train lines: the High Desert Corridor in Los Angeles, and the privately owned Brightline West route from Las Vegas to Rancho Cucamonga (San Bernardino County). Ultimately, they also want to connect to Caltrain's commuter line on the Peninsula, patching together a network that somewhat resembles the original vision from the mid-1990s. The loss of this funding would 'certainly be a setback, but it is a relatively small percentage of the overall budget of the project,' Wiener said. 'It's not a death knell.'

Trump administration's emerging surveillance state raises privacy concerns
Trump administration's emerging surveillance state raises privacy concerns

USA Today

time25 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Trump administration's emerging surveillance state raises privacy concerns

Trump administration's emerging surveillance state raises privacy concerns Civil liberties advocates say the Trump administration's data collection and sharing endanger Americans' constitutional rights. Show Caption Hide Caption Privacy at risk as Trump expands surveillance. Here's what we know. The Trump administration is expanding government surveillance with Big Tech's help. Here's what we know now about what's being tracked. DENVER ‒ For decades, the government has been able to watch where you drive and where you walk. It can figure out where you shop, what you buy and with whom you spend time. It knows how much money you have, where you've worked and, in many cases, what medical procedures you've had. It can figure out if you've attended a protest or bought marijuana, and it can even read your emails if it wants. But because all of those data points about you were scattered across dozens of federal, state and commercial databases, it wasn't easy for the government to easily build a comprehensive profile of your life. That's changing ‒ fast. With the help of Big Tech, in just a few short months the Trump administration has expanded the government surveillance state to a whole new level as the president and his allies chase down illegal immigrants and suspected domestic terrorists while simultaneously trying to slash federal spending they've deemed wasteful and keep foreigners from voting. And in doing so, privacy experts warn, the federal government is inevitably scooping up, sorting, combining and storing data about millions of law-abiding Americans. The vast data storehouses, some of which have been targeted for access by Elon Musk's DOGE teams, raise significant privacy concerns and the threat of cybersecurity breaches. "What makes the Trump administration's approach so chilling is that they are seeking to collect and use data across federal agencies in ways that are unprecedented," said Cody Venzke, a senior policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. "The federal government's collection of data has always been a double-edged sword." Americans value their privacy Americans have fiercely guarded and worried about their privacy even from the country's earliest days: The Constitution's Fourth Amendment specifically limits the government's ability to invade a person's privacy. Those concerns have only grown as more government functions are carried out online. A 2023 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 71% of Americans worry about the government's use of data about them, up from 64% in 2019. The survey found the concern was greatest among those people who lean or consistently vote Republican, up from 63% to 77%. The level of concern among people who lean or consistently vote Democrat remained steady at 65%, the survey found. That same survey found that Americans overall are almost as concerned about government access to their data as they are about social media companies having access. People who had attended college were more worried about data privacy, while people with high school degrees were in general "confident that those who have access to their personal information will do the right thing." In acknowledgment of those concerns, the federal government carefully stores most data about Americans in separate databases, from Social Security payments to Medicare reimbursements, housing vouchers and food stamps. That limits the ability of government employees to surreptitiously build comprehensive profiles of Americans without court oversight. In the name of rooting out fraud, and government inefficiency, however, President Donald Trump in March ordered federal agencies under his control to lower the walls between their data warehouses. The Government Accounting Office estimates the federal government loses $233 billion to $521 billion to fraud annually, much of that because of improper payments to contractors or falsified medical payments, according to a GAO report in April. The report also noted significant losses via Medicare or unemployment fraud and pandemic-era stimulus payments. "Decades of restricted data access within and between agencies have led to duplicated efforts, undetected overpayments, and unchecked fraud, costing taxpayers billions," President Donald Trump said in a March 20 executive order that helped create the new system. "This executive order dismantles unnecessary barriers, promotes inter-agency collaboration, and ensures the Federal Government operates responsibly and efficiently to safeguard public funds." Merging of commercial and government databases Supporters say this kind of data archive, especially video surveillance coupled with AI-powered facial recognition, can also be a powerful tool to fight crime. Authorities in New Orleans used video footage collected by privately owned security cameras to help capture at least one of the fugitives in a high-profile prison escape in May. And systems that read license plates helped Colorado police track down a suspect accused of repeatedly vandalizing a Tesla dealership. White House authorities are now prosecuting some Tesla vandalism cases as terrorism. But the new White House efforts go far beyond anything ever attempted in the United States, allowing the government to conduct intrusive surveillance against almost anyone by combining government and commercial databases. Privacy experts say it's the merging of government and commercial databases that poses the most significant concern because much of it can be done without court oversight. As part of the broader White House effort, contractors are building a $30 million system to track suspected gang members and undocumented immigrants and buying access to a system that tracks passengers on virtually every U.S.-based airline flight. And federal officials also are making plans to compile and share state-level voting registration information, which the president argues is necessary to prevent foreign nationals from illegally voting in federal elections. Privacy experts say that while all of that data has long been collected and kept separate by different government agencies or private vendors ‒ like your supermarket frequent shopper card and cell phone provider ‒ the Trump administration is dramatically expanding its compilation into comprehensive dossiers on Americans. Much of the work has been kicked off by Musk's DOGE teams, with the assistance of billionaire Peter Thiel's Denver-based Palantir. Opponents say such a system could track women who cross state lines for abortions − something a police officer in Texas is accused of doing − or be abused by law enforcement to target political opponents or even stalk romantic partners. And if somehow accessed by hackers, the centralized systems would prove a trove of information for fraud or blackmail. The nonpartisan, nonprofit Project on Government Oversight has been warning about the risks of federal surveillance expansion for years, and it noted that Democrats and Republicans alike have voted to expand such information-gathering. "We need our leaders to recognize that as the surveillance apparatus grows, it becomes an enticing prize for a would-be autocrat," POGO said in a report in August 2024. "Our country cannot build and expand a surveillance superstructure and expect that it will not be turned against the people it is meant to protect." Starting with immigration, ending where? Trump campaigned in 2024 on a platform of tough immigration enforcement, including large-scale deportations and ending access by undocumented people to federal programs. Immigrants' rights advocates point out that people living illegally in the United States are generally barred from federal programs, although those who have children born as U.S. citizens can often access things like food assistance or health care. Supporters say having access to that data will help them prioritize people for deportation by comparing work history and tax payments to immigration status, work that used to be far more labor-intensive. Because federal officials don't know exactly who is living illegally in the United States, the systems by default must scoop up information about everyone first. One example: A newly expanded program to collect biometric data from suspected illegal immigrants intercepted at sea also can be used to collect the same information on American citizens under the vague justification of "officer safety." That data can be retained for up to 75 years, according to federal documents. "It's only a matter of time before the harmful ripples from this new effort reach other groups," Venzke said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store