What is new and what is new in the US bishops’ criticism of Trump’s foreign policy?

In recent weeks, Catholic leaders have been increasingly vocal in their criticism of the Trump administration’s foreign policy, especially its foreign policy Military intervention in Venezuela and The clatter of swords over Greenland.

On January 19, 2026, the three cardinals who head the American dioceses—Blaise Cupich of Chicago, Robert McElroy of Washington, D.C., and Joseph Tobin of Newark—issued a rare decree Joint statement. They begin by calling for a “genuinely ethical foreign policy,” saying, “The United States has engaged in a deeper and more urgent debate about the moral basis of America’s actions in the world since the end of the Cold War.”

The cardinals quoted what Pope Leo XIV said Annual address to members of the diplomatic corps at the VaticanDelivered earlier that month, he lamented the spread of “enthusiasm for war” and the “undermining of the entire rule governing the use of force.”

In subsequent interviews, Kubis criticized the US operation to arrest President Nicolas Maduro To send the message that “might makes right.”“. Tobin noted Some members of the Trump administration appear to advance “an almost Darwinian calculus that the strong survive while the weak don’t deserve it.”

As a former foreign policy advisor to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and now Director of Catholic Peacebuilding Studies At the Kroc Institute of Notre Dame, I know how rarely a short statement by cardinals makes headlines – especially because what they said was mostly just repeating ancient church teachings.

But more recent are comments by Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who leads the diocese of military services. In December 2025, he released Broglio Detailed criticism For the morals and legitimacy of the Trump administration Strikes against boats in the Caribbean. In January Interview with BBCWhen asked whether the invasion of Greenland could be considered just, he said: “I cannot see any circumstances that would make it just.”

It is unusual for the Archbishop of the Military Services to question the morality of specific US military interventions. After doing so, it is unusual to invite the leaders of the nation – Respecting the consciences of the military “Not to ask them to do obscene acts.” Remind service members That “it would be morally acceptable to disobey (such) an order.”

All of these statements continue the US bishops’ legacy of opposing all major US military intervention since the Vietnam War. Except for the invasion of Afghanistan.

Just war

This opposition reflects the Catholic Church’s centuries-old “just war” tradition and its increasingly restrictive approach to what is considered “just.”

Just war standards determine when, why, and how force can be used. according to Catholic Christian EducationGoing to war is legitimate in cases where there are no other means of stopping “permanent, serious and certain harm,” there is a reasonable chance of success, and the war will not produce “greater evils and disturbances than the evil which must be eliminated.”

In other words, war should be “a last resort in extreme situations, not a normal instrument of national policy.” As the Cardinals indicated in their statement. The Catholic Church assumes that war is a failure of politics.

This restrictive approach is followed by some conservative Catholics It’s called the “functional ladder.”It has placed church leaders in opposition to US military interventions that reflect a more permissive interpretation of just war. This permissive approach assumes that war may be a last resort, but it remains a form of politics – an instrument of foreign policy.

Criticisms of the Cold War

These contradictory trends were particularly evident in the nuclear debate of the early 1980s and the debate over the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

When Ronald Reagan first took office, his administration launched a massive campaign Nuclear buildup It deployed intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe, arguing that the Americans were falling behind the Soviets in the Cold War.

In 1983, the US bishops issued a very moving letter, Peace challengewhich opposed core elements of the administration’s nuclear policy. They called for a halt to the arms race, opposed the first use of nuclear weapons, and were skeptical of the morality of even limited or retaliatory second use.

Their 103-page letter had no direct impact on US nuclear policy, but it helped ensure that the just war tradition was not dismissed as outdated by policymakers. And analysts. Pastoral reading was required in military academies.

One of the architects of Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral James Watkins, was alarmed by the Church’s criticism of deterrence, According to journalist John Newhouse. Watkins saw missile defense as a morally superior alternative, which explains the so-called “missile defense.”“Star Wars” program. It was sold to Congress and a skeptical public.

No preventive war

Discussion of the excessive use of force reached its peak in the run-up to the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. The administration claimed that military force It should not be limited to defense against aggression. From this point of view, preventive war was justified to remove the potential danger posed by Iraq in the wake of 9/11: a rogue regime possessing weapons of mass destruction and linked to global terrorists.

Pope John Paul II, US bishops, and Catholic leaders around the world He strongly objectedSaying that such a principle would weaken the traditions of just war and international law. As was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger at the time – who later became Pope Benedict XVI – He said in 2002“The concept of ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

As early as May 2002, the American bishops initiated this A series of meetings With White House officials He urged them not to go to war. In March 2003, John Paul sent Italian Cardinal Pio Laghi to deliver a letter to President George W. Bush. Urge the same thing.

New context

It is nothing new that the Church’s most idealistic and universal approach to international affairs is in deep tension With a realistic and “anti-globalization” American foreign policy.. In fact, bishops were more frank in the past than now.

But what is new, at least since the end of the Cold War, is church leaders’ increasing concern about foreign policy that deliberately violates rules and norms. Previous administrations have provided legal and ethical justifications for military inventions, such as the Bush administration’s He claims that Iraq was a just war.

However, Trump has abandoned all pretensions of his predecessors, says The New York Times“I don’t need international law.” He said the only limit to his international power was “moral.”

The bishops’ statements about his administration’s foreign policy are few and modest compared to the past. But with The American Pope leads the wayThis may be the first shot at more forceful public opposition from Catholic leaders.