Editorial News Uncategorized

Three high-ranking American cardinals have criticized the Trump administration’s foreign policy.

Jacques Pj Provost

2026-06-20 22:54:43

Diverse backgrounds but united in their message

Cardinal Blase Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, is undoubtedly the best known of the three signatories. Born in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1949, he was appointed Archbishop of Chicago by Pope Francis in 2014 and created a cardinal in 2016. Cupich is widely regarded as a representative of the progressive wing of the American Church, known for his positions on Church reform and his social commitment. His pastoral experience and intellectual stature give him considerable influence within the American ecclesiastical hierarchy.

Cardinal Robert McElroy, Archbishop of Washington, represents another important voice within the progressive American Church. Born in San Francisco in 1954, he served in various dioceses in California before being appointed Archbishop of Washington in 2023. McElroy is known for his writings on Catholic social teaching and his commitment to social justice. His appointment to Washington, the most important archdiocese in the United States, was seen as a strong signal of Pope Francis’s support for the progressive wing within the American Church.

I pause for a moment to reflect on these journeys, these lives dedicated to the service of a faith, of an institution. There is something fascinating about this diversity of origins, this unity in the message. Three men, coming from different backgrounds, who find themselves united by a shared concern, a shared conviction. It is like a melody taking shape, harmonious despite the world’s dissonances. Their names resonate like notes in a score being written before our very eyes.

Cardinal Joseph Tobin: A Pastoral Voice

Cardinal Joseph Tobin, Archbishop of Newark, New Jersey, brings an important pastoral dimension to this statement. Born in Detroit in 1952, Tobin is a member of the Redemptorist Order and served as the order’s Superior General before being appointed Archbishop of Indianapolis in 2012 and then of Newark in 2016. His missionary experience in more than 70 countries as a Redemptorist priest has given him a global perspective on the challenges facing the Church around the world.

Tobin is particularly well-positioned to understand the implications of U.S. policies on developing countries. His ministry has led him to work in contexts of poverty, conflict, and injustice, giving him firsthand insight into how political decisions affect the most vulnerable populations. It is this experience that has led him to express particular concern about cuts to U.S. foreign aid, which he has described as detrimental to efforts to combat hunger and health issues around the world.

Tobin’s life—those years spent on the front lines of human suffering—gives his words special weight. This isn’t theory; it’s lived experience. When he speaks of the consequences of U.S. policies, he isn’t speaking in the abstract, but from firsthand knowledge. This experience on the ground, this proximity to suffering, is what gives his voice its credibility and its special resonance. You can sense that behind every word there are faces, stories, and lives that matter.

Section 2: Pope Leo XIV’s Speech as a Catalyst

An Unprecedented Critique of the Policy of Force

The speech delivered by Pope Leo XIV on January 9 before the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See marked a decisive moment. The pope, who was born in the United States, delivered his speech almost entirely in English—a symbolic choice that clearly signaled that his message was directed specifically at the U.S. government. In his address, Leo XIV denounced the “zeal for war” spreading throughout the world, asserting that the principle established after World War II—which prohibited nations from using force to violate the borders of others—had been “completely undermined.”

The pope did not name specific countries, but the context was clear: the speech came in the wake of the U.S. military operation in Venezuela, the Trump administration’s threats regarding Greenland, and Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine. Leo XIV emphasized that peace is no longer sought as a gift and a desirable good in and of itself, but rather through the use of arms as a condition for asserting one’s own dominance. This direct critique of the logic of power that guides certain foreign policies provided the language the American cardinals needed to formulate their own statement.

There is something poignant about this choice of English, as if the pope were speaking directly to the soul of America, to that part of itself that seems to have lost its way. His words resonate as a rebuke, but also as a call. A call to rediscover that tradition of justice and peace that has made America great. It is a message that transcends political boundaries, addressing the collective conscience of a nation.

The Legacy of Catholic Social Teaching

Pope Leo XIV’s address is part of the long tradition of the Catholic Church’s social doctrine, which has always emphasized the promotion of peace, international justice, and the protection of human rights. This doctrine, developed since Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical “Rerum Novarum,” has evolved to address contemporary challenges, but its fundamental principles remain the same: human dignity must be at the center of all policy, and peace must be built on justice and dialogue rather than on force.

The American cardinals made it clear that their statement was inspired by the teachings of Pope Leo XIV. In interviews with the Associated Press, Cardinal Cupich explained that the signatories were inspired to issue a statement after hearing several other cardinals express their concerns during a meeting at the Vatican on January 7 and 8. The pope’s speech provided them with the necessary language, allowing them to “ride on the coattails” of the pope’s words, as Cupich explained.

This continuity of Catholic thought, this fidelity to age-old principles, is what gives this criticism its depth and legitimacy. It is not an opportunistic political stance, but the expression of a deep conviction, rooted in a tradition of thought that has spanned the centuries. It is as if the wisdom of the ages were shedding light on the turmoil of the present, reminding us that today’s choices have consequences that extend far beyond the immediate political moment.

Section 3: The Intervention in Venezuela as a Turning Point

A Controversial Military Operation

The U.S. military operation in Venezuela, which resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, marked a major turning point in relations between the American Church and the Trump administration. Although many Americans may have welcomed the news of Maduro’s capture, the manner in which this intervention was carried out raised serious legal and moral questions. The cardinals emphasized that nations’ rights to self-determination appeared “fragile” in a world marked by escalating conflicts.

In an interview with the Associated Press, Cardinal Cupich acknowledged that the pursuit of Maduro could be viewed positively, but criticized the manner in which it was carried out—through a U.S. military incursion into a sovereign country. “When we proceed in this manner—which is presented as saying, ‘Because we can do it, we’re going to do it; might makes right’—it is a troubling development,” he said. “There is the rule of law that should be followed.”

These words resonate with particular force. Might makes right… it’s a phrase that takes us back to the darkest times in history, to an era when violence reigned supreme. And today, it seems to us, are we returning to this primitive logic? It’s frightening—truly frightening. Is the rule of law—that pillar of civilization—crumbling before our very eyes? I am struck by this tragic irony: America, a nation founded on the idea of the rule of law, seems ready to abandon it when it suits its purposes.

The Implications for the International Order

The operation in Venezuela has implications that extend far beyond that country alone. It calls into question the fundamental principles of the international order established after World War II, which are based on respect for the sovereignty of states and the prohibition on the use of force, except in cases of self-defense or with authorization from the United Nations Security Council. By intervening militarily in Venezuela without these justifications, the Trump administration has set a dangerous precedent that could be invoked by other powers to justify their own interventions.

The cardinals warned against this erosion of international norms. In their statement, they asserted that events in Venezuela, Ukraine, and Greenland have raised fundamental questions about the use of military force and the meaning of peace. This warning is part of a long tradition of Catholic thought on “just war,” which requires that any use of force meet strict criteria of legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality.

Is the international order—that fragile edifice built with such difficulty after the horrors of World War II—now crumbling? Every unjustified intervention, every violation of sovereignty, is a crack in the protective wall that separates us from chaos. And who will pay the price for this collapse? It is always the same people: the innocent, the weak, those who lack the means to defend themselves. It is this injustice that revolts me—this violence disguised as virtue.

Section 4: The Greenland Issue and Expansionist Threats

A proposal that defies international law

The Trump administration’s threats to acquire Greenland—an autonomous territory of Denmark and a NATO member—were another major source of concern for the American cardinals. Trump has repeatedly argued that the United States needs to control the resource-rich island for its national security. This proposal defies not only international law, which protects the sovereignty of states, but also traditional U.S. alliances, particularly with Denmark, a founding member of NATO.

In their statement, the cardinals cited Greenland as one of the examples that raise “fundamental questions about the use of military force and the meaning of peace.” The proposal to acquire this Danish territory by force suggests a vision of foreign policy based on territorial acquisition rather than on international cooperation and respect for the law. This vision directly contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church on the promotion of peace and international justice.

Greenland… this vast, icy territory, a symbol of unspoiled wilderness—has it become an object of desire, a pawn on a geopolitical chessboard? There is something almost absurd about the idea of acquiring territory by force in the 21st century, as if we had returned to the era of colonial conquests. It is as if technological progress were accompanied by moral regression, as if our capacity for destruction were increasing at the same time that our wisdom were diminishing.

The Consequences for Transatlantic Alliances

The threats to Greenland have implications that extend far beyond this specific territory. They threaten the very foundations of the transatlantic alliance that has underpinned European security since the end of World War II. Denmark, a loyal ally of the United States for decades, has faced direct threats from its NATO partner. This breach of trust between traditional allies could have lasting consequences for European and global stability.

The cardinals, in their wisdom, have understood that this approach to foreign policy leads only to isolation and conflict. Their statement calls for a “truly moral foreign policy” that respects and promotes the right to human life, religious freedom, and the enhancement of human dignity throughout the world, particularly through economic assistance. This approach stands in stark contrast to the logic of acquisition and domination that seems to guide certain current policies.

Alliances—these bonds forged in adversity, strengthened by time and shared trust—are precious treasures in an unstable world. To break them for short-term gains is madness—utter madness. It is like undermining the foundations of one’s own home just to salvage a few bricks. I think of the generations who built these alliances, who sacrificed so much to maintain peace. And now, would all of that be jeopardized by a few impulsive decisions? It is heartbreaking—truly heartbreaking.

Section 5: Cuts to Foreign Aid and Their Consequences

A Decline in U.S. Humanitarian Engagement

Another major concern expressed by the cardinals relates to the drastic cuts in U.S. foreign aid initiated by the Trump administration last year. USAID (United States Agency for International Development) has been significantly scaled back, with the administration claiming that its projects advanced a liberal agenda and were a waste of money. This cut has had dramatic consequences for vital programs around the world.

Cardinal Tobin, who has served as a missionary priest in more than 70 countries, expressed deep concern over this rollback of U.S. aid. “American philanthropy makes a huge difference in everything from hunger to health,” he said in an interview. His firsthand experience with the realities on the ground gives him a unique perspective on the impact of these cuts on the most vulnerable populations.

Has foreign aid—the funds that save lives, build schools, and treat the sick—become superfluous? There is something cruel about this line of reasoning, something inhumane. When I think of the children who won’t be vaccinated, the families who won’t have enough to eat, the communities that won’t be able to rebuild after a disaster, I am struck by the indifference that seems to prevail. It’s as if we’ve lost our ability to empathize, to put ourselves in others’ shoes.

The Impact on Vital Programs

Cuts to foreign aid affect a wide range of vital programs, from the fight against hunger and malnutrition to healthcare, education, and economic development. In many countries, this assistance is a lifeline for millions of people who depend on these programs for their survival and well-being. The withdrawal of this aid has immediate and devastating consequences for the most vulnerable populations.

The cardinals emphasized that their criticism was not simply intended to condemn the administration, but to encourage the United States to regain its moral stature in the world by pursuing a foreign policy guided by ethics and dedicated to the common good. “We do not endorse any political party or political movement,” said Cardinal Tobin. “The faithful in the pews and all people of good will have a role to play.”

The common good… these two simple words contain a profound truth, one that has been almost forgotten in our world obsessed with individual interest and immediate profit. Cardinal Tobin reminds us that we all have a responsibility, that each of us can make a difference. This is not a task reserved for those in government; it is a calling shared by all who believe in human dignity. This thought gives me a little hope, despite everything.

Section 6: The Moral Question at the Heart of Foreign Policy

The Call for an Ethics-Guided Foreign Policy

At the heart of the cardinals’ statement is a call to restore a moral dimension to U.S. foreign policy, one that seems to have eroded over the years. In their statement, the prelates warned that “our country’s moral role in confronting evil in the world, upholding the right to life and human dignity, and supporting religious freedom are all being called into question.” This warning suggests that the absence of a moral compass in foreign policy can have disastrous consequences.

Cardinal McElroy elaborated on this concern in an interview with the Associated Press: “Most of the United States and the world are morally adrift in terms of foreign policy,” he said. “I still believe that the United States has an enormous impact on the world.” This recognition of America’s global influence makes the call for an international ethic based on human dignity and the common good all the more important.

“Moral drift”… it’s a phrase that resonates with terrifying accuracy. I think of a ship drifting off course, pushed by invisible currents, until the danger becomes obvious. But is it already too late? Are we already so far off our moral course that there’s no turning back? This question haunts me. There is something tragic in this collective realization that something is wrong—something profoundly wrong—and yet the inability to change course.

The Condemnation of War as a Political Tool

One of the most powerful passages in the cardinals’ statement is their explicit condemnation of the use of war as an instrument of national policy. They write: “We renounce war as a tool for narrow national interests and proclaim that military action must be viewed solely as a last resort in extreme situations, not as a normal instrument of national policy.” This statement stands in stark contrast to the approach that seems to prevail in certain circles of the current administration.

This position is in line with the tradition of the doctrine of “just war” developed by the Catholic Church over the centuries. According to this doctrine, any use of force must meet strict criteria of legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality. War can never be considered a normal instrument of policy, but only as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted and the goal is to restore justice and peace.

War as a last resort… these words have echoed through the centuries, repeated by sages and philosophers, by generals weary of the horrors of combat, by mothers mourning their sons. And yet, with each generation, we seem to have to relearn this lesson. Why is it so difficult to grasp this simple truth: that war is never a solution, but merely an admission of failure? I am struck by this tragic repetition, this inability to learn from the past.

Section 7: Reactions and Future Prospects

Support from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

The statement by the three cardinals has received the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Chieko Noguchi, a spokesperson for the conference, stated that its president, Archbishop Paul Coakley, “supports the cardinals’ emphasis on the teachings of Pope Leo in these times.” This support suggests that the concerns expressed by the cardinals are shared more broadly within the American Catholic hierarchy.

This growing consensus within the American Church regarding criticism of the Trump administration’s foreign policy is significant. It points to a deep unease that is not limited to a progressive fringe of the Church but extends throughout the hierarchy. The moral issue at the heart of foreign policy seems to be becoming a point of convergence for prelates who might otherwise disagree on other matters.

There is something powerful about this unity, this convergence of voices rising together to speak the truth. It is like a choir gaining strength and clarity, each voice joining the others to create a melody that resonates more powerfully. Despite the divisions that may exist within the Church, on this fundamental issue there is agreement. This gives me a sense of hope—perhaps modest, but real. Perhaps the truth always triumphs in the end, even in the darkest moments.

The White House’s Lack of Response

The White House did not immediately respond to the Associated Press’s request for comment on the cardinals’ statement. This silence could be interpreted in several ways: perhaps the administration does not consider this criticism significant enough to warrant an official response, or perhaps it is reluctant to engage in a public debate with such respected figures of the American Catholic Church.

This silence contrasts with the forcefulness of the cardinals’ criticism. It may suggest that the current administration is increasingly less receptive to critical voices, even when they come from traditionally respected institutions such as the Catholic Church. This distance between political power and the voices of civil society is a cause for concern for the health of democracy and for the nation’s ability to engage in self-reflection.

Silence… sometimes it is a response in itself, an absence that speaks volumes. When those in power refuse to listen, to engage in dialogue, or to address criticism, it marks the beginning of isolation, the beginning of a downward spiral. History teaches us that regimes that cut themselves off from criticism eventually lose their way and their legitimacy. I hope that is not the case here, that the administration will be able to hear these concerns and reflect on them.

Conclusion: A Call to Rediscover America's Moral Compass

The Urgency of Regaining an Ethical Compass

The statement by the three American cardinals serves as a serious warning to the Trump administration and to the country as a whole. It reminds us that power without morality is a recipe for disaster, and that influence without ethics leads to isolation and contempt. The United States, long regarded as a beacon for the world, risks losing that stature if it abandons the moral principles that have guided its foreign policy for decades.

The cardinals’ message is clear: America needs to rediscover its moral compass and reconnect with the tradition of justice and peace that has made it great. This is not merely a matter of politics; it is a matter of national identity. The question is whether America wants to be a nation that imposes its will by force or a nation that inspires by example, that serves the common good, and that respects human dignity throughout the world.

When I reread these words, when I consider the gravity of this moment, I am struck by the urgency that emanates from this statement. It is like a cry in the night, a call for a collective awakening. America stands at a crossroads, facing a choice that will define its identity for generations to come. Will I choose the path of force, domination, and contempt? Or will I choose the path of justice, peace, and human dignity? This choice is not merely political; it is profoundly moral and spiritual. And it concerns us all—not just Americans, but everyone who believes in a better world.

The Responsibility of All Citizens

Cardinal Tobin recalled an important truth: the responsibility for promoting a moral foreign policy belongs not only to those in government, but to all citizens. “The faithful in the pews and all people of good will have a role to play,” he declared. “They can make the case for basic human decency.” This statement reminds us that democracy requires the active participation of all citizens in public debate.

This call for civic action is particularly relevant in the current context, where global challenges demand responses grounded in sound ethical principles. Every citizen has a responsibility to stay informed, reflect, and speak out on foreign policy issues. Peace, justice, and human dignity are not abstractions; they are concrete realities that require our constant commitment. It is in this commitment that the hope for a better world lies.

And here is the ultimate truth: change begins with each of us—in our daily choices, in our conversations, and in our votes. We all have the power to influence the course of events, to make our voices heard in support of justice and peace. It may be modest, but it is real; it is tangible. This thought gives me hope, even in the darkest moments. Humanity has weathered far worse trials and has found its way toward the light. So can we.

Sources

Primary Sources

Joint statement by Cardinals Blase Cupich, Robert McElroy, and Joseph Tobin, published on January 19, 2026. Address by Pope Leo XIV to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See, January 9, 2026.

Secondary sources

Associated Press, “U.S. Catholic Cardinals Urge Trump Administration to Embrace a Moral Compass in Foreign Policy,” January 19, 2026. CBS News Chicago, “Cardinals of Chicago, D.C., and Newark Release Statement Urging Trump to Embrace a Moral Compass in Foreign Policy,” January 19, 2026. HotNews.ro, “Three High-Ranking U.S. Cardinals Criticize the Trump Administration’s Foreign Policy,” January 19, 2026.

This content was created with the help of AI.

Commentaires

0 0 votes

Article Rating