Politics

Conservative Catholics hope to wield new influence in Trump’s second administration

Published

2 years ago

December 15, 2024

Joe Biden will leave the White House in January as only the second Catholic to occupy it. But a number of Catholics are expected to soon fill the ranks of Donald Trump’s administration.

Trump, who was raised as a Presbyterian but now considers himself non-denominational, has nominated at least a dozen Catholics to top positions in his administration, including his own vice president JD Vance, a Catholic convert, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., his pick for Health and Human Services Secretary. Their faith could play a direct role in shaping public policy, from pro-union policies and new tariffs to expanding the child tax credit and more tightly regulating the food and drug industries — and also help carve a new path forward for the Republican Party.

In interviews, several conservative practicing Catholic leaders said they see a close alignment between many of Trump’s second-term policy priorities and a conservative read of Catholic social teaching, which goes far beyond abortion. It’s also focused on promoting marriage and having children, giving parents wide discretion on everything from school content to health care and empowering non-governmental institutions like churches and nonprofit organizations for social support.

“No one’s walking into the administration ready to mount a crusade or anything,” said Rachel Bovard, vice president of programs at the Conservative Partnership Institute, a Trump-aligned think tank. But “there’s a very specific sort of Catholic paradigm that you may begin to see.”

It comes after decades of influence of a more individualistic evangelical Protestantism on the Republican Party that, among other things, strongly embraced individual liberty and free market capitalism.

“The market is not an end unto itself. The market has a purpose — and that is to create a free and flourishing society. If the family is not doing well, society is not doing well. We need to make sure our public policy is helping family to function,” Bovard added.

A spokesperson for the Trump transition did not respond to a request for comment.

In his nearly decade of political prominence, Trump has already dramatically reshaped the GOP, and it’s clear that the Republican Party’s future likely won’t be found in Ronald Reagan’s three-legged stool of conservatism, which was fiscally conservative, socially conservative and hawkish.

Where Republicans have long been skeptical of government intervention, some in the party increasingly see the government as a tool to reshape social policy. Republicans who long embraced “pro-life” policies, like restricting abortion access and supporting crisis pregnancy centers, are now leaning into a broader set of what they call pro-family policies that range from tax policies encouraging people to get married and have children to restrictions on kids accessing online porn. They are also now starting to turn a skeptical eye toward big businesses, including Big Pharma, Big Ag and Big Tech.

Some conservative Catholics are particularly intrigued by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose uncle, John F. Kennedy, was the nation’s first Catholic president.

“I think President Trump has put together a very pro-family platform that wants to return the family to the center of public policy again. Obviously, I think that’s very Catholic. I don’t think he’s trying to be very Catholic,” said Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project. “It just so happens to coincide with Catholic principles and Catholic teaching.”

This is, of course, not the progressive-leaning Catholicism of Biden, Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrats, which has honed in on social justice, climate change and health care access among its top causes. Their definition of Catholicism would bristle at the idea of turning away migrants or curtailing Medicaid access.

Catholics are the largest group of Christians worldwide, and Catholics from both parties have long held prominent positions not only in the White House but across Washington. Six of them sit on the nine-member U.S. Supreme Court; they make up a quarter of Congress, where they are overrepresented compared to the American population; and Biden appointed a similarly sizable number of Catholics to his Cabinet.

But conservative Catholic leaders see in the GOP’s embrace of populism a turn toward what they call a common-good conservatism that is less focused on individual rights and more focused on families and the community. It trades a pro-business focus for a “pro-family” one. And it’s one they see non-Catholics leaning into. Trump, in a recent interview with TIME Magazine, declared that the GOP has “become the party of common sense.”

“What does Catholic social teaching say about these things? Well, it says the aim of politics is the common good,” said Brian Burch, president of the conservative Catholic Vote. “And right now we have a huge swath of our population, especially families, that are not flourishing.”

Trump’s performance with Catholics is only getting better — likely due in part to his dramatic improvement among Latino voters. This year, he won 59 percent of the Catholic vote, a group he carried with 50 percent support in 2016 and that Biden won with 52 percent in 2020, according to BLN exit polling.

Some conservative Catholics are particularly intrigued by Kennedy, whose uncle, John F. Kennedy, was the nation’s first Catholic president. While Kennedy comes from a storied Democratic family, and himself was a registered Democrat until 2023, some of them see his concerns that food and drug companies are profiting off of sick people aligning with Catholic social teaching’s concerns around human dignity and respect, even as some of them have concerns about his shifting views on abortion.

“Bobby has talked about the commoditization of the human person, whether it’s their sickness and their health — it’s just another vaccine away from managing. Or Big Food and Big Government and Big Pharma have colluded in a way to manage people as commodities, and they’re kind of cogs in a globalist machine that we just need to manage with medicine, technology and science,” said Burch, who is close to Kennedy. “And for Catholics, we say, well, wait, no there’s something much richer and deeper and more profound about what it means to be human that we need to recapture.”

Other Catholics that Trump has nominated to his Cabinet include Marco Rubio as secretary of State, Lori Chavez-DeRemer as Labor secretary, Sean Duffy as Transportation secretary, Linda McMahon as Education secretary, Elise Stefanik as United Nations ambassador, Kelly Loeffler as SBA administrator and John Ratcliffe as CIA director.

The party’s lean toward these parts of Catholicism comes as the country grapples with high rates of income inequality, and two generations confront the reality that middle-class goals like buying a house and having kids feel increasingly out of reach. It also comes amid a growing societal discussion over gender roles, stagnating birth rates and the ubiquity of technology, social media and artificial intelligence in people, and particularly kids’, everyday lives.

Leading the charge is Vance, whose conversion as an adult to a postliberal strain of Catholicism underpins his approach to policy making. While the George W. Bush era saw an attempt to marry conservatism to certain kinds of Catholic social teaching — government intervention to meet the needs of the poor, and support for human rights abroad — it fell by the wayside as the Tea Party wave took over the Party.

Now, “in Vance, you have a figure who is trying to apply Catholic social teaching in a deeper, different way than we’ve seen before,” said Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “It’s just a general kind of attempt to reorient Republican economics toward families and a little bit less toward business.”

This conservative view of Catholic social teaching lines up in many ways with the party’s shifting views on a number of issues, like labor unions and trade policy. Vance, who joined a United Auto Workers picket line last year, has voiced familiarity with Pope Leo XIII’s 1901 encyclical on Christian democracy, in which he wrote that “it is only by the labor of working men that States grow rich.” Rubio has previously referenced the text in his own argument in support of labor unions, as has Robert Lighthizer, who was Trump’s trade chief during the first administration, in his arguments against “the orthodoxies of free trade religion.” (Lighthizer is unlikely to return to a Trump administration, but his close aide was chosen to be the U.S. trade representative.)

Other Catholics that Trump has nominated to his Cabinet include Marco Rubio as secretary of State.

It also speaks to an increasing interest within the GOP in using the government to incentivize family creation, as countries in Europe, like Italy, Greece, Hungary and Russia, have tried to do, though so far with little success. Trump has said he wants a “significant” expansion of the child tax credit — Vance has suggested increasing it to $5,000 per child — and also promised to make in vitro fertilization available to Americans free of charge. (That policy does, however, conflict with the official Catholic Church’s position against IVF, which opposes it.)

It’s a push that comes also as there is growing movement within the anti-abortion movement to focus on these and other “pro-family” policies instead of new abortion restrictions, as much of the country remains broadly supportive of some level of abortion access.

“We’re going to be talking about [IVF],” Trump recently told NBC News’ Kristen Welker. “We’ll be submitting in either the first or second package to Congress the extension of the tax cuts. So that might very well be in there, or it’ll come sometime after that.”

Still, progressive Catholics are skeptical about the extent to which the GOP will actually prioritize these policies, when Trump has promised in his first 100 days to focus on extending tax cuts, taking action on the border, and addressing crime in cities. And it’s unlikely big business, long allied with the Republican Party, will roll over easily.

“When you look at what the Republicans are talking about, they’re talking a whole lot more about cutting social provision than they are expanding it,” said E.J. Dionne, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who has focused on Catholic engagement in the political arena. “The dominant strain in the party is still far more pro-business, anti-government, libertarian.”

And progressive and some conservative Catholics agree that the administration’s hardline approach to immigration is likely to rankle U.S. bishops, who are already wary of Trump’s “mass deportation” proposal.

“When you’re looking at their first priority,” Dionne added, “it’s not family policy.”

Politics

A forced-labor crackdown or an end-run around Congress? Dissecting Trump’s new tariffs

Published

5 hours ago

July 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

NEW YORK (AP) — The Trump administration has imposed double-digit tariffs on more than 60 countriesusing a legal justification that permits the president to levy import taxes and other sanctions against countries found to engage in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” trade practices.

The new tariffs announced in recent days take effect just as temporary 10% worldwide tariffs expiredand critics say they are less about cracking down on forced labor than they are a way to replace those tariffs. The expired tariffs were themselves a temporary replacement for worldwide tariffs the Supreme Court struck down in February.

The tariffs were levied on countries that the U.S. says either don’t have or don’t effectively enforce a forced-labor import ban. The affected countrieswhich account for 99% of U.S. imports, were quick to protest, calling the Trump administration’s claims unfounded and arbitrary, as nations with vastly different records on forced labor received the same tariff level. The U.S. spent four months investigating but gave few details on how it arrived at the tariff rates, which are either 10% or 12.5%.

Sidestepping Congress

The tariffs were levied under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on countries that the U.S. determined had failed “to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor.”

During President Donald Trump ‘s first term, he cited Section 301 to impose sweeping tariffs on Chinese imports amid a dispute over the sharp-elbowed tactics Beijing was using to challenge America’s technological dominance. The U.S. is also using 301 powers to counter what it calls unfair Chinese practices in the shipbuilding industry.

“The 301s allow a permanent tariff without going to Congress to settle the dispute,” said Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law. “That’s what all of this is about. The president doesn’t want to knock on the front door of Congress, so he’s trying every side door and every unlatched window to get in.”

Little evidence that countries failed to enforce import bans

The office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) said it consulted with all 60 economies under investigation and held two rounds of public hearings, elicited more than 2,100 public comments, and had “engagement” with its trading partners about what they were doing to combat forced labor bans.

It didn’t detail its talks with the countries, saying those were confidential. Experts say it is fairly straightforward to investigate whether a country has a ban or not, but it is difficult to determine the government’s exact rationale for each country’s failure to enforce import bans.

“There’s not a lot of hard evidence there,” said Scott Lincicome, vice president for general economics and trade policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. “It’s pretty laughable on its face to think that a country like the ones in Europe or in Norway or Switzerland aren’t doing enough to police forced labor.”

And even if countries do enact and enforce the forced-labor import bans the U.S. wants, they would still need to prove that they’re enforcing them to Washington’s satisfaction before the tariffs would be removed, said lawyer Patrick Childress, a partner at Holland & Knight and a former U.S. trade official.

“This suggests that no short-term path for countrywide relief from the new Section 301 tariffs will be available,” he said.

Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

Countries and industries reject the forced labor argument

Many countries have pushed back against the Trump administration’s findings.

Brazil, which faces a 12.5% forced-labor tariff, called the U.S. move “arbitrary and unjustified.” The U.S. “chose to manipulate an issue of great importance to human rights and the struggles of workers worldwide in order to accuse 59 countries and the European Union of unfair practices,” it said in a statement.

Australia also questioned the justification for its 12.5% tariff.

“We believe that amongst all of the countries in the world, Australia does take the issue of slavery, modern slavery, seriously, and will continue to do that,” Trade Minister Don Farrell told reporters in Adelaide.

Carve-outs have riled some industries. The National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO), which describes itself as the voice of the American textile industry, protested a mechanism that exempts the Section 301 tariffs for textile and apparel imports from Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia based on those countries’ imports of U.S. cotton and textiles.

“No other industry has been more disadvantaged by forced labor than the U.S. textile industry, which employs 453,000 workers and has lost 41 plants over the past two plus years,” NCTO chief executive Kim Glas said in a statement. “We remain strongly concerned that USTR’s textile mechanism will harm the very domestic manufacturers the administration seeks to help.”

US forced-labor bans don’t always work

The U.S. has two major pieces of legislation related to forced-labor import bans. The Tariff Act of 1930 gave Customs and Border Protection the authority to seize shipments where forced labor was suspected and to block further imports. But it had a big carve-out: If there was “consumptive demand,” meaning there wasn’t sufficient supply to meet domestic demand, imports were allowed regardless of how they were produced. The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act that took effect in 2016 eliminated that loophole.

In 2021, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act was passed. It blocks imports from China’s Xinjiang region unless businesses can prove the items were made without forced labor.

But goods made with forced labor can still make it into the U.S. In 2015, an Associated Press investigation found that slave labor was used in the fishing industry in Southeast Asia. The seafood they caught made its way to supermarkets and pet food providers across the U.S.

An investigation by The Associated Press in 2020 into the $65 billion palm oil industry found labor abuses among an invisible workforce consisting of millions of men, women and children in Asia. The fruit they harvested made its way into the supply chains of major companies, including Unilever, L’Oreal, Nestle and Procter & Gamble.

Calls for a more comprehensive approach to combat forced labor

During hearings on the tariffs this month, National Retail Federation vice president Jonathan Gold, who was representing the business coalition the Joint Association Forced Labor Working Group at the hearing, said that in order for the import bans to work, they would have to be much more extensive.

He said there need to be “clear, measurable benchmarks” tied to tariffs for countries to hit, and that the U.S. should help countries build enforcement programs.

Kenya Davis, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm, said an effective ban needs a “comprehensive approach” that provides transparency about what the investigations consisted of, along with programs that provide countries aid in enforcing bans.

Politics

El-Sayed comes under fire for ‘ogre on a pike’ leaked comment

Published

7 hours ago

July 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is facing backlash from within his own party after using controversial rhetoric to describe the stakes of his victory in a recent donor meeting.

“You put one ogre on a pike, and then everyone else gets the message, and all of a sudden starts to sound a lot different,” El-Sayed said, describing how his win could propel the progressive movement, according to audio of a Zoom meeting obtained by POLITICO.

On Monday, several Democrats were quick to slam his comments, which they took as direct reference to his Senate primary opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens. El-Sayed had not explicitly mentioned Stevens in the portion of the call Blue Light News reviewed.

“Calling your female opponent an ogre you want to put on a pike is not beating the rap that this race has some serious sexism,” Neera Tanden, a centrist Democrat and president of the Center for American Progress, posted on X. Melissa Byrne, a former staffer for Sen. Bernie Sanders, called the remark an “unforced error” that is “really bad and beneath the progressive project.”

El-Sayed’s leaked comments and the reaction to them amount to another flashpoint in a tense primary that is dividing the progressive and moderate wings of the party, and at times has been defined by accusations of racism and sexism.

“Abdul continues with personal insults and making this race about his personal political ambitions and the other 49 states,” said Arik Wolk, spokesperson for the Stevens campaign. “Haley is focused on getting things done for Michigan, and only Michigan.”

Republicans also immediately jumped on the comment, and some leaned into stereotypes of El-Sayed’s religion as a Muslim. “Michigan Islamist discusses beheading his opponents,” said Steve Guest, a former staffer for Sen. Ted Cruz, on X.

An El-Sayed campaign spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the backlash. A spokesperson had previously told Blue Light News that the candidate was “speaking metaphorically” about his intention to support a primary against Sen. John Fetterman in Pennsylvania.

This is not the first time El-Sayed has used — and defended — aggressive political rhetoric. “When they go low, we don’t go high,” the progressive said while speaking at a campaign rally earlier this year, riffing on a famous line from former first lady Michelle Obama. “We take them to the mud and choke them out.”

He and Stevens will face off in their final Democratic Senate debate Monday night, and the results of the Aug. 4 primary could have major consequences for the party as it grapples with its ideological tack ahead of the 2028 presidential election.