Connect with us

News

The downfall of Joe Biden

Published

on

The downfall of Joe Biden

“It’s up to the president to decide if he is going to run,” Nancy Pelosi told MSNBC on July 10, smiling past Joe Biden’s insistence a day earlier that he would not be dropping his re-election bid unless the “Lord Almighty” ordered it.

Pelosi, the former Speaker of the House, never publicly called for Biden to end his candidacy and make way for a new generation after his disastrous debate performance against Donald Trump in late June. 

But for someone with the San Francisco Democrat’s heft in the party it was the equivalent of telling America’s commander-in-chief: think again.

When one of Pelosi’s closest political allies, California representative Adam Schiff, last week called for the president to step aside, it was all but over. “Mama bear has sent her message,” a senior Democrat in Washington said.

Protesters outside a school where Joe Biden held a rally on July 5 in Madison, Wisconsin © Jim Vondruska/Getty Images

Biden’s downfall, an unprecedented political geronticide, played out over 24 days, with the president and his inner circle fighting to cling on to power as a growing band of Democrats — elected officials, donors and activists — undertook the ugly work of toppling him. They did so with misgivings but ultimately convinced that his candidacy would doom the nation to a Trump restoration in November and all that might accompany it.

Advertisement

The ending was unceremonious. On Sunday, at 1.46pm, Biden posted a one-page statement on social media from his holiday home in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, where he has been recuperating from Covid.

Almost instantaneously, he was showered with accolades — including from those who had worked to oust him. “He will undoubtedly go down in the history books as a true American patriot,” said Virginia Senator Mark Warner. Barack Obama called him “one of America’s most consequential presidents, as well as a dear friend”.

Having buried Biden, it was now time for the Democrats to praise him.

On one level, his fall is an epic event that may reverberate from the battlefields of Ukraine to the fight against climate change and American women’s freedom to make their own reproductive decisions. 

Yet it is also eminently relatable: the everyday story of a family attempting to persuade a beloved but declining patriarch to step aside. Or, as one Democratic operative in Washington described it: “The hardest case of taking away the keys from dad. Ever.”

Advertisement

It began in a television studio on CNN’s Atlanta campus that the cable network converted into a red-white-and-blue debate stage for the Trump-Biden match-up. It was Biden who requested the early June 27 debate — hoping to jolt a campaign that was trailing Trump in polls by a small but persistent margin.

In the event, it backfired. A rasping, rambling Biden ended up crystallising the worries about his age and fitness, rather than dispelling them.

“I was wishing that someone would jump out and stop it the way they do in a boxing match when an ageing champ is getting brutally beaten,” said Frank Aquila, a corporate lawyer at Sullivan & Cromwell and Democratic fundraiser, who was watching with his wife in their Manhattan apartment.

They began frantically texting with family and friends. “They were all in shock,” he said.

The internet would soon be ablaze with clips of Biden stumbling and losing his train of thought — claiming at one point to have “finally beaten Medicare”.

Advertisement

“We are in Fuck City,” Ari Emanuel, the chief executive of the Endeavor talent agency, declared at the Aspen Ideas Festival the next morning, capturing Democrats’ sense of dread.

On Wall Street, a top rainmaker had his secretary clear his schedule as soon as the debate ended — including a meeting with the chief executive of a S&P 500 company in the middle of a takeover bid. “I immediately called up a bunch of my closest pals and we started co-ordinating our efforts,” this person recalled.

Over the coming days they would play a pivotal role, leveraging contacts in Washington, and delivering a stark message: no more money would be going to Biden.

The Biden team entered damage control mode. Before sheltering with his family at Camp David that weekend, the president tried to reassure wealthy donors at fundraisers in the Hamptons, the ultra-wealthy Long Island playground, and at New Jersey governor Phil Murphy’s estate overlooking the Navesink River.

Guests traded looks of disbelief that Biden relied on a teleprompter to deliver remarks to donors. “You can’t run the country with a teleprompter,” one adviser to a big Biden donor said.

Advertisement

The shock at Biden’s debate performance was fast turning to anger. Donors complained that they had been misled by the president’s inner circle about the extent of his decline. They were referring to a tight-knit group who had served him for decades, including Anita Dunn, Mike Donilon, Steve Ricchetti and Ted Kaufman.

Biden, centre right, and first lady Jill Biden, right, arrive on Marine One with granddaughters Natalie Biden, from left, and Finnegan Biden, at East Hampton Airport, Saturday, June 29 2024, in East Hampton, New York
Biden and first lady Jill Biden arrive on Marine One at East Hampton Airport, New York, on June 29 © Evan Vucci/AP

The first lady Jill Biden was also a target. The president’s wife of 47 years and closest confidante was widely admired for her down-to-earth persona. Now she was being recast as Lady MacBiden, too enamoured with the trappings of the White House to discourage her husband’s worst instincts.

In Hollywood, the fury was aimed at Biden’s chief fundraiser Jeffrey Katzenberg, the co-founder of the DreamWorks film studio who some felt was peddling political make-believe.

“[Katzenberg] would say, ‘He’s fine, I was just with him,’” a Hollywood veteran and longtime Democratic donor recalled. “He had this famous quote for everybody, which was ‘I’m happy to put you in a room with him and you’ll see for yourself.’ But nobody did it.”


For those who cared to see it, evidence of Biden’s frailty abounded. Trump had been harping on it for years. There was the ever-present teleprompter. There was the way his wife and others formed a protective wall on stage, limiting the public’s view of his ginger steps. There was the regular adventure of the president attempting to mount the stairs to Air Force One.

More recently, there were the freezing episodes — both at a Juneteenth celebration at the White House and at a Los Angeles fundraiser, when Obama guided his former vice-president offstage by the arm.

Advertisement

Daniel Faraci, a Republican strategist, said there would inevitably be a “convenient blame game”. “But who can say they were really hoodwinked?” he asked.


On Friday, July 5 — eight days after the debate and three days after the first Democrat lawmaker had called for him to leave the race — Biden bowed to pressure and made a rare media appearance, sitting down with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in a Wisconsin school.

The 22-minute interview was mostly notable for the many ways Stephanopoulos asked the president the same question: was he too old for the job?

Biden performed better than he had during the debate — but not so well as to erase the doubts. As one Democratic consultant remarked: “He could do 400 interviews with George Stephanopoulos and it wouldn’t make a difference.”

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

Advertisement

In private meetings, including a Sunday evening conference call convened by Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries, representatives in competitive districts warned that Biden would drag them down. The party was now in danger of losing both House and Senate. Trump would be unbound in a second term.

But the next morning, instead of relenting, Biden fought. Borrowing a page from Trump, he blamed “elites” and the news media for turning against him. In a defiant letter to Congress he ordered legislators to “turn the page”.

“He’s a brutally stubborn man,” a Biden fundraiser said of a blue-collar politician who prided himself on never giving up — overcoming his childhood stutter, the death of his first wife and young daughter and his humiliating exit from the 1987 Democratic primary.

Democrats were now adrift. Some acknowledged Biden’s weaknesses but believed it was suicidal to make a change just four months before an election.

If the party did switch horses, the cleanest solution would be to pass the nomination to vice-president Kamala Harris, who would inherit the campaign’s $230mn war chest. But many donors believed she would fare no better against Trump.

Yet passing over Harris, who is of Black and south Asian descent, risked inflaming a core Democratic constituency — especially if the job went to a white candidate instead. The party was already riven between centrists and progressives, urban elites and the working class, and its rivalrous Clinton, Biden and Obama factions.

Advertisement
Kamala Harris, right, arrives to speak from the South Lawn of the White House in Washington on Monday July 22 2024
Kamala Harris arrives to speak from the South Lawn of the White House in Washington on Monday, July 22 © Alex Brandon/AP

“Everybody is terrified by a Trump presidency and everybody wants to do anything and everything possible to prevent that,” said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive star who represents the Bronx borough of New York City. But nobody could seem to agree on the way forward.

She too railed against the elites trying to topple Biden. “Many of these people are the same people who closed ranks around anybody who wanted to raise this conversation a year ago,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

By Tuesday, July 9, Biden appeared to be gaining the upper hand. Democrats who had voiced concerns about the president in private were now giving him their public backing.

“I’m with Joe,” Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, would say to reporters time and again, his smile a shield. With the party’s mid-August convention approaching, time was on Biden’s side — even if age was not.

Then Pelosi emerged. Steely and skilful at 84, she well understood the agony of ageing out of an office. Two years earlier, when the Democrats lost control of the House, she relinquished her leadership role to make way for the younger Jeffries. The grace with which she did so only seemed to elevate her stature in the party.

“Nancy is the most important voice, and she’s furious,” a prominent Democratic donor explained.  

Advertisement

Pelosi’s studious non-endorsement of the president that Wednesday morning coincided with the publication of a stinging op-ed penned by George Clooney, the Hollywood star who had co-hosted a bonanza fundraiser a month earlier that bagged $30mn for Biden.

“It’s devastating to say it, but the Joe Biden I was with three weeks ago at the fundraiser was not the Joe “big F-ing deal” Biden of 2010. He wasn’t even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate,” Clooney wrote.

Inside the Biden campaign, the mood turned to despair. Some staffers confided to friends that they believed the cause was lost. Others worried that they might face legal repercussions for misleading the public about the president’s condition.


It was a bright summer’s day when the president’s motorcade rolled into Detroit on Friday, July 12. The previous evening he had muddled through another make-or-break encounter with the media, holding a press conference at the conclusion of the Nato summit in Washington. Biden managed to both flub names — referring to his “vice-president Trump” — and also display deep knowledge of global affairs.

Detroit felt like a spiritual homecoming if not a literal one. The capital of the US car industry had been left for dead but managed to claw its way back. Biden had played no small part in its salvation, overseeing the emergency loans that kept General Motors afloat after the 2008 financial crisis. Now Biden needed its grit.

Advertisement

The venue at Renaissance High School gymnasium felt intimate compared with the tens-of-thousands of attendees that packed some Trump rallies. Many of the Biden supporters wore T-shirts advertising their union membership. Many were Black, a constituency that led Biden to a commanding victory in a crowded Democratic primary four years earlier. Conspicuously absent was Gretchen Whitmer, the Democratic governor who had been touted as possible replacement for Biden.

Biden gestures during his remarks at Renaissance High School during a Friday, July 12 campaign event in Detroit, Michigan
Biden gestures during his remarks at Renaissance High School on Friday, July 12 in Detroit © Carlos Osorio/AP

“He’s not perfect but he’s not cruel,” said Nola Pankoff, 67, who had come to her first Biden rally that day with her husband, Steve, so they could lay eyes on the president themselves, without the filter of the media.

The Biden on offer that day was uneven. He confused names. He sometimes appeared to struggle reading the teleprompter. Stiff though he appeared, there was still a sparkle when he smiled at a well-wisher.

At one point, early on, a lone voice cried out: “We love you!” It seemed to lift Biden, and the rote routine of a 35-minute stump speech was transformed into something more.

“He needed that,” one woman said, visibly relieved, as she left.

That rally now feels like a swan song for an ageing politician. The next day, in Butler, Pennsylvania, a 20-year-old man would fire a volley of bullets from a nearby rooftop at Trump, injuring his ear and killing a retired fireman sitting in the front row. In an image that instantly became iconic, a bloodied Trump rose to his feet, waved his fist in the air, and exhorted his supporters to “fight!”.

Advertisement

The contrast was unmistakable: one candidate struggling to walk while the other dodged an assassin’s bullet. To make matters worse, Biden would soon be diagnosed with Covid.

As Biden took to his sick bed in Delaware, the campaign against him in Washington shifted into high gear. Party elders stood silent as each day brought fresh defectors publicly calling for the president to step aside.

The ugliness of the denouement brought to mind an old observation by Andrew Card, George W Bush’s chief of staff: “If anybody tells you they’re leaving the White House voluntarily, they’re probably lying.”

By Saturday evening, Biden was coming around to the inevitable, according to people familiar with the matter. The next day, he called Harris, his chief of staff, Jeff Zients, and Jen O’Malley Dillon, his campaign chair, to relay his decision.

In the aftermath, Democrats like Frank Aquila, the corporate lawyer, seemed as much stricken as relieved. “We all loved Biden because he was a pragmatist capable of keeping the different souls of the party . . . united,” he said. “That’s why it was so hard to accept that he wasn’t fit any longer to be our candidate.”

Advertisement

News

Rubio’s Absence From Iran Talks Highlights Stay-at-Home Role

Published

on

Rubio’s Absence From Iran Talks Highlights Stay-at-Home Role

When President Barack Obama negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran more than a decade ago, his point man was Secretary of State John Kerry. Over 20 months of talks, Mr. Kerry met with his Iranian counterpart on at least 18 different days, often several times per day.

High-level nuclear diplomacy was a natural role for the top U.S. diplomat. Secretaries of state traditionally take the lead on the country’s biggest diplomatic tasks, from arms control treaties to Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

But as President Trump prepares to send a delegation to the latest round of U.S.-Iran talks in Pakistan this weekend, his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, will remain where he often does: at home.

Mr. Rubio did not attend the last U.S. meeting with Iran earlier this month. Nor did he join several meetings held over the past year in Geneva and Doha. Mr. Rubio has also been absent from U.S. delegations abroad working to settle the war in Ukraine and Israel’s war in Gaza. Despite a long period of crisis and war in the region, he has not visited the Middle East since a brief stop in Israel last October.

In recent months, Mr. Rubio — consumed with his second role, as Mr. Trump’s national security adviser — has not traveled much at all.

Advertisement

During the Biden administration, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken made 11 foreign trips from January 2024 to late April 2024, stopping in roughly three dozen cities, according to the State Department. So far this year, Mr. Rubio has visited six foreign cities, including a stop in Milan for the 2026 Winter Olympics.

Mr. Trump has outsourced much of his diplomacy to others, including his friend Steve Witkoff, a wealthy associate from the world of Manhattan real estate, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Mr. Witkoff and Mr. Kushner have spearheaded diplomacy with Israel, Ukraine and Russia, as well as Iran, whose delegation they will meet for the second time this month in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital.

Mr. Rubio’s distance from the trenches of diplomacy reflects his dual role on Mr. Trump’s national security team. For the past year, he has served as the White House national security adviser even while leading the State Department — the first person to do so since Henry A. Kissinger in the mid-1970s.

The secretary of state runs the State Department, overseeing U.S. diplomats and embassies worldwide, as well as Washington-based policymakers. Working from the White House, the national security adviser coordinates departments and agencies, including the State Department, to develop policy advice for the president.

The twin roles reflect Mr. Rubio’s influence with Mr. Trump, and offer him a way to maintain it. For Mr. Rubio, less time abroad means more time at the side of an impulsive president prone to making critical national security decisions at any moment.

Advertisement

As Mr. Witkoff, Mr. Kushner and Vice President JD Vance met with Iranian officials in Pakistan earlier this month, Mr. Rubio was at Mr. Trump’s side at an Ultimate Fighting Championship event, noted Emma Ashford, an analyst of U.S. diplomacy at the nonpartisan Stimson Center in Washington. “Rubio clearly prefers to stay close to Trump,” Ms. Ashford said.

Mr. Rubio accepted the national security adviser job on an acting basis last May after Mr. Trump reassigned the job’s previous occupant, Michael Waltz. But officials say that Mr. Rubio is expected to keep it indefinitely.

That arrangement is not inherently bad, Ms. Ashford added. And she noted that previous presidents had entrusted major diplomatic tasks to people other than the secretary of state. President Joseph R. Biden Jr. delegated his C.I.A. director, William J. Burns, to handle diplomacy with Russia and cease-fire negotiations between Israel and Hamas, for instance.

But she echoed the complaints by many current and former diplomats that Mr. Rubio seems less like someone performing both jobs than a national security adviser who sometimes shows up at the State Department. “I do think it’s to the detriment of the whole department of State and to America’s ability to conduct diplomacy in general that we effectively have the secretary of state position sitting vacant,” she said.

Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesman, contested such claims. “Anyone trying to paint Secretary Rubio’s close coordination with the White House and other agencies as a negative could not be more wrong,” he said. “We now have an N.S.C. and State Department that are totally in sync, a goal that has eluded past administrations for decades.”

Advertisement

Mr. Rubio divides his time between the State Department and the White House, often spending time at both in the same day. In an interview with Politico last June, Mr. Rubio said he visited the State Department “almost every day.”

While there, he often meets with visiting dignitaries before returning to the White House. Last week, Mr. Rubio presided over a meeting at the State Department between Lebanese and Israeli officials that set the stage for a cease-fire in Lebanon.

His twin jobs “really do overlap in many cases,” he said. “In many cases you end up being in the same meetings or in the same places; there’s just one less person in there, if you think about it,” Mr. Rubio added. “A lot of people would come to Washington, for example, for meetings, and they’d want to meet with the national security adviser and then meet with me as secretary of state. Now they can do both in one meeting.”

Asked about his travel schedule during a news conference last December, Mr. Rubio said he had less reason to travel abroad because “we have a lot of leaders constantly coming here” to visit Mr. Trump at the White House. Mr. Rubio also joins Mr. Trump’s foreign trips in his capacity as national security adviser.

Many national security veterans call the arrangement unwise, saying that both jobs are extremely demanding and incompatible with one another.

Advertisement

It was not easy even for Mr. Kissinger, who had firmly established himself over more than four years as national security adviser before convincing President Richard M. Nixon to let him take on an additional role as secretary of state in 1973. (In a reversal of Mr. Rubio’s approach, Mr. Kissinger was in constant motion, including a round of Middle East shuttle diplomacy that kept him on the road for 33 straight days.)

“In general, it’s a mistake to combine those roles,” said Matthew Waxman, who held senior roles at the National Security Council, State Department and the Pentagon during the George W. Bush administration.

“That said, it’s not necessarily a bad thing that a dual-hatted Rubio is so offscreen right now,” Mr. Waxman added. “Especially while so much attention is focused on high-wire diplomacy with Iran, someone needs to manage foreign policy around the rest of the world.”

Continue Reading

News

Appeals court rules that Trump’s asylum ban at the border is illegal

Published

on

Appeals court rules that Trump’s asylum ban at the border is illegal

President Trump speaks during an event on health care affordability in the Oval Office at the White House on Thursday in Washington.

Mark Schiefelbein/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Mark Schiefelbein/AP

WASHINGTON — An appeals court on Friday blocked President Trump’s executive order suspending asylum access at the southern border of the U.S., a key pillar of the Republican president’s plan to crack down on migration.

A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that immigration laws give people the right to apply for asylum at the border, and the president can’t circumvent that.

The court opinion stems from action taken by Trump on Inauguration Day 2025, when he declared that the situation at the southern border constituted an invasion of America and that he was “suspending the physical entry” of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he decides it is over.

Advertisement

The panel concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act doesn’t authorize the president to remove the plaintiffs under “procedures of his own making,” allow him to suspend plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum or curtail procedures for adjudicating their anti-torture claims.

“The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA’s mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals,” wrote Judge J. Michelle Childs, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Joe Biden.

“We conclude that the INA’s text, structure, and history make clear that in supplying power to suspend entry by Presidential proclamation, Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” the opinion said.

White House says asylum ban was within Trump’s powers

The administration can ask the full appeals court to reconsider the ruling or go to the Supreme Court.

The order doesn’t formally take effect until after the court considers any request to reconsider.

Advertisement

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, speaking on Fox News, said she had not seen the ruling but called it “unsurprising,” blaming politically-motivated judges.

“They are not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at these cases from a political lens,” she said.

Leavitt said Trump was taking actions that are “completely within his powers as commander in chief.”

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the Department of Justice would seek further review of the decision. “We are sure we will be vindicated,” she wrote in an emailed statement.

The Department of Homeland Security said it strongly disagreed with the ruling.

Advertisement

“President Trump’s top priority remains the screening and vetting of all aliens seeking to come, live, or work in the United States,” DHS said in a statement.

Advocates welcome the ruling

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said that previous legal action had already paused the asylum ban, and the ruling won’t change much on the ground.

The ruling, however, represents another legal defeat for a centerpiece policy of the president.

“This confirms that President Trump cannot on his own bar people from seeking asylum, that it is Congress that has mandated that asylum seekers have a right to apply for asylum and the President cannot simply invoke his authority to sustain,” said Reichlin-Melnick.

Advocates say the right to request asylum is enshrined in the country’s immigration law and say denying migrants that right puts people fleeing war or persecution in grave danger.

Advertisement

Lee Gelernt, attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case, said in a statement that the appellate ruling is “essential for those fleeing danger who have been denied even a hearing to present asylum claims under the Trump administration’s unlawful and inhumane executive order.”

Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, welcomed the court decision as a victory for their clients.

“Today’s DC Circuit ruling affirms that capricious actions by the President cannot supplant the rule of law in the United States,” said Nicolas Palazzo, director of advocacy and legal Services at Las Americas.

Judge Justin Walker, a Trump nominee, wrote a partial dissent. He said the law gives immigrants protections against removal to countries where they would be persecuted, but the administration can issue broad denials of asylum applications.

Walker, however, agreed with the majority that the president cannot deport migrants to countries where they will be persecuted or strip them of mandatory procedures that protect against their removal.

Advertisement

Judge Cornelia Pillard, who was nominated by Democratic President Obama, also heard the case.

In the executive order, Trump argued that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives presidents the authority to suspend entry of any group that they find “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

The executive order also suspended the ability of migrants to ask for asylum.

Trump’s order was another blow to asylum access in the U.S., which was severely curtailed under the Biden administration, although under Biden some pathways for protections for a limited number of asylum seekers at the southern border continued.

Migrant advocate in Mexico expresses cautious hope

For Josue Martinez, a psychologist who works at a small migrant shelter in southern Mexico, the ruling marked a potential “light at the end of the tunnel” for many migrants who once hoped to seek asylum in the U.S. but ended up stuck in vulnerable conditions in Mexico.

Advertisement

“I hope there’s something more concrete, because we’ve heard this kind of news before: A district judge files an appeal, there’s a temporary hold, but it’s only temporary and then it’s over,” he said.

Meanwhile, migrants from Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela and other countries have struggled to make ends meet as they try to seek refuge in Mexico’s asylum system that’s all but collapsed under the weight of new strains and slashed international funds.

This week hundreds of migrants, mostly stranded migrants from Haiti, left the southern Mexican city of Tapachula on foot to seek better living conditions elsewhere in Mexico.

Continue Reading

News

A New Worry for Republicans: Latino Catholics Offended by Trump

Published

on

A New Worry for Republicans: Latino Catholics Offended by Trump

When Stuart Sepulvida arrives at St. Francis de Sales Roman Catholic Parish in Tucson, Ariz., for Mass, which he attends most mornings, he passes a display honoring local soldiers and encouraging parishioners to pray for their safety. Hundreds of small cards record their names: Robles, Arenas, Grajeda. A portrait of Pope Leo XIV hangs across the lobby.

Mr. Sepulvida, 81, is a Vietnam veteran whose patriotism and Catholicism are deeply intertwined. He voted for President Trump three times but has never felt more betrayed by an American president than when Mr. Trump denounced Pope Leo as “weak on crime” and “terrible for foreign policy.”

“It was very disturbing to me to hear both of them clashing like they did,” Mr. Sepulvida said, standing outside the church one morning this week. Now, he is reconsidering whether he will vote Republican this year.

The Republican Party is struggling to hold onto the support from Hispanic voters who helped propel Mr. Trump back into the White House in 2024. Yet as many party leaders have acknowledged the urgent need to stop the backsliding among Latinos, the president has enraged many of even his strongest supporters by clashing with the pope.

On Easter Sunday, Pope Leo, the first U.S.-born pontiff, spoke of the need to “abandon every desire for conflict, domination and power, and implore the Lord to grant his peace to a world ravaged by wars.” Within days, Mr. Trump, who has led the United States into a war with Iran, said the pope was “catering to the radical left” and posted an AI-generated image portraying himself as a Jesus figure. Mr. Trump later deleted the image, saying he thought it depicted him as a doctor.

Advertisement

“It just isn’t what a president should do,” Mr. Sepulvida said. “The pope speaks for his people. He is beyond politics.”

Mr. Trump won 55 percent of Catholic voters in the 2024 election, compared to 43 percent who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris, according to Pew Research Center. The most sizable gains came from Hispanic Catholics. While Joseph R. Biden Jr. won their votes by a 35-point margin in 2020, the Democratic advantage shrunk to 17 points in 2024. Now, just 18 percent of Hispanic Catholics said they support most or all of President Trump’s agenda, according to a poll from Pew released earlier this year.

If the president’s quarrel with the pope sours more Latinos on the Republican Party, it could affect midterm races across the country, including in South Florida and South Texas, where Republicans have notched important victories in predominantly Hispanic districts in recent years.

In Arizona’s Sixth Congressional District, which stretches from north of Tucson to the Mexican border, voters were still grappling with the fallout this week.

The district is roughly evenly divided among Republicans, Democrats and independent voters. Nearly a third of the district is Hispanic, and there is a significant population of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well as a large Catholic community with deep history in the region. It also has one of largest numbers of military veterans of all congressional districts in the country.

Advertisement

“The president is looking for a lot of attention from everything,” said Maria Ramos, 60, who regularly attends weekday Mass at St. Francis. A registered independent, she usually votes for Democrats but often declines to cast a ballot if she views a candidate as too liberal. “He believes he can put God in his place. He’s meddling in countries that he’s not in control of — he wants to control the world.”

“It is not just a very serious lack of respect — it is a mortal sin,” she said, shaking her head. One word comes to her mind again and again, she said: disgust.

Like so many others in southern Arizona, Ms. Ramos has several relatives who serve in the military — a path they saw to both serve the country and as an entry into the stable middle class. Many of them, she said, voted for Mr. Trump for president.

The Tucson district is now widely seen as one of the most competitive in the country. Republican Juan Ciscomani narrowly won the district in 2022, in part by emphasizing his biography as a Mexican immigrant and a devoted father of six children. He is also an evangelical Christian, a group that has driven much of the growth among Hispanic Republican voters in recent years.

Mr. Ciscomani declined a request for an interview, but when a local radio host asked Mr. Ciscomani what he thought of Mr. Trump’s comments “as a man of faith,” the congressman declined to criticize the president but said, “You can trust that you won’t see any meme like that coming out of my account.”

Advertisement

JoAnna Mendoza, the Democrat challenging Mr. Ciscomani this fall, has made her 20-year career in the U.S. Navy and Marines a key aspect of her story on the campaign trail. While she rarely speaks about her religious background and no longer considers herself a practicing Catholic, she said she briefly considered becoming a nun as a teenager. She criticized Mr. Ciscomani for not condemning the president’s remarks.

“You can’t make faith a central part of your campaign and then allow this to stand,” she said in an interview.

Across Tucson, Latino Catholics, regardless of their past voting preferences, were similarly quick to condemn the president’s remarks.

When Cecilia Taisipic, 71, heard about it, she said, she winced with shame about her vote for him in 2024.

“I thought he would make the country better, but apparently it’s the opposite,” she said as she left Mass at St. Francis earlier this week. She is so fed up with politics, she said, that she is unlikely to vote at all this year. “When it comes to my faith, I don’t like anybody to challenge it. Now I don’t want to hear anything on the news. I just want to pray.”

Advertisement

Matilde Robinson Bours, 63, teaches a weekly Spanish Bible study class at St. Thomas the Apostle Parish, and like nearly all of the women in her class, she immigrated from Mexico decades ago. She has voted for Republicans in nearly every election since she became a citizen. Though she has never liked President Trump, she said, his comments about the pope enraged her more than anything else he has said or done in the past.

“This surpassed everything, every social and political norm — this is personal to all Catholics,” she said. “The arrogance and ego is disgusting. To think that he is God? The pope has every right and responsibility to talk about peace.”

Still, Ms. Robinson Bours said, nothing will stop her from supporting Republicans again this year. She has been delighted that her adult children have stopped supporting Democrats in recent elections.

“Almost everyone I know thinks the way I do,” she said.

Patricia Martinez, 86, who has attended the same Bible study as Ms. Robinson Bours for years, shook her head in disagreement. She said she cannot imagine voting for a Republican who supports Mr. Trump.

Advertisement

“This is different — this shows he is out of his mind,” said Ms. Martinez. “We have to have basic respect and teach that to people in this country.”

Patrick Robles, a 24-year-old native of Tucson, spent years alienated from the Roman Catholic Church, but returned to his faith more recently. “The craziness of the world sort of caused me to seek some sort of answers,” he said. Now, he attends Mass at the St. Augustine Cathedral in downtown Tucson, a few blocks from the office where he works as an aide to Representative Adelita Grijalva, a Democrat.

Mr. Robles said he saw Mr. Trump’s battle with the pope as both a personal affront and a political opportunity.

“The president is basically trying to draw a line between Catholics and what we perceive to be patriotism,” he said. “I believe we can be both.”

Last week, he texted one of his uncles who has supported Mr. Trump in every election asking him what he thought.

Advertisement

“I’m afraid we need divine intervention,” the uncle replied.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending