Connect with us

News

How far-right minister Itamar Ben-Gvir reshaped Israel’s police

Published

on

How far-right minister Itamar Ben-Gvir reshaped Israel’s police

After a difficult week in which the killings of six Israeli hostages by Hamas sparked protests across Israel, the country’s far-right national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir headed to the beach.

In a suit despite the oppressive heat, the ultranationalist arrived on the shoreline of secular, liberal Tel Aviv earlier this month to be met with jeers from bathers. One young woman allegedly threw a handful of sand in his direction, after which the trouble began.

Police officers protecting Ben-Gvir arrested the woman, shackled her hands and legs, and kept her in prison overnight. She was charged with “attacking a public servant”, an offence that can carry a three-year jail sentence.

For many in Israel, the incident was the latest example of how the country’s police force has been transformed under Ben-Gvir’s command over the 20 months since his party joined Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.

Former senior police officials, legal analysts and anti-government activists say the 30,000-strong national force is being politicised in line with the agenda of an extreme ultranationalist at a time of high tensions resulting from the war with Hamas in Gaza.

Advertisement

They warn that the reshaping of the force by a man who proudly tells Palestinians that Jews are their “landlords” may have far-reaching ramifications for police conduct, the rule of law, and even Israeli democracy.

Ben-Gvir during a visit to the beach in Tel Aviv, escorted by local police © Matteo Placucci/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images

David Tzur, a former senior police chief, said: “This is what’s called an elephant in a china shop . . . They took a convicted criminal and put him into the holiest of holies of the law enforcement system. This is something that is unbelievable.”

Since Ben-Gvir took on oversight of the country’s police, the force has been accused of lax policing of settler violence in the occupied West Bank, of aggressive tactics against anti-government protesters, and of failing to halt far-right attacks on aid convoys to besieged Gaza. At the same time, Ben-Gvir has sought to unilaterally change long-standing rules governing Jerusalem’s most combustible holy place, the al-Aqsa mosque compound, known to Jews as the Temple Mount.

The 48-year-old rabble rouser, repeatedly convicted in the past on charges relating to anti-Arab activism, would until recent years have been viewed as an impossible candidate to take on responsibility for law enforcement.

As a teenage disciple of the late Jewish extremist rabbi Meir Kahane, Ben-Gvir first came into public view in 1995 when he broke an ornament off then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin’s car.

Advertisement

“Just like we got to this symbol, we can get to Rabin,” Ben-Gvir said in a TV interview as he held up the Cadillac mascot. Weeks later, Rabin was shot dead by a far-right Jewish extremist opposed to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Ben-Gvir, who lives in the Kiryat Arba settlement in the southern West Bank, previously kept a framed picture in his living room of Baruch Goldstein, who in 1994 murdered more than two dozen Palestinian worshippers at the nearby Ibrahimi mosque.

In later years Ben-Gvir turned to the law, specialising in defending Jewish settlers suspected of attacking Palestinians. Israeli media turned to him for interviews, and his public profile grew, resulting in a successful run for parliament in 2021 as the head of the Jewish Power party.

Netanyahu, himself a rightwinger, promised publicly at the time that Ben-Gvir would not become a minister in his government. Yet, a year later, the long-serving premier needed Ben-Gvir and his party to garner enough support to form his current governing coalition.

The masked protesters hold placards. An Israeli flag is being waved in the background
Ultranationalists protesting at the arrest of reservists alleged to have tortured Palestinian detainees. Two military bases were broken into in July © Matan Golan/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images

The price of Ben-Gvir’s backing was the grandly renamed “national security” ministry — formerly just “internal security” — with expanded powers over the police.

Ben-Gvir, who campaigned on a “law and order” platform, has said his goal is to “increase governance and sovereignty” while strengthening police with bigger budgets.

Advertisement

Yet, according to police data made public by the Movement for Freedom of Information, overall crime has soared on his watch. In particular, violent crime within Arab-Israeli towns and villages has reached record highs, rising from 116 murders in 2022 to 244 in 2023, according to data seen by the FT. Almost 170 Arab-Israelis have been murdered so far in 2024.

The Israel police said that “addressing violence in the Israeli-Arab community remains a top priority” to which “substantial resources” have been allocated.

Yet, overall public trust in the police has cratered, polls show. Morale within the force has plummeted, and many mid-ranking and senior officers have resigned or are threatening to do so, according to interviews, media reports and internal communications seen by the Financial Times. Six deputy commissioners have left in the past two months alone.

“Ben-Gvir represents all that is undemocratic — bullying, violence, racism . . . So long as his plans and failures are allowed to continue and deepen, there will no longer be a ‘democratic’ police,” said one former senior police commander. “Police will begin targeting anti-government elements and minorities. You start with the Arabs, but it won’t end there.”

Anti-government activists have taken to calling the force “Ben-Gvir’s militia”.

Advertisement

The minister himself has demanded to act as a “supra-police commissioner” above the top commander, seeking involvement not only in broad policy but also in the specifics of operations and the use of force, said multiple former senior police officers.

The former officers said this contravened not only democratic norms but also Israeli law, which stipulates that the police commissioner must remain independent from political meddling. The Supreme Court has sought to uphold this independence after civil society groups appealed against Ben-Gvir’s extended powers.

Instead, according to the former police officers, Ben-Gvir has wielded influence through the back door.

“The crux of [a minister’s] power lies in building the force — in other words, appointments. That’s where his main power lies,” said Tzur.

Ben-Gvir has deployed that power widely, personally interviewing even mid-ranking commanders for promotion and directly calling district chiefs, said multiple people with knowledge of police operations.

Advertisement

“There is chaos inside the police, and he instils fear in the officers according to his own agenda,” said the former police commander. “He moulds the personalities who command the police, and for all the others it shows them where their loyalties should lie.”

Ben Gvir’s office and Israel’s national security ministry did not reply to repeated requests for comment.

Last month, Ben-Gvir appointed Danny Levy as police commissioner, a shock choice given that Levy had been a district commander for less than a year. He had, over the previous year, overseen the violent dispersal of weekly anti-government protests in Netanyahu’s home town of Caesarea.

“You’re the right person in the right place,” Ben-Gvir told Levy at his appointment ceremony. “Danny comes with a Zionist and Jewish agenda and he will lead the police according to the policy I set for him,” he added.

Tzur argued, however, that attempts to tar Levy as solely beholden to Ben-Gvir were unfair, calling it a “worthy appointment”. “Just because the person who appointed him is a criminal doesn’t invalidate every appointment. [But] the burden of proof is now on [Danny Levy],” Tzur said.

Advertisement

The outgoing police commissioner, Kobi Shabtai, issued a stark warning in July as his term ended. “The fight against the politicisation of the police and its deviation from the professional path is in full swing,” he said.

In Levy’s first week as commissioner in early September, some 125 demonstrators were detained nationally — amid mass protests calling for a deal to release hostages held in Gaza — compared with an average 85 per month in the 20 months before that, according to the Detainee Legal Support Front, a non-profit organisation.

One demonstrator in Tel Aviv, Nadav Gat, was detained this month while simply standing on the pavement, he told the FT. He was held overnight without an arrest report. “There was not even the appearance of professionalism,” he said.

At the same time, far-right activists, who are closely identified politically with Ben-Gvir and the West Bank settlement movement, for the first half of this year blocked aid convoys trying to reach war-torn Gaza, with minimal police intervention. No one was arrested.

An Israeli security source said there were suspicions within the military that police personnel had tipped off the groups on the movement of the convoys. Even the US administration demanded publicly that Israeli authorities do more to stop the attacks.

Advertisement

There are other instances of an apparent soft approach to the far right. In July, ultranationalist gangs broke into two Israeli military bases, in protest at the arrest of several reservists alleged to have tortured Palestinian detainees. As police mounted a lacklustre response, the Israeli military was forced to deploy infantry to protect one of the bases. None of the ultranationalists were arrested.

Several former officers said the worst police indifference was in Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank. Israeli settler attacks on Palestinians have risen sharply, according to data from the UN and Israeli human rights non-profit organisations.

The head of the Shin Bet internal security agency, Ronen Bar, warned in a letter sent to the cabinet — but not to Ben-Gvir — last month that the increase was a result of “the weak hand of the police, and possibly even a sense of support to a certain extent”, according to Israeli media reports.

In response to specific questions from the FT, the Israeli police said it “operates as an apolitical institution dedicated to handling offences with impartiality and professionalism. Allegations suggesting that the police are influenced by political agendas distort the truth and undermine the rule of law.”

Yet, Yoav Segalovich, a former top police officer and former deputy internal security minister from the opposition Yesh Atid party, said the Israeli public was increasingly convinced that the police had become politicised under Ben-Gvir, a perception that, he said, fatally harmed trust.

Advertisement

“This is the biggest damage that can be caused in a democratic system,” Segalovich said. “You need to uphold the law . . . and [in the West Bank] the police simply isn’t present in the places where it needs to be.”

In Jerusalem, the al-Aqsa compound has been the scene of what multiple former and current Israeli officials, including from the police, said were perhaps Ben-Gvir’s most dangerous interventions. The hilltop site has sparked repeated Israeli-Palestinian violence, while for decades a “status quo” has been upheld in which Jews can visit but not pray. Police are central to maintaining order at the flashpoint site.

Yet, Ben-Gvir last month said at the site that he had unilaterally changed the “status quo” — a claim Netanyahu quickly rejected. Video emerged of a beaming Ben-Gvir walking among hundreds of Jewish worshippers prostrating themselves as police looked on passively.

“You have to understand the absurd [situation]: the responsibility to hold the weekly assessment about the Temple Mount . . . and to decide on the security arrangements are on the [national security] minister,” said Tzur.

“He decides on policy with regard to the Temple Mount and he is changing it. We see it . . . the fringe of the fringe have turned into the mainstream.”

Advertisement

Bar, the Shin Bet chief, wrote in his letter that such provocations by Ben-Gvir would “lead to much bloodshed and will change the face of the State of Israel beyond recognition”.

This month, Netanyahu again had to insist there was no change to the rules governing al-Aqsa, and demanded that ministers seek his approval before visiting. Segalovich said the damage was already done.

“Netanyahu allowed all of this,” he said. “If you put an agent of chaos as the minister in charge of the police then don’t be surprised by the results. This is Ben-Gvir’s goal: chaos and mayhem.”

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