Connect with us

News

Inside Israel’s push into the undergrowth of southern Lebanon

Published

on

Inside Israel’s push into the undergrowth of southern Lebanon

From the vantage of a hilltop inside southern Lebanon, it is clear the terrain of Israel’s land war has moved from the urban ruins of Gaza to a tangle of dense undergrowth.

Brush and thick green forests stretch across steep hillsides, marking a front considered more rugged than areas farther east where Israeli troops have engaged Hizbollah fighters in Lebanese border villages.

The Israel Defense Forces took a group of journalists into Lebanon on Sunday, showing them arid woodland paths and outcrops where Israeli officers said the militant group Hizbollah has established forward operating bases.

The tunnels, bunkers and weapons caches gradually uncovered over the past fortnight were, Israel claims, part of preparations for a potential cross-border assault.

To counter the threat, Israel has billed its invasion force, consisting of some four divisions and an estimated 20,000 troops, backed by one of the most fierce air campaigns mounted beyond its borders, as a “limited and precise” offensive into Lebanon.

Advertisement

But its forces are now moving across a sprawling, harsh terrain that has wrongfooted generations of Israeli soldiers, whose pushes into Lebanon have a history of flawed tactics and long occupations.

Israeli troops photographed during a controlled embedded tour organised by the Israeli military in southern Lebanon’s Naqoura region near the border with Israel © Neri Zilber/FT

“Undergrowth war is more complex than urban fighting. It has no logic and you can’t take shortcuts,” said Brigadier General Yitzhak Norkin, the commander of the IDF’s 146th Division, responsible for the far-western sector of the offensive.

Despite Israel’s insistence that this operation is limited, the UN estimates that nearly a quarter of Lebanon’s territory is under an evacuation order from the Israeli military. Israel has told about 140 communities in south Lebanon to flee their homes since October 1, ordering residents to move north of the Awali river, which runs at least 80km north of the southern tip of Lebanon.

Norkin said Israel’s goal was to remove Hizbollah’s capacity to threaten Israel and allow 60,000 Israelis to return to their homes, after being evacuated when the Lebanese movement began firing on northern Israel a day after Hamas’s October 7 attack.

So far Norkin’s division, the IDF’s largest and made up solely of reservists, has not entered the Lebanese villages farther northward. Since it joined the invasion force last week, he said, the focus has been on “cleaning” this small strip of land tucked a few hundred metres inside a massive Israeli-built border wall.

Advertisement
 Israeli soldiers inspect a Hezbollah attacking position tunnel found during the operation according to the army troops during an the IDF embedded media tour to the Southern Lebanon
Israeli soldiers inspect a Hizbollah attacking-position tunnel found during their operation, according to army troops during the IDF embedded media tour © Amir Levy/Getty Images
 Israeli soldiers inspect a Hezbollah attacking position tunnel found during the operation according to the army troops during an a IDF embedded media tour to the Southern Lebanon
© Ilia Yefimovich/Dpa

In one square kilometre, Israeli officers said, the IDF battalion operating in the area had found around 100 Hizbollah military positions, including a tunnel 10 meters deep and 50 meters wide with firing positions for mortars and anti-tank guided missiles. Another weapons cache was filled with army kit, small arms, mines and explosive devices.

“You can’t take a step [in this area] without coming across Hizbollah [military] infrastructure,” said Ariel, an IDF officer in the division. “And without forces physically on the ground you can’t clear out this area from this . . . infrastructure because of the tunnels and the forests.”

Multiple Israeli officers were incredulous that the UN peacekeepers in the area, some in a base located less than 200 meters from a Hizbollah tunnel, had not detected the extensive building project.

Unifil has also come under fire from Hizbollah in the past. In 2022, an Irish peacekeeper was killed and another seriously injured when their armoured patrol car was attacked in a Hizbollah-controlled area.

Senior Israeli officials have said over the past two weeks that the peacekeepers are “not the enemy” and have only “suggested” they leave southern Lebanon. However, several international troops in this sector have recently been injured by Israeli fire. Norkin called them regrettable “mistakes”, while also blaming one incident on Hizbollah.

Over the past year, Israel’s offensive against Hizbollah has killed more than 2,000 people and forced some 1.2mn from their homes, mostly over the past three weeks. On the Israeli side, over 50 people have been killed by incoming Hizbollah fire since the start of the war, in addition to 10 Israeli soldiers since the launch of the ground incursion earlier this month.

Advertisement
Israeli Defense Forces patrolling in the southern Lebanese village of Naqoura
An IDF soldier patrols in the southern Lebanese village of Naqoura © Ilia Yefimovich/Dpa

From inside southern Lebanon, Israeli artillery thuds in the distance and the growl of fighter jets above were an incessant reminder that this was an active war zone. And Israeli forces have taken incoming mortar and drone attacks themselves from Hizbollah.

Yet the militants had mostly retreated northward to the village line ahead of the Israeli incursion, ceding the area to the IDF, according to Israeli officers. Norkin admitted no “face-to-face” combat had broken out yet with Hizbollah fighters in the area.

Instead, Norkin said “slow and meticulous” progress had been made, given the need to keep his troops safe and the time needed to find and eliminate what they say are hundreds more Hizbollah positions in this sector alone.

Inside one thicket of baby oak trees, along a path originally cut by Hizbollah but widened more recently by the IDF, little was visible either from above or in a 360 degree turn.

“The enemy can be standing 5 metres from you and you won’t know it,” said one veteran Israeli reservist, clutching his assault rifle.

If this specific sector of the IDF’s offensive is any indication, the Israeli ground offensive in Lebanon will be measured in weeks and months rather than days. Norkin fought in the last Israel-Hizbollah war in 2006 as a young tank commander. That conflict lasted for over a month, and ended with the Middle East’s most powerful military bogged down in a stalemate. Yet this time, he said, was very different.

Advertisement
Israeli troops patrolling near a United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL) base in the southern Lebanon’s Naqoura region near the border.
Israeli troops patrol near a Unifil base in the Naqoura region © Menahem Kahana/AFP/Getty Images

“Now [during this offensive] we are getting into much more complicated areas — the forests, the bushes. In 2006 we didn’t do it. We went around these areas. We didn’t fight here,” Norkin said, pointing around at the area his forces now held, with armoured personnel carriers, tanks and infantry kicking up dust clouds on the rocky access roads.

Later on he admitted that the sheer scale of southern Lebanon — “a huge territory” — would make it difficult to “destroy everything” Hizbollah had built.

The group, the region’s most heavily armed non-state actor, has controlled southern Lebanon since Israel ended its occupation in 2000. It is also Lebanon’s dominant political force and deeply embedded in the social fabric of the country’s south.

There is already talk at the top levels of the Israeli military and political leadership about a diplomatic arrangement that would, like previous UN Security Council resolutions, call for Hizbollah to withdraw from the border region, which would be demilitarised save for international peacekeepers and the Lebanese army. Yet prior agreements have not been implemented by either side.

It is an open question whether even Israeli officials believe such an arrangement will meet their objectives and provide real security. Nor, many Lebanese wonder, will it arrive soon enough to halt the spiralling death toll inside their country.

Mark, nearing 70 years of age, has been fighting in Lebanon and other Israeli battlefronts for over four decades, since Israel’s first ground invasion of its northern neighbour in 1978. Now one of the oldest reservists in the IDF, he is stoic about the prospects of this latest offensive.

Advertisement

“I guess we may need to stay here and hold a small security zone again, but that’s just my opinion,” he said, referring to Israel’s 18-year occupation in the 1980s and 1990s of the very hills around which he was now navigating his armoured personnel carrier — another paratrooper shepherding journalists to see yet another Israeli war in southern Lebanon.

This story was viewed by the Israeli military censors as a condition of accompanying troops into Lebanon. Nothing was changed as a result.

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