Connect with us

News

The ‘Blue Walz’: How a low-key Midwestern governor shot to the top to be Harris’ VP pick | CNN Politics

Published

on

The ‘Blue Walz’: How a low-key Midwestern governor shot to the top to be Harris’ VP pick | CNN Politics


Philadelphia, PA
CNN
 — 

Tim Walz was in the midst of his interview with Vice President Kamala Harris’ vetting team when he told them there was something important they needed to know.

He doesn’t use a teleprompter, the Minnesota governor said. He doesn’t even have one, in fact. So if he was the pick, Walz said, Harris’ team would have to get him a teleprompter and teach him how to use it.

It was a lighter moment, but it was also part of an interview process with Harris’ team that Walz aced, multiple sources familiar with the meeting told CNN. The Minnesota governor was upfront about his vulnerabilities, noting he wasn’t from a swing state or a household name. He also said he was a bad debater.

But Walz made it clear he would be a team player.

Advertisement

Asked how he saw his role as VP, Walz said he would perform the job however Harris wanted him to. Asked if he wanted to be the last person in the room before Harris made a decision, Walz said only if she wanted him to be there.

And asked if he had ambitions to run for president himself one day, Walz said he did not, a point that sources said was not lost on a team looking to minimize the potential for any internal drama in a future Harris administration.

“He had a very clear understanding that it was to be a partner, but to support the president, go out and connect with America and be that governing partner,” said Cedric Richmond, a former Louisiana congressman and Biden White House adviser who was deeply involved in the selection process. “It’s not the easiest of positions, but it’s a very important position.”

The vetting interview  was a key step for Walz to ultimately lock up the selection that Harris made after sitting down with the three finalists, including Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, for one-on-one interviews at her residence on Sunday.

“It was a home run,” said one source familiar with Walz’s meeting with Harris’ vetting team. “Everyone loved him.”

Advertisement

Beyond the personal chemistry Harris and her team felt toward Walz, people familiar with the interview process said that Walz was also someone Harris felt could attract the kinds of voters that Democrats have lost to Donald Trump— voters that Harris may not be able to connect with on her own.

“He hunts, he fishes, you want to have a beer with him,” said the source familiar with Walz’s meeting. “He will play in Michigan, Wisconsin, Western Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina.”

A longtime Democratic operative who has known Walz for years agreed, saying: “He talks and looks like a lot of the voters we’ve lost to Trump.”

By Tuesday, staffers at the Harris campaign headquarters were already joking about the “Blue Walz,” referencing the key midwestern battleground states that they hope he will help her lock up.

Shapiro – who was favored by some of the Democratic Party and anti-Trump Republicans as a more moderate selection – did not go over as well with Harris’ team during his vetting interview, sources familiar with the process told CNN. While Walz came across as deferential and cooperative, Shapiro struck some as overly ambitious, with “a lot of questions” about what the role of the VP would be.

Advertisement

And while Shapiro did “very well” in his in-person meeting with Harris on Sunday, multiple sources said, Walz was seen as a pick that would come with less drama and palace intrigue – both on the campaign trail and, if they win in November, at the White House.

“It was a striking contrast” between the two, said the source familiar with the meeting.

Walz was an unexpected contender to become the No. 2 on the Democratic ticket – he was hardly mentioned among the potential contenders when Joe Biden dropped out a little over two weeks ago. But sources familiar with the selection process described Walz as the walk-on player who was ultimately picked for the team over the five-star recruits because he was a Midwestern governor who can campaign as a natural on the stump as a fellow “happy warrior.”

Walz, who was a 24-year Army National Guard veteran and high school teacher before entering politics, brought a “joy and excitement” to the process that ultimately won Harris and her team over, said another source.

Walz was the running mate option that Harris knew the least — but he won over the Democratic nominee, as well as her team, by making clear he would adapt to her style and policies.

Advertisement

Harris had not been expecting Walz to say he didn’t plan to run for president, a source familiar with her thinking told CNN. But afterward, as she sat around the same dining room table in the Naval Observatory, Walz’s answer stuck with her.

“That showed his willingness to say, ‘Look I’m not concerned about my image or my approval rating or what’s next for me in the next chapter of life. I’m going to stay in this moment, be your vice president, run through walls, fight for the American people and demonstrate our values,” said Richmond. “That’s a strong and compelling argument.”

‘At ease and very natural’

The elevation of Walz was the culmination of a remarkable whirlwind, a capstone to a two-week campaign to join the Democratic ticket – first, with a goal of catching the attention of the Harris team and second, to win over the vice president herself.

“He was at ease and very natural,” said a senior Democratic adviser who was briefed on Walz’s face-to-face interview with Harris. “It was a ‘know-it-when-you-see-it’ type of thing.”

While much of the attention around the vetting process focused on the work being done by former Attorney General Eric Holder and former White House counsel Dana Remus, the questions beyond the paperwork and biographical scrubs really started last Friday with video interviews for the candidates being considered.

Advertisement

The Zoom calls also featured an until-now secret three-person committee: Richmond, former Boston mayor and Labor Secretary Marty Walsh and Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto.

Richmond has become a top adviser to Harris. Walsh and Harris grew close during his time in the Biden administration. Cortez Masto was elected the same year to the Senate with Harris, but they’d also previously served as attorneys general together through the landmark multistate mortgage settlement that became a defining moment for both their careers in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

The three-person group was picked for geographic diversity, different skill sets and background. But most of all, they were picked because they were who Harris trusted to help figure out whom she could trust, which many who know her acknowledge is often the hardest thing for Harris.

Richmond and Walsh, who both went from being elected officials to members of Biden’s administration, were there to help answer a question very much on Harris’s mind after her own experience as vice president: “She wanted to make sure that we could ask questions like, ‘You’re going to go from a principal to a hybrid principal/staffer. Can you make that transition?’” according to one source familiar with the process.

Of the nine options vetted, and six who met virtually with the committee, Walz and Shapiro entered the rushed final weekend as the clear favorites, three people involved in the process told CNN. Kelly was included as a third option.

Advertisement

Walz was propelled by support from across the Democratic Party – progressive and moderate factions alike – in a sophisticated campaign guided by some of the party’s most seasoned operatives. He had former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on his side – old allies from his 12 years in Congress representing a rural Minnesota district – as well as glowing words from former President Barack Obama, who said in a statement Tuesday of Walz, “He has the values and the integrity to make us proud.”

Obama also served as a “sounding board for Vice President Harris to talk through how she was thinking about it,” said one senior aide.

As Walz gained traction online for his comment that Republicans were “weird,” Harris was watching, too.

“She likes the way he operates,” said a person involved with the process. “She liked how it became a thing then. It was funny, it was pointed, but it wasn’t over the top.”

While Harris and Walz did not have much of a previous relationship  a fact that some around Walz worried might be his downfall in the process  aides said Harris grew increasingly enthusiastic by how Walz carried himself during the process. A courtesy call between Harris and Walz on July 21, the same Sunday afternoon Biden stepped aside, sparked a formal vetting process that ultimately led him to the top of the ranks of finalists.

Advertisement

Along the way, many Democratic leaders believed Shapiro was the frontrunner in the sudden race to become Harris’ running mate. Extensive polling and focus groups conducted by the Harris campaign showed no nominal difference among the final contenders, but two Democratic advisers close to the search process acknowledged Shapiro, who is Jewish, had become something of a lightning rod for Gaza protests that Harris was not eager to revisit, an issue that’s divided Democrats throughout the 2024 campaign.

“Nobody wanted to rip that scab back open,” one of the Democrats said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a confidential process. But other sources close to the vetting process pushed back on the notion that the Gaza protests had anything to do with Harris’ decision to pick Walz over Shapiro.

In the end, the bigger hurdle for Shapiro was his face-to-face meeting with Harris, where he posed “very specific” questions about the role of a vice president, including what decisions he would be included in making, should they win election.

“He was negotiating the job with her, while Walz was saying ‘What can I do to help?’” said the Democratic adviser, who added that Shapiro was unquestionably a rising star in the party but just didn’t meet the moment and forge a comfortable connection with Harris.

For Walz, the evolution from being seen as a moderate Democrat – winning a Republican-leaning congressional district in 2006 – to becoming a leading progressive governor impressed Harris and her team about his appeal.

Advertisement

Walz’s deferential style was also a huge factor in his appeal with Harris, sources said.

“She wanted to make sure that people understood there are going to be times when you’ll have great influence and there are going to be times when something’s happening and you’re told about it at the last minute,” said one of the people involved in the vetting process. “She said, ‘That’s just the nature of the job and you have to be OK with that.’”

Donuts and a teleprompter

Ahead of Harris’ three interviews on Sunday with Walz, Shapiro and Kelly, a panel of close advisers presented findings and recommendations to Harris at her residence at the Naval Observatory.

As they did, other senior campaign staff prepared videos and logos and merchandise for the various options. They waited, not knowing which way Harris would go. They wrestled with wrapping their minds around how different the options really were, and what each would mean for the campaign and for them.

According to sources familiar with the process, Harris was immediately leaning toward Walz after the Sunday meetings. But she felt torn through the end.

Advertisement

Harris slept on it Sunday. By Monday, she was quietly closing in on selecting Walz, informing only a small group of advisers of where her thinking stood that evening, a source familiar with the matter said. Harris went to bed Monday morning without making any official decision.

Small teams of staffers were sent to be on location for each of the final three options, none of them knowing when they woke up on Tuesday morning what the day was going to bring.

Speeches for Tuesday night’s rally in Philadelphia were written in advance for all the options.

When Harris finally called Tuesday morning, Walz was at home with his wife and two children, along with his sister and brother-in-law. He didn’t answer the first call that came through that morning because it was from a blocked number and he didn’t want to miss a call from Harris.

She got him on the second try.

Advertisement

Walz was handed his speech shortly after Harris called to officially tell him he was the pick.  After a small family celebration, Walz brought donuts to staffers who were there with him and hopped on a call with a wider group of staff to thank them for their work.

After arriving in Philadelphia for the first joint Harris-Walz rally Tuesday, a source said that Walz practiced using the teleprompter ahead of taking the stage for his speech.

CNN’s John King, Arlette Saenz and Betsy Klein contributed to this report.

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