Her brown face, green mantle and forgiving gaze is a mainstay of Southern California: In front yards. As murals. On decals flashing from car windows and bumpers. Sold at swap meets in the form of T-shirts, ponchos, statues, bags and so much more.

Tomorrow, it will be the feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and She couldn’t come soon enough. 2025 will go down as one of the best and worst years ever to be a Catholic in the United States.

Members of my faith are in positions of power in this country like never before. Vice President JD Vance is a convert. A majority of the Supreme Court are practicing Catholics. Names of past Catholic diasporas like Kennedy, Bondi, Loeffler and Rubio dot Trump’s Cabinet. This week, he became the first president to formally recognize the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, a Catholic holy day celebrating Mary, the mother of Jesus.

“For nearly 250 years, Mary has played a distinct role in our great American story,” Trump declared, offering a brief Catholic history of the United States that would’ve made this country’s Puritan forefathers retch. He even shouted out Our Lady of Guadalupe’s feast day, commending the “steadfast devotion to Mary that originated in the heart of Mexico.”

It’s the second year in a row where Trump has wrapped himself in the Empress of the Americas. Last year, he shared Her famous image on social media on Sept. 8, when Catholics celebrate the birth of the Virgin Mary, with the caption “Happy birthday, Mary!”

I wish I could say Guadalupe is changing Trump’s shriveled excuse of a heart. But it’s impossible to reach that conclusion when so many Catholics in the U.S. face unholy persecution because of his deportation deluge.

A study released earlier this year by a coalition of evangelical and Catholic groups found that 61% of immigrants at risk of deportation in this country identify as Catholic, while nearly one-fifth of U.S. Catholics “would be impacted” by someone being deported. The latter figure is nearly three times the rate that evangelicals face and four times the rate of other Christian denominations.

Guadalupanos — people with a special devotion to Guadalupe, the overwhelming majority of whom are Latino — can’t even venerate Her in peace this year because of Trump.

The neighborhood house that I visit every year to pray the novena in honor of Guadalupe with others has seen way fewer people than last year. In Chicago, where immigration agents terrorized residents all fall, officials at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in suburban Des Plaines are seeing the same even as they adopt security measures to reassure attendees. Out in the Coachella Valley, a beloved pilgrimage in honor of la guadalupana held for more than 20 years was canceled, with organizers announcing on Facebook in Spanish that the faithful should instead do a “spiritual interior pilgrimage where our mother invites us to keep us united in a secure environment.”

Since July, San Bernardino diocese bishop Alberto Rojas has allowed Catholics to skip Mass because of all the raids in the Inland Empire. He was joined this week by Diocese of Baton Rouge Bishop Michael Duca as la migra now roams Louisiana. “We should be anticipating the joy of Christmas, surrounded by our family in celebration,” Duca wrote, “instead of the experience of anxiety and fear.”

That’s the sad irony of seeing Catholicism have such a prominent role in Trump’s second term. The main defamers of Catholics in the United States have been Protestants since the days of the founding fathers. They cast successive waves of immigrants — Irish, Italians, Poles, Mexicans, Vietnamese — as evil, stupid immigrants beholden to Rome. They wrongly predicted each group would ruin the American way of life.

Now that Catholics are at the top, they’re the ones pushing policies that persecute the new generation of immigrants, Catholic and not. They mock the exhortations of church leaders to follow the Bible’s many commands to protect the stranger, the meek, the least and the poor by arguing that deporting the undocumented is somehow righteous.

That’s why, as we end a terrible year and Trump vows to escalate his cruel anti-immigrant campaign in the next one, Catholics and non-Catholics alike need to remember who Our Lady of Guadalupe is like never before. She’s more than just an iconic image; this dark-skinned María stands against everything Trump and his brand of Catholicism preaches.

The faithful believe that Guadalupe appeared in 1531 near modern day Mexico City — not before the conquering Spanish priests who were destroying the old ways of the Aztecs and other Indigenous groups, but to the conquered who looked like her. The manuscript that shared her story with the world quoted her as promising to “hear all their cries … and remedy all their miseries, sorrows, and pains.”

Siding with the underdogs against the elites is why Mexicans carried Guadalupe’s banner in the War of Independence and during the Mexican Revolution. Why Cesar Chavez carried her during United Farm Workers marches and why generations of Chicano artists have reimagined la virgencita as everything from a bikini-clad model to a jogger — the more quotidian, the better.

It’s why there are 19 parishes, sanctuaries and missions named after her in the dioceses of Orange, Los Angeles and San Bernardino — by far the most of any saint, sacrament or Marian apparition in the Southland. It’s why the late Pope Francis regularly celebrated mass in honor of Guadalupe’s feast day at the Vatican and admonished those who wished to “gain ideological advantage over the mystery of Guadalupe” last year during a homily at St. Peter’s Basilica. Presiding over the service was Cardinal Robert Prevost, who is now Pope Leo XIV and whose devotion to Guadalupe is such that he was consecrated as a bishop 11 years ago this Dec. 12.

It’s why Guadalupe has emerged as a symbol against Trump’s deportation Leviathan.

Her message of hope for the poor over the privileged stands in contrast to the limousine Catholics who dominate Trumpland. They’re the ones that have successfully spent millions of dollars to move the church in the United States to the right (55% of Catholics chose Trump last year), repeatedly tried to torpedo the reforms of Pope Francis and are already souring on Pope Leo for describing Trump’s raids as “extremely disrespectful” to the dignity of migrants. They’re the ones who have expressed more outrage over the assassination of conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk this fall than the suffering that millions of their fellow Catholics have endured all year under Trump.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, grant us the strength to fight back against the Herod of our time.

This story discusses suicide. If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide, please contact the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 or 1-800-273-TALK (8255).

The death of former Sen. Mitt Romney’s sister-in-law has been confirmed to be a suicide, the Los Angeles County medical examiner’s office announced Tuesday.

Carrie Elizabeth Romney, 64, died of “blunt traumatic injuries” after plunging from a five-story parking garage in California in early October. She had been married to Mitt Romney’s older brother, George Scott Romney, 81, and the pair had been going through a months-long divorce.

“Our family is heartbroken by the loss of Carrie, who brought warmth and love to all our lives,” Mitt Romney said in a statement after Carrie’s death.

FETTERMAN’S BRUTALLY CANDID ACCOUNT OF BATTLING DEPRESSION, FEELING SUICIDAL, BEING THROWN OUT OF HIS HOUSE

“We ask for privacy during this difficult time,” he added.

Carrie and George had been married since 2016. They had been separated since late May, and George filed a divorce petition in early June.

FLASHBACK: MITT ROMNEY MOCKED IN 2012 FOR SELF-DEPORTATION CONCEPT THAT HAS NOW BECOME A REALITY

Mitt Romney served as a Utah senator until 2024, when he decided not to run for re-election. 

“I have spent my last 25 years in public service of one kind or another. At the end of another term, I’d be in my mid-eighties. Frankly, it’s time for a new generation of leaders. They’re the ones that need to make the decisions that will shape the world they will be living in,” Romney said at the time.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“We face critical challenges — mounting national debt, climate change, and the ambitious authoritarians of Russia and China. Neither President Biden nor former President Trump are leading their party to confront them,” Romney said.

“It is a profound honor to serve Utah and the nation, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to do so.”

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservatives signaled Tuesday they are likely to rule for Republicans and President Trump by throwing out a Watergate-era limit on campaign funding by political parties.

The court has repeatedly said campaign money is protected as free speech, and the new ruling could allow parties to support their candidate’s campaigns with help from wealthy donors.

For the second day in a row, Trump administration lawyers urged the justices to strike down a law passed by Congress. And they appeared to have the support of most of the conservatives.

The only doubt arose over the question of whether the case was flawed because no current candidate was challenging the limits.

“The parties are very much weakened,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “This court’s decisions over the years have together reduced the power of political parties, as compared to outside groups, with negative effects on our constitutional democracy.”

He was referring to rulings that upheld unlimited campaign spending by wealthy donors and so-called super PACs.

In the Citizens United case of 2010, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and four other conservatives struck down the long-standing limits on campaign spending, including by corporations and unions. They did so on the theory that such spending was “independent” of candidates and was protected as free speech under the 1st Amendment.

They said the limits on contributions to candidates were not affected. Those limits could be justified because the danger of corruption where money bought political favors. This triggered a new era of ever-larger political spending but most of it was separate from the candidates and the parties.

Last year, billionaire Elon Musk spent more than $250 million to support Donald Trump’s campaign for reelection. He did so with money spent through political action committees, not directly to Trump or his campaign.

Meanwhile the campaign funding laws limit contributions to candidates to $3,500.

Lawyers for the National Republican Senatorial Committee pointed out this trend and told the Supreme Court its decisions had “eroded” the basis for some of the remaining the 1970s limits on campaign funding.

At issue Tuesday were the limits on “coordinated party spending.” In the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress added limits on campaign money that could be given to parties and used to fund their candidates. The current donation limit is $44,000, the lawyers said.

Washington attorney Noel Francisco, Trump’s solicitor general during his first term, urged the court strike down these limits on grounds they are outdated and violate the freedom of speech.

“The theory is that they’re needed to prevent an individual donor from laundering a $44,000 donation through the party to a particular candidate in exchange for official action,” he said.

If a big-money donor hopes to win a favor from a congressional candidate, the “would-be briber would be better off just giving a massive donation to the candidate’s favorite super PAC,” Francisco said.

The suit heard Tuesday was launched by then-Sen. JD Vance of Ohio and other Republican candidates, and it has continued in his role as vice president and possibly a presidential candidate in 2028.

Usually, the Justice Department defends federal laws, but in this instance, the Trump administration switched sides and joined the Republicans calling for the party spending limits to be struck down.

Precedents might have stood in the way.

In 2001, the Supreme Court had narrowly upheld these limits on the grounds that the party’s direct support was like a contribution, not independent spending. But the deputy solicitor general, Sarah Harris, told the justices Tuesday that the court’s recent decisions have “demolished” that precedent.

“Parties can’t corrupt candidates, and no evidence suggests donors launder bribes by co-opting parties’ coordinated spending with candidates,” she said.

Marc Elias, a Democratic attorney, joined the case in the support of the court limits. He said the outcome would have little to do with speech or campaign messages.

“I think we’re underselling the actual corruption” that could arise, he said. If an individual were to give $1 million to political party while that person has business matter before the House or Senate, he said, it’s plausible that could influence “a deciding or swing vote.”

The only apparent difficulty for the conservative justices arose over questions of procedure.

Washington attorney Roman Martinez was asked to defend the law, and he argued that neither Vance nor any other Republicans had legal standing to challenge the limits. Vance was not a current candidate, and he said the case should be dismissed for that reason.

Some legal observers noted that the limits on parties arose in response to evidence that huge campaign contributions to President Nixon’s reelection came from industry donors seeking government favors.

“Coordinated spending limits are one of the few remaining checks to curb the influence of wealthy special interests in our elections,” said Omar Noureldin, senior vice president for litigation at Common Cause. “If the Supreme Court dismantles them, party leaders and wealthy donors will be free to pour nearly unlimited money directly into federal campaigns, exactly the kind of corruption these rules were created to stop.”

Daniel I. Weiner, an elections law expert at the Brennan Center, said the justices were well aware of how striking down these limits could set the stage for further challenges.

“I was struck by how both sides had to acknowledge that this case has to be weighed not in isolation but as part of a decades-long push to strike down campaign finance rules,” he said. “Those other decisions have had many consequences the court itself failed to anticipate.”