The contentious nature of the relationship between the president and the pontiff stems from Washington’s expectation that the “American pope” would adopt positions favourable to Republicans. However, having encountered firm resistance from Vatican diplomacy, the US State Department has been forced to backtrack, writes Ekaterina Shebalina.
Interest in the current state of relations between Pope Leo XIV and US President Donald Trump intensified following the meeting between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Pope Leo XIV, which was held in the Vatican on 7 May 2026. The meeting was an attempt to demonstrate a desire to de-escalate tensions that have been building since the very beginning of the current pontificate.
Trump’s overbearing rhetoric, which from the moment of the pontiff’s election sought to emphasise the Roman primate’s supposed subordination to the American political establishment on account of his origins, immediately provoked a negative reaction within the Roman Curia. Upon ascending the Chair of Saint Peter, Leo XIV adopted a course aimed at demonstrating the universal character of his pontificate, one open to dialogue with all nations and political groupings, while avoiding undue emphasis on his “American” background. This is precisely why, unlike his predecessor, the Pope has not taken a definitive side in the conflict between conservative and liberal groups of American Catholics, which have traditionally been affiliated with the two rival political forces. The Pontiff defends the principles cherished by traditionalists, while at the same time making no secret of his willingness to embrace carefully calibrated reforms. Pope Leo has adopted the same independent stance in international affairs.
Nearly a year after the election of the Roman pontiff, Donald Trump has only intensified his criticism of the Pope. In April, for example, he hinted at his own role in Leo’s election, writing on social media: “Leo XIV was elected in May 2025 because he is American and easy to work with ... if I had not been in the White House, Leo would not be in the Vatican”. The immediate trigger for these remarks was Trump’s dispute with Pope Leo XIV over the US–Israeli war against Iran and the Pope’s public anti-war stance (“peace is achieved not through threats and weapons, but only through dialogue ... Stop the war! Sit down at the negotiating table and engage in mediation.”). This was compounded by a media controversy surrounding a CBS 60 Minutes segment featuring critical remarks by the Pope and American cardinals regarding the policies of the Trump administration. Since Leo XIV assumed the papacy in May 2025, several factors have contributed to the deterioration of relations: papal criticism of US migration policy, condemnation of American sanctions pressure on Cuba, responses to Trump’s personal attacks, and criticism of the US position on Venezuela. At the same time, the Pope has repeatedly stressed that he has no desire to engage in debates with the American president and that his mission is pastoral in nature.
The principal stumbling block in Vatican–American relations concerns differing interpretations of what constitutes a “lasting peace” in the Middle East. For the Holy See, de-escalation cannot be the product of coercion, military pressure, or sanctions-based isolation. Vatican diplomacy has traditionally maintained that a sustainable settlement is possible only through a ceasefire, humanitarian guarantees, and the inclusion of all parties to the conflict in negotiations. Within this framework, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, and other regional actors should be viewed not merely as targets of pressure, but as participants in a future security architecture. Leo XIV continues the broader tradition of papal diplomacy, in which the rejection of war is not a situational political position, but part of a wider moral and normative doctrine.
The American approach under the administration of Donald Trump is based on a different logic. Washington views pressure on Iran as an instrument for securing a political agreement: sanctions, the threat of military strikes, and demonstrations of force are employed to compel Tehran to make concessions. For the United States, “lasting peace” primarily means containing Iran, limiting its nuclear programme, and preserving the strategic advantage of Washington’s allies in the region. For the Vatican, by contrast, peace implies not only controlling threats, but also restoring the conditions necessary for political trust, protecting civilian populations, and ensuring humanitarian access.
A second area of disagreement concerns the protection of religious freedoms. For Leo XIV, assistance to migrants and refugees forms an integral part of the Church’s social mission. Even in his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas (“Magnificent Humanity”), devoted to preserving human personhood in the age of artificial intelligence, some attention is dedicated to migrants, whom the Pope characterises not as a problem, but as people possessing dignity, capabilities, aspirations, and the right to participate in the life of host societies. The Vatican regards pastoral care, humanitarian support, and the defence of migrants’ dignity as a direct continuation of Christian teaching. The American administration, by contrast, links migration policy primarily to border control, national security, and domestic political demands.
At the same time, it would be wrong to deny the Vatican’s interest in preserving cooperation with Washington on a number of mutually beneficial aspects of the bilateral agenda. In particular, the Holy See’s financial difficulties encourage a more accommodating attitude towards the position of American donors—influential Catholic non-governmental organisations. However, it would be mistaken to interpret this as direct dependence. Rather, it constitutes an additional constraint on diplomatic manoeuvring: the Pontiff is interested in maintaining relations with American Catholic institutions, but is not prepared to sacrifice his principled positions on war, migration, and universal religious freedom.
Viewed from a strategic perspective, the Holy See is not a direct opponent of the United States as a state. Nevertheless, it effectively limits the legitimacy of Washington’s coercive diplomacy by offering an alternative language of international politics—a language centred on ceasefires, universal rights, humanitarian responsibility, and inclusive negotiations. This is the political significance of Leo XIV’s position: the Vatican does not possess power capabilities comparable to those of the United States, yet it is capable of shaping the moral framework within which the use of force is judged not only in terms of effectiveness, but also in terms of legitimacy.
