.jpeg) |
| (Facebook) |
Donald Trump's unprovoked war against the Catholic church reached new depths of derangement yesterday as he canceled an $11-million federal contract with Catholic Charities - apparently because he remains in a snit after Pope Leo was so bold as to question whether it was wise and moral for the U.S. to launch a war against Iran. Trump, however, might not want to get too cozy with his decision to scotch the Catholic contract. That's because his decision appears to run contrary to law on several grounds. While news that Trump had nullified the contract broke yesterday -- and reports tended to focus on the Trump vs. Leo contretemps -- we now know that Trump's unfriendliness toward funding of certain charities dates to the first moments of his second term, which began on Jan. 20, 2025 -- almost four months before Leo became Pope.
We will return to those issues in a moment, but first, let's get an update on yesterday's events via a report from MS NOW under the headline "Trump administration's depraved crusade against Catholic leaders continues; Amid the White House's attacks on Pope Leo, the administration has canceled an $11-million contract it had with Catholic Charities." Ja'han Jones writes:
It appears immigrant children have become collateral damage in the Trump administration’s depraved crusade against Catholic leaders.
Amid the White House’s ongoing political attacks on Pope Leo XIV after he rebuked the president’s deadly and economically destructive war with Iran, the administration has canceled an $11 million contract it had with Catholic Charities, a faith-based nonprofit that helps unaccompanied migrant children.
CBS News Miami reported on how the move could affect the Catholic Charities branch in Miami:
The Trump administration has canceled an $11 million federal contract that helps shelter and care for migrant children who enter the United States without a parent or legal guardian — putting a decades-long program in South Florida at risk of shutting down within months.
The decision affects Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Miami, which has provided services to unaccompanied minors for more than 60 years. Church officials say the sudden loss of funding could force the organization to end its operations tied to migrant children within three months.
It’s not the first time the Trump administration has stripped funding from Catholic charities. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had to sue the Trump administration to pry loose funding the group had been authorized to receive for refugee resettlement. The administration also devastated Catholic Relief Services, a nonprofit that helps administer foreign aid, and precipitated massive cuts and layoffs at the organization with its gutting of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
That takes us back to the Jan. 20, 25025, the day of Trump's second term. That's when he issued a series of executive orders targeting immigrant funding by suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), along with other measures -- especially one that directed federal agencies to terminate programs providing cash or non-cash benefits to undocumented immigrants.
In essence, Trump's war with the Catholic church started with an executive order, so it seems reasonable to ask: Are Trump's executive orders related to Catholic charities lawful? The complaint filed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) over funding for refugee resettlement has been settled, with the conference receiving money it was owed. That precludes a court finding on the propriety of the Trump executive order. But the settlement indicates the proceedings probably were not going well for the White House.
Let's take a look at other cases that provide clues about hurdles the administration might face in the Catholic Charities case and similar matters. Potential problems for the administration tend to come in two categories: (1) Failure to issue lawful executive orders and (2) Improper attempts to usurp the authority of Congress, especially its power of the purse. In a November 2025 case, a federal judge found that Trump improperly used executive orders to usurp Congress. Specifically, the ruling held that the administration sought to dismantle three federal agencies that had been charged by Congress with providing funding for public libraries and museums across the country. The following is from a report on the case at Courthouse News Service:
A Rhode Island federal court on Friday permanently blocked the Trump administration from implementing an executive order that sought to strip federal agencies in charge of funding for things like libraries and museums to the studs.
The injunction stems from a lawsuit filed in April by 21 state attorneys general challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order titled “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy.”
The March order directed seven federal agencies to cut their staff and functions within seven days to “the minimum presence and function required by law,” a move that would have gutted programs supporting libraries, museums, minority-owned small businesses, labor groups and people experiencing homelessness.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr., a Barack Obama appointee, issued a temporary injunction in May, finding the order unlawfully intruded on Congress’ authority. He barred its enforcement against the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Minority Business Development Agency and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
On Friday, McConnell Jr. sided with the states again and issued a permanent injunction preventing the implementation of the executive order.
“By now, the question presented in this case is a familiar one: May the Executive Branch undertake such actions in circumvention of the will of the legislative Branch? In recent months, this court — along with other courts across the country — has concluded that it may not. That answer remains the same here,” McConnell Jr. said in his opinion. . . .
On the merits, he echoed the reasoning as seen in the preliminary injunction. The executive order, he said, offered no rationale or even minimal analysis, and its sweeping termination of grants and programs — along with firing 80–90% of affected agency staff — had a substantial impact on states. Those actions, he concluded, were clearly arbitrary and capricious.
In a major "power of the purse" case, the Trump administration tried to withhold federal grants from sanctuary cities. Here is how the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in San Francisco vs. Trump:
This appeal presents the question of whether, in the absence of congressional authorization, the Executive Branch may withhold all federal grants from so-called “sanctuary” cities and counties. We conclude that, under the principle of Separation of Powers and in consideration of the Spending Clause, which vests exclusive power to Congress to impose conditions on federal grants, the Executive Branch may not refuse to disperse the federal grants in question without congressional authorization. Because Congress has not acted, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City and County of San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara (collectively, the “Counties”).
Trump never seems to learn from his mounting court losses, so we look for him to make renewed efforts to push Congress aside on matters of spending. This is a big part of the Republican Party's push for a "unilateral executive," which is a fancy term for dictator. Trump has shown that he has dreams of acting as a dictator, and he likely will not let go of that notion easily. If our federal courts function as "citadels of Justice,", rather than "fossils of favoritism," Trump should have more losses in his future.
Consider the Miami case regarding care of migrant children, for example. The contract in question, according to published reports, was issued by the Department of Health and Human Services' (HSS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). And that office is funded mostly by an annual appropriation from Congress. That means Trump cannot cancel the contract without the consent of Congress. And that means any future court case on the matter will almost certainly be decided against the administration.
Trump and his acolytes likely will not go down without a fight -- even if they have to appeal to their buddies on the U.S. Supreme Court. John Roberts might be willing to throw the Constitution under the bus in order to favor a Republican president. If not, Team Trump will have little to do aside from its tradition of tossing insults to and fro. From the MS NOW report:
The Trump administration’s crusade against Catholic leaders — particularly those calling for humanity in American politics — has been going on for a while. Last year, shortly after Trump’s second inauguration, Vice President JD Vance — a Catholic convert — suggested Catholic organizations that have received money to help resettle immigrants in the U.S. might actually be doing so for the money, not out of religious conviction.
“Are they worried about humanitarian concerns? Or are they actually worried about their bottom line?” Vance said of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops during an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
Trump’s so-called border czar Tom Homan, who is also Catholic, and Vance have been the most prominent Catholics in the administration to effectively throw their support behind the president’s attacks on the pope. This week, Vance publicly warned Pope Leo to “be careful when talking about matters of theology,” while Homan bemoaned Catholic leaders who have expressed sympathy for immigrants caught up in Trump’s racist crackdown. In an appearance on Newsmax, Homan said church leaders should “sit down and let me educate them” on immigration matters and rebuked their outspokenness.
“I’ve spent my whole life in the Catholic Church,” he said. “But I’m disappointed that they want to weigh in on political issues like this.”
No comments:
Post a Comment