The current war between the United States, Israel and Iran has driven global tensions to a boiling point. Many NATO allies and other states friendly to the U.S. have been unwilling to join the war effort, and President Trump has responded to their refusals with public condemnations. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, both of whom have tried to maintain cordial relationships with the Trump administration, havesplit with Trump over the Iran war, and have since been targeted both in official policy changes and through social media.

The most surprising target of the President’s ire is Pope Leo. Selected last year to replace the late Pope Francis, Leo is the first ever American pope, and until recently has tried to remain separate from the political sphere, especially in his home country. However, Leo’s commitment to peace and diplomacy has put him at odds with the Trump administration’s more aggressive foreign policy, and the Iran conflict has driven those tensions to a breaking point.

The opening volley

The war of words began with the Pope’s traditional Easter address on the morning of Apr. 5. In his address, Leo implored that “those who have weapons lay them down” and “those who have the power to unleash wars choose peace,” and while he did not mention the current war in Iran directly, his anti-war message was clear.

While the Pope was proclaiming a message of peace, President Trump’s Easter messages were dramatically pro-war. Early on Easter morning, Trump posted a profanity-laced rant on Truth Social, demanding that the Iranian regime “Open the F—in’ Strait [of Hormuz] … or you’ll be living in Hell.” Two days later, on the morning of April 7th, Trump doubled down, claiming that “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again” if Iran did not capitulate.

In the ensuing days, Pope Leo continued to position himself as anti-war and criticized world leaders for seeking war rather than diplomacy. When speaking to the leaders of the Chaldean Church (a subset of Middle Eastern Catholics) on April 10th, Leo said that the world was marked by “absurd and inhumane violence,” and argued that the Church must “never [be] on the side of those who yesterday wielded the sword and today launch bombs.”

Though Pope Leo largely avoided discussing Trump by name during this period, journalists did manage to get a more direct answer from him during interviews. When asked about Trump’s threat to annihilate Iran’s civilization, Pope Leo described the comments as “truly unacceptable,” arguing that Trump had violated both international law and basic morals. Other Catholic leaders, including Archbishop Paul Coakley of Oklahoma City, also directly named Trump, with Coakley saying in a statement that he “[calls] on President Trump to step back from the precipice of war and negotiate a just settlement for the sake of peace and before more lives are lost.”

Trump on Truth Social

On the evening of April 12th, Trump turned his attention, and his social media ire, to Pope Leo. He made a 334-word post on Truth Social in which, among other things, he described the Pope as “WEAK on crime and terrible for Foreign Policy,” claimed that priests were getting arrested during the Covid pandemic for holding church services, asserted that Pope Leo would not have become pope had Trump not been president, accused Pope Leo of being an “Obama Sympathizer” and stated that he didn’t want “a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States.” He concluded by saying that Pope Leo’s focus on politics hurts both the Pope and the Catholic Church more broadly. Later that night, he shared an AI-generated image of himself as a Christlike figure, shrouded in golden light and healing a sick man in a hospital bed.

Reactions to these posts were immediate and harsh, especially from the Catholic community. Bishop Robert Barron, a conservative Catholic and member of Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission, described Trump’s remarks as “entirely inappropriate and disrespectful,” while numerous leaders of Catholic-aligned political organizations called on Trump to apologize. When asked about the President’s attacks against him, Pope Leo finally mentioned Trump by name, saying that he has “no fear of the Trump administration, or speaking out loudly of the message of the Gospel.”

J.D. Vance and theological disputes

With tensions rising between Pope and President, observers and journalists turned to Catholic members of the Trump administration, including Vice President JD Vance, to try and ease the tensions. Vance has instead held firm to the Trump administration’s platform, saying on April 14th that the Pope should be more careful when talking about theology and that his claim that God is never on the side of warmongers is historically inaccurate.

Vance has also disputed the Pope’s interpretation of Just War Theory, a Catholic doctrine originating with Saint Augustine that describes when a state can legitimately engage in war. Notably, Pope Leo is a member of the Order of Saint Augustine, and his scholarship primarily centers around Augustine’s thinking and writing. Leo began his current tour of Africa by visiting the city where Augustine lived in the 400s and has discussed Augustine’s views on just war theory (among other things) in his speeches.

Threats of Avignon

While the Trump Administration and the Vatican have been publicly feuding in the last few weeks, there are reports that further tensions between the two parties have occurred in private. On April 6th, The Free Press initially reported that meetings between the U.S. Department of Defense and the Vatican’s representatives had become tense as far back as January of 2026. Further reports have examined the context of those meetings in some detail, with most reporting indicating that the American position effectively argued that the U.S. could do anything it chose and that the Vatican should side with the Trump administration’s choices.

The most concerning part of those reports centers on the allegation that Department of Defense officials had mentioned the Avignon Papacy during their conversations with the Vatican. The Avignon Papacy occurred during the 1300s, when the King of France sent his army to arrest Pope Boniface VIII. After Boniface’s death, the French royals forced the Papal Conclave to elect a French pope, who refused to move to Rome and instead moved the papal court to Avignon, where the French monarchs could directly control both who was elected pope and what the pope could say.If those alleged threats are true, the implications are disturbing. The Avignon Papacy happened when a major world power forced the Catholic Church to obey its demands through military force. It is unlikely that the United States would use military force against the Vatican, but it was enough of a concern that the Pope has canceled his planned visit to the US amid the heightened tensions.

The press release noted that Van Horn’s vision for Jewell’s future emphasized “personalized education rooted in the liberal arts and humanities, aimed at preparing students for successful careers and civic engagement in a constantly changing world.” His experience includes tenures as the president of Brevard College in North Carolina and Young Harris College in Georgia, both of which had or continue to have affiliations with the Methodist church.

It is not surprising that the Trustees have chosen Van Horn as interim president given the new direction of the College under the Reimagine Jewell initiative. Bill Gautreaux, chair of the Board of Trustees, noted that Van Horn’s “[unique] data driven results-oriented focus” would help the College “build on Jewell’s long history of academic excellence and student success.” It is unclear what emphasizing a “results-oriented focus” means at this time for programs and faculty, given cuts to both last year.

A New Direction

In an interview with Higher Education Digest, Van Horn outlined a myriad of policy outcomes for smaller private colleges that he believed would help them flourish. Two of his policy proposals are particularly relevant in viewing the way Van Horn will lead the College.

First, Van Horn emphasized that “[i]nstitutions must continue to identify low-producing majors and eliminate them from their offerings.” As Jewell thins its program offerings (having eliminated majors in International Relations, Mathematics, Oxbridge, Philosophy, Spanish, and Theatre this past year, among others), Jewell administration appears to have already emphasized identifying and removing “lower-producing majors” in an effort to reduce program spending.

Second, Van Horn emphasized that colleges, especially small private colleges, must “refocus the Boards, alumni, faculty, and staff on the mission of the institutions… focus on the type of student that [they] historically served and determine if this was still the mission for the institutions.” This includes, where necessary, “reducing the number of hours in the core curriculum” and changing the institution’s focus from core curriculum to double majors or certificates that enable student success, particularly in the workforce. As Jewell becomes more diverse and moves away from its Baptist roots, College administrators must decide whether to double down on Jewell’s historical mission or upend it.

No matter one’s feelings about Critical Thought and Inquiry (CTI) classes, it is clear that the Reimagine Jewell initiative, under the leadership of Van Horn, represents a significant shift for William Jewell College and its administration. Will Van Horn lead a shift out of exigency and toward a flourishing Jewell? Or will the College lose sight of the liberal arts emphasis that has caused its success for so long?

As usual, only time will tell.
The Hilltop Monitor is committed to publishing a range of Letters to the Editor. If you have thoughts on this piece, please send us your letters via the Contact Us page.

Since 2016, our news feeds have been dominated by the presence of former President Donald Trump. As he reenters the political arena, eyeing the 2024 presidency, two questions loom large: Can he secure victory in the election, and, if so, what will that mean for the United States?

Can He Win the Election?
Donald Trump’s early actions in the 2024 election race have been noteworthy. He first won Iowa, a crucial state. Since then other contenders have begun dropping out, leaving only Nikki Haley in the race. It would appear that Trump has secured the Republican nomination. It seems that the 2024 election will be a repeat of 2020, a battle against Trump and Biden. But what are the chances Trump can pull it off?

While Trump easily clinched the Jan. 23 New Hampshire primary, concerns arose from exit polls. Despite winning over a substantial portion of “very conservative” voters, a significant number of independent voters leaned towards Haley. 35% of Republican primary voters. In addition, the possibility of criminal conviction lingers, causing hesitancy among some supporters. 53 percent of respondents.” 

It is promising that some Republicans are criticizing Trump and refusing to vote for him, but it would be naive to say that Biden is pulling unanimous support from Democrats. Dissatisfaction, particularly among young voters, is palpable. “I want to show the Democratic Party as a young person that you still need to earn our vote and if you don’t, the consequences will be your career,” McKenzie, a young person who voted for Biden in  2020, said. “A Republican getting elected isn’t the end. It is the beginning of a much larger fight.” 

A rematch of Biden and Trump is about the last thing most Americans want. Talk of voting for the lesser of two evils is reemerging and people continue to be dissatisfied by the two party system and the election process. However, in the midst of the chaos there exists a very real possibility that Trump could emerge victorious in the 2024 election.

What’s in Store if Trump Wins?
The events of Jan. 6, 2021, a dark day in American history, loom large as we consider the potential consequences of a Trump victory. Never before had America seen such an anti-democratic display. Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law says it best: “The violent insurrection on January 6th was an attack on democracy itself—an effort to silence the voices of millions of voters, including record numbers of Black and Brown voters who cast decisive ballots in the 2020 election.” It is obvious that Trump has no qualms about attacking democracy. If he ends up back in power, who knows what he is capable of doing. 

If he does win, will anyone hold him accountable? The answer seems to be no. The reality is he has faced the courts, he has faced impeachment, and the very systems that work to maintain checks and balances in America have failed to restrain him. An article in form The Washington Post says it best: “A court system that could not control Trump as a private individual is not going to control him better when he is president of the United States…The one check Congress has on a rogue president, namely, impeachment and conviction, has already proved all but impossible — even when Trump was out of office and wielded modest institutional power over his party.” If Trump enters the Oval Office in 2025 he will have defeated almost everything we can throw at him. This will only make him that much harder to control. With an unprecedented history of legal challenges against him, Trump’s return to power could signify further democratic backsliding.

What Can We Do?
In the face of this uncertain future, proactive steps must be taken. Voting becomes a crucial tool not only in presidential elections but also at the local level. Calling for immediate reform and pressuring President Biden to fulfill campaign promises becomes imperative to address the concerns of a divided nation. Should Trump win, it’s essential not to succumb to political apathy but to stay engaged and vigilant, ensuring that democratic values are preserved.

As the political landscape unfolds, the nation finds itself at a crossroads, grappling with the potential resurgence of Donald Trump and the uncertainties that may follow. The power to shape the future lies not just with political figures but with the collective actions and decisions of the American people.