This site is currently UNDER CONSTRUCTION. b3de is content aggregator mobile friendly website that presents content made available by your favorite sources ( and even some you've likely never heard of ) via really simple sindication and web syndication.
A trade war is injurious to both sides but Beijing is more confident that time is on its side.
U.S. President Donald Trump will probably blink first. The first sign of that came Tuesday when he said that 145% tariffs on China will “come down substantially” and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent predicted “de-escalation” in the de facto trade embargo between the world’s two largest economies.
Both sides would certainly benefit from finding agreement. The trade war has vaporizedtrillions of dollars from the stock market, caused the dollar to plunge, and tipped America’s economy closer to recession. Chinese freight ship bookings have also plummeted in recent weeks, suggesting downward pressure on China’s export sector, an engine of the country’s economic growth.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
Yet there are still major obstacles to striking a deal. There is no serious U.S.-China negotiating process underway, and therefore no off-ramp on the immediate horizon. And that is, in part, because Beijing is not in the mood to build one.
China’s leaders believe their political system is more unified, hardened, and disciplined than the Trump Administration to withstand a trade war. They do not face competitive elections or political blowback from market movements like in the U.S. They also have considerable leeway to shape the public narrative about the trade war through state-controlled media.
Moreover, China has tools at hand to hit America’s economy where it hurts, including the withholding of critical minerals and key inputs to America’s industrial value chains. A prolonged trade war could shudder U.S. factories, cause job losses, and lead to higher inflation and empty store shelves. China’s leaders seem to expect America’s political feedback loop will kick in quicker and sharper for Trump than for Xi Jinping. In other words, Beijing believes time is on its side.
That is why China will be cautious about entering into trade negotiations. Since its leaders believe they have leverage and can afford patience, they will not negotiate against themselves. They will wait for Trump to define what is up for negotiation.
Trump has insisted that “the ball is in China’s court” and that it must “ultimately” make a deal to preserve its access to the U.S. market. The problem for Trump, though, is that virtually nobody in Beijing agrees with this assessment. In Trump, China’s leaders see an improvisational leader who frequently changes his mind and rarely sticks to agreements for long.
Given these dynamics, fairly or not, if there is going to be a climb down on the trade war, it will need to come from Trump. It is not going to originate in Beijing.
To get to a deal, Trump will need to identify his objectives and then empower his staff to negotiate on his behalf. He will also need to read the room. Beijing craves respect. It will only agree to a deal that it can present at home and abroad as a win for itself, too.
During his first term, Trump signed a U.S.-China “Phase One” trade deal. As part of the deal, Beijing committed to purchase at least $200 billion in additional U.S. goods and services above 2017 levels. The deal ultimately underperformed; Beijing did not follow through on its purchasing pledges. As such, there will not be U.S. appetite for a do-over of negotiating commitments for future purchases of American goods and services.
The challenge, then, is to find an overlap of interests between Washington and Beijing that could allow both sides to justify negotiations. There are a few potential building blocks for such a deal. For example, Beijing has publicly signaled its intent to boost domestic demand. A tangible and time-bounded effort to deliver on that could be mutually beneficial. Greater domestic demand would spur Chinese growth while reducing export flows to U.S. and global markets.
Trump might also be open to negotiating around Chinese investment into the American heartland to boost manufacturing capacity in non-national security sectors. Chinese investments there would allow Trump to claim progress in American re-industrialization, while Xi could tout success in expanding scope for homegrown firms to make profits in the U.S. market.
Given the hardening politics in both countries around the trade war, even this modest set of outcomes might seem out of reach. But the alternative would be to let the trade war rumble, and the diplomatic calendar to run its course.
Both Trump and Xi will likely attend the APEC leader’s meeting this November in South Korea. That will be the first time and place where they can be expected to be together. A meeting could allow both leaders to set a course for negotiators to follow.
The possibility of talks before November is still there. A small exit door remains available for both sides to escape the mounting costs of the trade war. Xi is not going to open that door, though. If anyone is going to kick the door open, it will need to be Trump.
A deadly attack on tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir has again moved India and Pakistan closer to war.
NEW DELHI — A deadly attack on tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir has again moved India and Pakistan closer to war as the two rivals downgraded diplomatic and trade ties, closed the main border crossing and revoked visas for each other’s nationals.
Pakistan has denied it was behind Tuesday’s attack that killed 26 mostly Indian tourists at a scenic spot in the Himalayan region, where India claimed it restored a sense of calm despite a decadeslong rebellion. A previously unknown militant group calling itself Kashmir Resistance has claimed responsibility for the attack.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
India and Pakistan have fought two of their three wars over Kashmir, which is split between them and claimed by both in its entirety. Here’s what to know about an escalation in tensions between the two nuclear-armed rivals.
Indian officials say troops exchanged fire with Pakistani soldiers in Kashmir
Indian officials said the army had a brief exchange of fire with Pakistani soldiers along their highly militarized frontier in the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir, as the nuclear-armed rivals ramped up tit-for-tat diplomatic offensive following a deadly attack on tourists.
The report of a gunfight comes amid soaring tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad after gunmen killed 26 people near the resort town of Pahalgam in Kashmir on Tuesday. India immediately described the massacre a “terror attack” and said it had “cross border” links, blaming Pakistan for backing it.
Pakistan denied any connection to the attack, which was claimed by a previously unknown militant group calling itself the Kashmir Resistance.
Three Indian army officials said that Pakistani soldiers used small arms to fire at an Indian position in Kashmir late Thursday. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity in keeping with departmental policy, said Indian soldiers retaliated and no casualties were reported.
In Pakistan, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Friday decline to confirm or deny the report. Ministry spokesperson Shafqat Ali Khan told a news conference that “I will wait for a formal confirmation from the military before I make any comment.”
He added there had been no effort yet from any other country to mediate.
In the past, each side has accused the other of starting border skirmishes.
What’s at the heart of the dispute?
Ties between India and Pakistan have been shaped by conflict, aggressive diplomacy and mutual suspicion, most notably in their competing claims over the region of Kashmir.
Armed insurgents in Kashmir have resisted New Delhi for decades, with many Muslim Kashmiris supporting the rebels’ goal of uniting the territory either under Pakistani rule or as an independent country. India accuses Pakistan of fomenting violence, a charge denied by Islamabad. Tens of thousands of civilians, rebels and government forces have been killed in the conflict over the years.
How has Pakistan responded to India’s reprisals?
On Tuesday, gunmen fatally shot 26 people, mostly Indian tourists, in an attack near the picturesque town of Pahalgam. New Delhi immediately linked Pakistan to the attack, although it did not publicly produce any evidence.
India announced a string of punitive measures. It downgraded diplomatic ties, suspended a crucial water-sharing treaty and revoked all visas issued to Pakistani nationals. India also said it will reduce its staff in its high commission in Pakistan and bring down the number of Pakistani diplomats in New Delhi to 30 from 55 from May 1.
Pakistan called India’s actions “irresponsible” and canceled visas for Indian nationals, suspended all trade with India including via third countries and closed its airspace to Indian aircraft.
Islamabad warns dispute over water could lead to war
India’s decision to suspend the water treaty could potentially mark a major turning point in how the two neighbors manage an essential shared resource between them. Pakistan warned Thursday that any Indian attempt to stop or divert the flow of water between them would be considered an “act of war.”
The Indus Water Treaty, brokered by the World Bank in 1960, allows for sharing the waters of a river system that is a lifeline for both countries. The treaty has survived two wars between the countries, in 1965 and 1971, and a major border skirmish in 1999.
It governs sharing of the water supply from the Indus River system and its distributaries. Under the treaty, India has control over the eastern rivers of Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas, and Pakistan controls the western rivers of Jhelum, Chenab, and Indus that follow through Kashmir region.
Pakistan said the treaty was binding and contained no provision for unilateral suspension.
Pakistan described it as a “vital national interest.” The treaty is essential for supporting agriculture and hydropower in the country with 240 million people. Suspending it could lead to water shortages at a time when parts of Pakistan are already struggling with drought and declining rainfall.
Pakistan warns it could suspend a peace treaty
Islamabad, meanwhile, has warned it could suspend the Simla Agreement, a significant peace treaty signed after the 1971 India-Pakistan war that ended in Bangladesh splitting from Pakistan.
Under the agreement, India and Pakistan established the Line of Control, previously called the Ceasefire Line, a highly militarized de facto border that divides disputed Kashmir between the countries. They also committed to settle their differences through bilateral negotiations.
Militant attacks scale back peace efforts
Despite largely strained relations, the neighbors have intermittently made efforts for peace. However, regular border flare-ups and multiple militant attacks in Kashmir and India have marred peace overtures as New Delhi has taken tough position on Islamabad, accusing it of “terrorism.”
In 1999, Pakistan-backed rebels and Pakistani soldiers seized Indian military posts in the icy heights of Kargil region. Indian troops responded and a 10-week conflict killed at least 1,000 combatants on both sides. The fighting stopped after a U.S. intervention.
In 2008, a group of heavily armed assailants of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group went on a rampage in India’s financial capital Mumbai, killing 166 people. New Delhi blamed Pakistan’s intelligence service for the assault, an accusation denied by Islamabad.
In 2019, a suicide car bombing killed 40 Indian soldiers in Kashmir and brought the countries closer to war. In response, India said its air force struck a militant training camp inside Pakistan. Pakistan responded by aerial raids, downed an Indian military aircraft and captured an Indian pilot, who was later released.
Months later, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government revoked Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status and imposed sweeping security measures. Since then, India has kept order in the region with a huge security presence and drastically curbed dissent, civil liberties and media freedoms.
Worries of nuclear confrontation
India and Pakistan have built up their armies and nuclear arsenals over the years. India was the first to conduct a nuclear test in 1974, followed by another in 1998. Pakistan followed with its own nuclear tests just a few weeks later. The sides have since armed themselves with hundreds of nuclear warheads, missile delivery systems, advanced fighter jets and modern weapons to take on each other.
Moon Jae-in, who served as President from 2017-2022, allegedly received bribes from the founder of budget carrier Thai Easter Jet.
SEOUL, South Korea — South Korean prosecutors indicted former liberal President Moon Jae-in on bribery charges Thursday, saying that a budget airline gave his son-in-law a lucrative no-show job during Moon’s term in office.
Moon’s indictment adds him to a long list of South Korean leaders who have faced trials or scandals at the close of their terms or after leaving office.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
Prosecutors allege that Moon, who served as president from 2017-2022, received bribes totaling 217 million won ($151,705) from Lee Sang-jik, founder of the budget carrier Thai Eastar Jet, in the form of wages, housing expenses and other financial assistance provided to Moon’s then-son-in-law from 2018-2020.
South Korean media reported that Moon’s daughter and her husband were divorced in 2021.
The Jeonju District Prosecutors’ Office said in a statement that Lee was also indicted on charges of paying bribes to Moon and committing breaches of trust.
The prosecutors’ office said Moon’s former son-in-law was hired as a director-level employee at Lee’s company in Thailand even though he had no work experience in the airline industry. The office said he spent only brief periods at the company’s office in Thailand and carried out only minor duties while claiming to be working remotely from South Korea.
The prosecutors’ office said it had not found evidence that Moon directly performed political favors for Lee, but that Lee, who worked on Moon’s campaign, likely expected his assistance to be repaid.
Lee was later named the head of the state-funded Korea SME and Startups Agency and was nominated by Moon’s party to run for parliament while Moon was in office. A former Moon aide on personnel affairs was earlier indicted over Lee’s agency job appointment, but prosecutors said she refused to testify during questioning so they were unable to find any direct evidence that Moon helped Lee win that position.
Moon’s indictment comes before South Korea elects a new president on June 3 to succeed conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol, who was ousted over an ill-fated imposition of martial law in December. Yoon, a former top prosecutor, now stands a criminal trial on rebellion charges connection with his martial law decree.
It’s unclear if Moon’s indictment will influence prospects for liberals to win back the presidency. But observers say liberal presidential aspirant Lee Jae-myung is heavily favored to win the vote as conservatives remain in disarray over Yoon’s ouster, although Lee also faces criminal trials on allegations of corruption and other charges.
There was no immediate response from Moon. But his political allies at the main liberal opposition Democratic Party criticized the indictment, calling it a politically motivated attempt by Yoon supporters at the prosecution service to humiliate the former liberal leader ahead of the election.
Youn Kun-young, a Democratic Party lawmaker who worked at Moon’s presidential office, accused prosecutors of trying to divert attention from Yoon’s “tragic end” by putting Moon on trial to influence the election outcome. A Democratic Party committee separately warned it would hold the prosecution service to account for its indictment.
Most past South Korean presidents have been embroiled in scandal in the final months of their terms or after leaving office. In 2017, Park Geun-hye, South Korea’s first female president, was removed from office and arrested over an explosive corruption scandal.
Park’s conservative predecessor Lee Myung-bak was also arrested on a range of crimes, years after leaving office. Moon’s friend and former liberal President Roh Moo-hyun jumped to his death in 2009 amid corruption investigations into his family.
Moon is best known for his push to reconcile with rival North Korea as he met North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times and facilitated the start of the high-stakes nuclear diplomacy between Kim and President Donald Trump.
Moons’ supporters credit him with achieving now-stalled cooperation with North Korea and avoiding major armed clashes, but opponents say he was a naive North Korea sympathizer who ended up helping the North buy time to advance its nuclear program in the face of international sanctions and pressure.
President Trump and Prince William are among the key figures confirmed to be attending.
One of the most reform-driven leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis, died on Monday, April 21. He was 88.
His passing came after continued health issues, which saw him endure a five-week hospital stay, from which he was released on March 23.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
In a statement announcing his death, the Vatican said: “Dearest brothers and sisters, with deep sorrow I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis. His entire life was dedicated to the service of the Lord and of His Church. He taught us to live the values of the Gospel with fidelity, courage, and universal love, especially in favor of the poorest and most marginalized.”
Not only was the late Pope new in his approach to leading the Catholic Church, he was the first non-European to hold the position in more than 1,200 years and the first Latin American Pope.
The Vatican has since announced arrangements for the Pope’s funeral, which is scheduled to take place on Saturday, April 26. The service will be held outdoors in front of St Peter’s Basilica. The public has had the chance to pay their respects to the Pope after his body was moved to the basilica to lie in state.
As such an important and influential figure to many, Pope Francis’ passing gained condolences and prayers from leaders worldwide. Figures from all sides of the political spectrum are set to attend his funeral, from U.S. President Donald Trump to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Cultural figureheads will be present at the service in Rome, too.
As it currently stands, here’s who is set to attend the funeral:
Donald and Melania Trump
The President confirmed via his social media platform, Truth Social, that himself and the First Lady, Melania Trump, are set to be in attendance. He said they both “look forward to being there.”
Vice President J.D. Vance met with the Pope on Easter Sunday in Rome, a day before his passing. The brief meeting came amid prickly relations between the Papacy and the Trump Administration, which had worsened in recent months as Pope Francis openly criticized U.S. policy on deportation.
Prince William
King Charles III’s eldest son, Prince William, is confirmed to attend Pope Francis’ funeral in Rome, according to a statement from Kensington Palace. William will be representing his father, just as Charles represented the late Queen Elizabeth II at the funeral of Pope John Paul II in 2005.
The Prince of Wales’ attendance in place of the King is a modern tradition, and a statement to further establish William’s role as future king.
Keir Starmer
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer will also be representing the United Kingdom at the service, as confirmed by a spokesperson on April 22 during a Downing Street press briefing.
The Prime Minister expressed condolences for Pope Francis after his death, stating: “His leadership in a complex and challenging time for the world and the church was often courageous, yet always came from a place of deep humility.”
Volodymyr Zelensky
The Ukrainian President is confirmed to be in attendance for the service at St Peter’s Basilica, according to his communications advisor, Dmytro Lytvyn.
Zelensky paid tribute to the late Pope on his official X account, saying: “We remember his prayers for peace in Ukraine. Our state will be represented in Rome at the farewell ceremony this coming Saturday.”
Pope Francis and the Ukrainian President last met in October 2024, during Zelensky’s European diplomatic tour.
Representation from Catholic-majority countries will be in attendance, as Irish President Michael D. Higgins will be present at the service on April 26, alongside Taoiseach [Prime Minister] Micheál Martin.
On April 22, Higgins paid tribute to the late Pope by signing a book of condolences for the Pontiff in Dublin, Ireland.
Ursula von der Leyen
Another key European figure, E.U. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, has confirmed that she will be present for Pope Francis’ funeral at St. Peter’s Basilica.
Von der Leyen’s attendance sets the stage for a potential key meeting between herself and Trump. Whilst the President has paused additional tariffs on the E.U., this could still be a significant meeting between the two.
Javier Milei
Javier Milei, the conservative President of Pope Francis’ native Argentina, will also be travelling to Rome for Saturday’s funeral service, as confirmed via a government statement.
Milei was an open critic of the Pope’s views, adding in another statement: “Despite differences that seem minor today, having been able to know him in his goodness and wisdom was a true honor for me.”
Upon the news of the Pontiff’s passing, seven days of national mourning was announcedin Argentina.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has reportedly cancelled a visit to Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in order to attend Saturday’s funeral.
In a statement paying tribute to Pope Francis, Meloni said: “I had the privilege of enjoying his friendship, his advice, his teachings, which never ceased not even during times of trial and suffering.”
King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia
Representing another Catholic-majority country, the head of the Spanish Crown will be in attendance for Pope Francis’ funeral, confirmed by the royal palace.
King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia both signed a book of condolences for the Pope in Madrid earlier in the week. President Pedro Sanchez will reportedly not be attending the service, although he has yet to publicly comment on this.
Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the head of state for Asia’s largest Catholic population will be present at Saturday’s service in Rome, confirmed in a statement via the Philippines government on April 23.
Filipino cardinal Luis Antonio Gokim Tagle, 67, is one of the top contenders to be appointed as the next Pope. If elected, he would be the first from Asia in centuries and, after Pope Francis, the second non-European Pontiff in more than 1200 years.
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
A well known and longtime friend of Pope Francis, the Brazilian government stated that Brazilian PresidentLuiz Inácio Lula da Silva will be at St. Peter’s Basilica on Saturday to represent the world’s largest Catholic population.
During da Silva’s three terms as President, he met with the late Pope on a number of occasions. Offering his condolences after Pope Francis’ passing, the Brazilian official said: “Humanity has lost a voice of compassion and respect.”
António Guterres
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres paid his respects to the late Pope after his passing, and is expected to be in attendance at the funeral in Rome, according to Reuters.
In a statement, Guterres said: “He was a transcendent voice for peace, human dignity and social justice… our divided and discordant world will be a much better place if we follow his example of unity and mutual understanding in our own actions.”
Andrzej Duda
Polish President Andrzej Duda was confirmed to be attending the funeral service, via an official update shared on X.
In a statement made on the day of the Pope’s passing, Duda wrote: “He was a great apostle of Mercy, in which he saw an answer to the challenges of the modern world.”
Emmanuel Macron
French President Emmanuel Macron reportedly told local reporters that he will be in attendance for the Pontiff’s funeral in Rome.
Although Pope Francis was notably absent from the reopening of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris last December, his subsequent visit to the French island of Corsica proved to be his final trip abroad.
Olaf Scholz
Outgoing German Chancellor Olaf Scholz will be present at the funeral, according to a government spokesperson.
Scholz will also be joined by German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier in Rome. However, incoming Chancellor Friedrich Merz is not expected to be in attendance.
Peter Pellegrini
Slovakian President Peter Pellegrini offered condolences in reaction to Pope Francis’ passing, whilst confirming his attendance at the funeral in Rome.
In a statement, Pellegrini said: “We have been left by a man who enchanted everyone with his humanity, humility and wisdom.”
Alexander Van der Bellen
The Austrian President will be present at the Pontiff’s funeral, as confirmed by the Austrian Catholic Church.
In his statement commemorating Pope Francis, Van der Bellen said: “For me, the name Francis will always stand for closeness and humanity.”
Gitanas Nausėda
It has been confirmed that Gitanas Nausėda, the Lithuanian President, will be in attendance for the service at St. Peter’s Basilica, per a presidential spokesperson.
Edgars Rinkēvičs
The office for the President of Latvia has confirmed that Edgars Rinkēvičs will be travelling to Rome for the funeral of Pope Francis.
Understanding the politics of the cardinals-and how Francis may have influenced the election of his successor.
When white smoke billowed out of the chimney of the Sistine Chapel on March 13, 2013, alerting the public that the 115 cardinal electors inside had concluded their voting, few members of the public might have expected the Catholic Church’s 266th Pope to be Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
At 76, Bergoglio was considered too old to be included on most media lists of papabili, or likely candidates for Pope. Prior to his papacy, bishops and cardinals typically submitted their resignations at 75. And the cardinal electors, who have always elected one of their own ranks, have an age cap of 80.
Hailing from Buenos Aires, Argentina, Bergoglio became the first Latin American Pope and the first non-European Pope in over 1,200 years. He was also the first Jesuit Pope—a Catholic religious order that emphasizes service to the marginalized. Upon his election, Bergoglio took the name Francis after Saint Francis of Assisi, who was known for his asceticism and ministry to the poor. Overall, Francis was regarded as less conservative than his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI.
With Francis’ death on Monday, at age 88, up to 135 eligible cardinal electors will decide on his successor. One hundred and eight—or 80%—of them were appointed by Francis during his papacy. It’s a fact that has left some wondering if the late Pope essentially “packed the court” to guarantee a continuation of his legacy. But experts suggest it’ll be as difficult to predict as Francis’ own election was.
“The history of the papacy of many hundreds of years suggests it’s very difficult for a Pope to control the election that follows his own death,” Miles Pattenden, a historian of the Catholic Church at Oxford University tells TIME. Cardinals are “their own men,” and even those picked by Francis may have their own opinions.
“It’s very simplistic to say cardinals just vote along ideological lines as though they’re part of political parties,” Pattenden says. “That’s not how the Vatican works.”
Pattenden also points to an Italian proverb: “After a fat Pope comes a thin one.”
“The idea of that is essentially that the cardinals very often focus on what they didn’t like about the previous Pope, all the things they thought were his faults and flaws, and they look for someone who remedies those.” The first question on cardinals’ minds will be whether they want change or continuity.
This conclave is already likely to be different from those in the past, however, Pattenden says. Firstly, it’s the largest number of eligible cardinal electors—in fact, it’s the first time that the number of eligible electors at a conclave has exceeded the traditional cap of 120, although Pattenden says it’s unlikely that the cap will be enforced. Secondly, the cardinals now are more geographically diverse than ever.
In 2013, 51% of cardinal electors were European. Now, around 39% are, while around 18% come from the Asia-Pacific, 18% from Latin America and the Caribbean, 12% come from Sub-Saharan Africa, 10% from North America, and 3% come from the Middle East and North Africa.
Francis played a big role in that shift. Of the 108 he appointed, 38% came from Europe, 19% from Latin America and the Caribbean, 19% from the Asia-Pacific, 12% from sub-Saharan Africa, 7% from North America, and 4% from the Middle East and North Africa.
Francis appointed cardinals from 25 countries that had never before had one. His appointments include Chibly Langlois, the first cardinal from Haiti, Charles Maung Bo, the first cardinal from Myanmar, and Hyderabad Anthony Poola, the first of India’s Dalit caste.
On many papabili lists, the range of candidates include several who would be historic firsts as pontiffs from Asia, such as Filipino Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, or Africa, such as Ghanaian Cardinal Peter Turkson.
Francis prioritized inclusion within the Vatican, Pattenden explains, and so in appointing cardinals, he looked across the world, often to small Catholic communities that had not been represented before: He felt that “it shouldn’t just be the case that big, well-established, rich, old Catholic communities get representation all the time,” but ideologically, “Francis can’t necessarily have known how all of these new cardinals will think, certainly their colleagues won’t know—they may not even know themselves.”
Carlos Eire, a professor of history and religious studies at Yale University, however, thinks it’s likely that those Francis appointed will indeed lean ideologically left, noting that Francis did not appoint many conservative bishops to the College of Cardinals and that, while geographic diversity was a priority of his, theological diversity was not. Francis, for example, appointed American Robert McElroy in 2022, who is known for his advocacy on immigration and the environment and inclusion of LGBTQ+ Catholics, while reportedly bypassing more conservative archbishops. “When it comes to religious issues,” says Eire, “it is also highly likely that they will lean away from traditionalism.”
“Voting for a Pope is not much different from any other kind of voting. The voters have their preferences,” adds Eire. “The only difference between this conclave and the House of Representatives or the European Parliament is that the cardinals pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit.”
But, Pattenden says, it could come down more to charisma, competence, and piety than to ideology.
On that measure, the geographic diversity of the College of Cardinals could make this conclave particularly unpredictable. “They don’t know each other as well as previous groups of cardinals will have done, and that’s bound to have an impact,” Pattenden says. “When you have to focus on one person’s name to write down on that ballot paper, it may or may not be easier if you actually know the guy or if you’ve just met him a week or two before.”
If the result of that favors better known cardinals, Pattenden says Tagle from the Philippines, who is known as one of the most charismatic figures in the college, or Pietro Parolin, who is the highest-ranking cardinal in the electing conclave, would be frontrunners.
If neither of those two—or any other candidate—achieves the required two-thirds majority to win, it’s likely that cardinals “start casting a wider net,” says Pattenden, to candidates who may not have been their first choice.
“It’s a very secretive process … The Church is very, very careful that we don’t really know what happened,” Pattenden says, and what reports do come out later are often still not verified.
“This matters a lot in terms of the theology of the election: the idea is that God, through the Holy Spirit, comes down on the cardinals and inspires them and their choice. But the more that we know about what was said to who and who voted for what, the less plausible that idea is.”
Meet the Irish-American Camerlengo and Italian dean who are in charge of administering the Church during this interim period.
The film Conclave begins with the death of the Pope. It then follows the chain of events from that moment to the election of a new Pope, following a few characters—portrayed by a cast that won the top honor at the Screen Actors Guild Awards—who play key roles.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
In real life, after the death of Pope Francis on April 21, Cardinals Kevin Farrell, a 77-year-old Irish-American, and Giovanni Battista Re, a 91-year-old Italian, will take the places of actors John Lithgow and Ralph Fiennes, as the Camerlengo, or Chamberlain, of the Holy Roman Church and Dean of the College of Cardinals, respectively.
Here’s what to know about the two Catholic leaders’ backgrounds and duties during the critical interregnum period for the Vatican.
Farrell’s first task on Monday morning was to announce Francis’ death to the world. Later that evening, he oversaw the sealing of the doors to the papal apartments where Francis lived.
As Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, a position he was appointed to by Francis in 2019, Farrell is charged with “safeguarding and administering the goods and temporal rights of the Holy See,” according to the Apostolic Constitution.
Following the death of a Pope, the Camerlengo becomes effectively the interim administrative leader of the Church, tasked with observing a set of traditions as well as following the late Pope’s wishes.
After certifying and announcing the Pope’s death and sealing the papal apartments, he must also destroy the Pope’s Fisherman’s Ring and lead bulla used as a signet.
The Camerlengo is also tasked with overseeing funeral arrangements and preparing for the conclave—or the election of a new Pope.
While the position is powerful and influential in the Vatican during this time, it is rare for a Camerlengo to be chosen as the next pontiff—according to the Times of London, historically only two Popes, Leo XIII in 1878 and Pius XII in 1939, ascended to the papacy from the prior position of Camerlengo.
Following in the footsteps of his older brother Brian, Farrell entered the Legionaries of Christ congregation in 1966 and was ordained a priest in 1978 in Rome. (Brian Farrell served as the secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity from 2002 until his retirement in 2024.)
As a priest, Farrell first served in Mexico as chaplain at the University of Monterrey. In 1984, he transferred to the archdiocese of Washington, where he served parishes in the District of Columbia and surrounding region. In 2001, Pope John Paul II appointed Farrell as auxiliary bishop of Washington, where he served as vicar general for administration and moderator of the Curia until 2007.
From 2002 until 2006, Farrell worked and lived with then-Archbishop of Washington Theodore McCarrick—the infamous former cardinal who was defrocked in 2019 by Pope Francis following a Vatican probe into allegations of sexual abuse of minors and adults. Farrell has repeatedly denied prior knowledge of his former supervisor’s wrongdoing.
In 2007, Farrell was appointed bishop of Dallas.
In 2016, following Francis’ ascension after Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation in 2013, Farrell was tapped for a Vatican role leading the new Dicastery for the Laity, the Family and Life. The same year, he was made a cardinal.
Farrell, according to a 2016 CBS News report, is known as “a moderate with a warm, friendly approach.” He is largely perceived to agree with the late Pope on doctrinal issues, and has supported the late Pope’s hopes for larger reforms in the Catholic Church. Farrell has echoed Francis’ calls for increasing women’s participation in the church, though he controversially banned former Irish President Mary McAleese—who supports women’s ordination—from speaking at a Vatican event in 2018. Farrell has also echoed Francis’ defense of migrants’ rights, having previously written in a blog, per CBS, that “immigration reform is a moral issue.” In 2017 and 2018, Farrell caused controversy after saying that “priests are not the best people to train others for marriage.”
In what was largely seen as a vote of confidence, Francis nominated Farrell in 2019 to the Camerlengo post. Farrell’s subsequent appointments also hinted at the late Pope’s continued trust in him: he was named president of the Commission for Confidential Matters in 2020, chair of the Pontifical Committee for Investments in 2022, and president of the Vatican City State Supreme Court in 2023.
In a 2022 interview with Catholic magazine America, Farrell said he joked with Francis upon accepting the role of Camerlengo, not wanting to give thought to the Pope’s eventual retirement or passing: “I will accept this job Your Holiness, but on one condition, that you preach at my funeral!”
Who is Giovanni Battista Re and what are his duties?
Re is the dean of the College of Cardinals, the group of cardinal electors who will choose the next Pope.
Born on Jan. 30, 1934 in the Italian commune of Borno, Re is one of the longest-serving senior cardinals in the Vatican. According to his Vatican biography, Re holds a doctorate in canon law, and was ordained for the diocese of Brescia, where he taught in a seminary before entering the Holy See’s diplomatic service, for which he served missions in Panama and Iran. In 2001, Pope John Paul II proclaimed Re as a cardinal. Re was elected dean in 2020 and was set to serve a five-year term until Francis extended it in February.
In 2020, America described Re as someone who “knows the Roman Curia like few others.”
According to the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, the dean is tasked with communicating news of the Pope’s death, alongside the Camerlengo, and summoning the conclave. The dean technically does not hold authority over the cardinal electors, simply presiding over their congregations.
Previous deans have wielded considerable influence. Joseph Ratzinger was elected dean of the College of Cardinals in 2002, and three years later, he presided over Pope John Paul II’s funeral and was elected to be the next Pope, taking on the name Benedict XVI.
While typically the dean would preside over the conclave, neither Re nor his vice dean Cardinal Leonardo Sandri can participate this time because they are both over the age of 80. The administrative responsibilities during the vote will pass to the next most senior member of the College of Cardinals.
Once a new Pope has been chosen by the electors, it is the dean who asks the electee: “Do you accept your canonical election as Supreme Pontiff?” If the electee consents, the Dean then asks him what he has chosen as his papal name.
Francis, who died on Easter Monday, transformed the Catholic Church. He will be a tough act to follow.
With the passing of Pope Francis on Easter Monday, his legacy has taken center stage. Undoubtedly, some attention will go to the Argentine’s failure to reverse the sharp decline of Catholicism in Latin America, home to roughly half the world’s Catholics. After all, that was the hope behind his selection to lead the Vatican in 2013. But his legacy nonetheless remains profound as the first Pope to hail from Latin America and the Global South.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
Most notably, Francis brought to the Church the ideas of Liberation Theology, a progressive philosophy that married Marxist critiques of capitalism with traditional Catholic concerns for the poor and marginalized. Its origins date to the 1968 Medellin Conference of Bishops. At that gathering, Latin American bishops agreed to prioritize liberalizing people from inequality, poverty, and political oppression, even at the expense of spreading the gospel. It led some Latin American churches to openly confront military regimes for their human rights abuses. This, in turn, exposed many clergy to political persecution, including Óscar Romero, the Salvadoran priest murdered by a right-wing death squad in 1980.
Francis was an improbable and imperfect ambassador for Liberation Theology. During the 1970s and 1980s, when clergy affiliated with the movement were threatened with excommunication, and, worst yet, enforced disappearance by the military during Argentina’s infamous “Dirty War,” Francis was mostly silent. He favored the more conventional “Theology of the People,” which prioritizes the poor but without the Marxist critique. But by the time he arrived in Rome, Liberation Theology was mainstream in Latin American Catholic thought. Francis himself had already embraced many of the movement’s leaders, including the late Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutiérrez, widely regarded as the father of Liberation Theology.
Although Francis never publicly acknowledged his intellectual debt to Liberation Theology, the movement’s influence over his papacy is undeniable. In his first papal pronouncement, Evangelii Gaudium, or “The Joy of the Gospel,” he denounced the twin evils of poverty and inequality. He also called on the rich to share their wealth with those less fortunate. Pointedly echoing Liberation Theology, Francis cited the “idolatry of money” and criticized “unfettered capitalism as a new tyranny.” He also exhorted politicians “to guarantee all citizens dignified work, education, and healthcare.” Unsurprisingly, these comments raised the ire of conservatives, especially in the U.S., where they were seen not only as an attack on capitalism but a veiled criticism of Washington.
A second legacy with close ties to Latin America, which also helped make Francis a polarizing figure on the right, is the environment. Francis unambiguously aligned the Vatican with the fight against climate change. In Laudato Si, or “Praise be to you, my Lord,” he laid out the case for human-caused climate change, noting that human activities are dramatically affecting the climate to the detriment of the world’s poorest people. By singling out humans as a primary cause of climate change, Francis was making a radical shift in the Vatican’s stance on the environment.Historically, the Catholic Church’s stand on climate change has veered toward silence and denialism.
Much of Francis’ concern for the environment reflected his understanding of how deforestation, pollution, and wild swings in weather disproportionately affect the poorest communities in Latin America. Calling attention to this was the purpose of a three-week Vatican synod held in 2019 that focused on the Amazon, the so-called “lungs of the world.” It brought together hundreds of bishops, Indigenous leaders, and environmental activists from nine South American countries.
The third and final legacy is the most surprising: the struggle for LGBTQ rights. Francis’ pontificate coincided with the Vatican’s sharp departure from its fierce opposition to homosexuality. That opposition was prominently displayed by Francis’ predecessor, Benedict XVI, who once wrote that homosexuality is “an intrinsic moral evil.” To be sure, Francis’ record on LGBTQ issues is far from perfect, as a reported fondness for gay slurs makes clear. But throughout his papacy, he sought common ground with the gay community.
In 2013, when asked about homosexuals in the Catholic clergy, Francis replied: “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?” A 2020 documentary on Francis’ papacy revealed that he was a supporter of same-sex civil unions. This was followed by statements that priests would be allowed to bless same-sex couples and that transgender people can be baptized, become official godparents, and act as witness for Catholic weddings.
It is worth remembering that Francis arrived in Rome fresh from the epic culture war over same-sex marriage in Argentina, the first country in Latin America to legalize gay marriage, in July 2010. Ironically, Francis’ opposition to gay marriage in Argentina gave hope to many that his pontificate would strengthen the Vatican’s historic opposition to LGBTQ rights. As Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Francis declared gay marriage “the Devil’s work” and mobilized Catholics against it, prompting a backlash from President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. She characterized Francis’ words as “reminiscent of the Dark Ages and the Inquisition.”
The divisiveness of Argentina’s gay marriage campaign pushed Francis in the direction of conciliatory stances toward the gay community. Above all, the framing of the campaign, which stressed the humanity and morality of gay and lesbian couples, left a deep impression on Francis. After the gay marriage law was enacted, he reportedly met with gay rights activists to explain that while he opposed gay marriage, he supported their struggle for dignity and respect.
Pope Francis may not have saved Catholicism in Latin America. But he certainly transformed Catholicism in the image of Latin America. In the process, he made the Church more progressive at a time when the far-right is ascendant around the globe. Whether that direction continues will be up to the next Pontiff. But one thing is certain: Francis will be a tough act to follow.
Pope Francis didn't just preach from the pulpit-he lived among the people, especially the forgotten, writes John Hope Bryant.
On Monday morning, the world lost more than a religious leader. We lost a moral compass. A global shepherd for the poor. A gentle warrior who dared to tell the powerful the truth about their responsibilities to the powerless. His Holiness Pope Francis didn’t just preach from the pulpit—he lived among the people, especially the forgotten. In doing so, he redefined what moral leadership looks like in our time.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
I’m not Catholic. But I have always admired Pope Francis—not simply for his spiritual authority, but for his economic clarity. He understood something most leaders still struggle to grasp: the economy is not just a system. It’s a reflection of our values. And if our values are broken—if we worship money more than we uplift people—then the system will break too.
Pope Francis believed in capitalism, but not the kind that exploits, extracts, and abandons. He believed in an economy that works for everyone—especially the poor, the marginalized, the excluded. I call this “Good Capitalism.” And in his own way, so did he.
[video id=V0uEvr1Q autostart="viewable"]
Poverty is not just about money. It’s about a lack of access, a lack of opportunity, a lack of belief. It’s about systems that were never designed to work for everyone—but can be reimagined to do exactly that. Pope Francis preached the same gospel in different language. When he said, “No one can remain insensitive to the inequalities that persist in the world,” he was calling out the same economic injustice that inspired me to found Operation HOPE and launch Financial Literacy for All. When he declared that “an economy that excludes kills,” he wasn’t being dramatic. He was being accurate.
There’s a reason why Pope Francis chose the name of St. Francis of Assisi—the patron saint of the poor. He led with humility. He refused to live in the grand papal apartment. He drove a modest car. He washed the feet of prisoners. This wasn’t theater. It was theology. It was servant leadership in its purest form. And it was a quiet rebuke of the pride and greed that too often define our public life.
Pope Francis said, “The rich must help, respect, and promote the poor.” His life—and his death—should challenge all of us to ask harder questions: What kind of economy are we building? Who is it leaving behind? And what would it mean to put people—not profits—at the center of our decisions?
For me, this isn’t just theory. It’s practice. I’ve seen what happens when we teach someone how money works—when we improve a credit score, help someone buy their first home, or support a small business in a struggling community. Dignity returns. Hope is restored. And the economy grows—not just in dollars, but in strength.
This is what Pope Francis understood: that the economy is not a math problem. It’s a moral problem. And solving it starts not in boardrooms or bank vaults, but in hearts.
He may have been a pope. I’m just a businessman from Compton. But we both believed in the same truth: that we rise by lifting others. And that capitalism, when done right, can be one of the greatest tools for good the world has ever known. Pope Francis believed in “Good Capitalism.” I do too. And now more than ever, the world needs us to prove that it’s possible.
Pope Francis called a parish in Gaza each night to check in with them and ensure they felt his presence. Now, they are paying tribute.
Pope Francis died on Monday, April 21, after being released from hospital on March 23, following a five-week stay which saw him struggle with double pneumonia and its various complications. He was 88. Born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, with the name Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Pope Francis was elected as the successor to Pope Benedict XVI in 2013. He was the first non-European Pope in 1,200 years, and was noted for his calls for peace amid global conflict.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
As Pope Francis is remembered for his outreach to communities far beyond the Vatican, his relationship with the Holy Family parish in Gaza stands out. The Pope made daily calls to the tiny parish thousands of miles away from his home, starting the practice shortly after the onset of the Israel-Hamas War on Oct. 7, 2023.
Now, following Pope Francis’ death, the parish and its congregation are honoring the special relationship they shared with the religious leader.
“We lost a saint who taught us every day how to be brave, how to keep patient and stay strong. We lost a man who fought every day in every direction to protect this small herd of his,” George Antone, head of the emergency committee at the Holy Family church in Gaza, toldReuters. “We are heartbroken because of the death of Pope Francis, but we know that he is leaving behind a church that cares for us and that knows us by name—every single one of us. He used to tell each one: I am with you, don’t be afraid.”
In a May 2024 interview with 60 Minutes, Pope Francis talked about how his calls to the parish in Gaza, occurring every evening at 7 p.m., were part of his daily routine. “They tell me about what happens there. It is very tough, very tough,” the Pontiff said. “I listen… and they tell me things. There is a lot of suffering.”
Pope Francis called the Holy Family church twice on the day of his hospitalization to reiterate his solidarity and support. While he then missed some days when he was first announced as critically ill, as soon as he resumed certain work duties from his hospital bed, he returned to the check-in calls.
In a video posted on Feb. 26 to the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem’s website, Father Gabriel Romanelli of the Holy Family parish in Gaza shared how he rejoiced when the Pope called them again.
“That blessed call, as he did every day from the beginning of this terrible war. Pope Francis has called us once again to show his closeness, to pray for us, and to give us his blessing,” Father Gabriel, an Argentinian like Pope Francis, said. “This is always comforting, knowing that despite his delicate state of health, he continues to think and pray for everyone, for peace in Gaza, and thanking us.”
In a recording of a FaceTime call shared by the Vatican in January, the Pope could be seen speaking to Fathers Gabriel Romanelli and Youssef Asaad, the rector and vice rector of the parish. The Pontiff asked them how they were, and the conversation even spanned to what each had eaten for supper. He also introduced himself to a local doctor and child on the call.
Cardinal Nichols, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster in the U.K., spoke out about the special connection between Pope Francis and the Holy Family parish. “I was pleased to receive word from Fr. Gabriel Romanelli, parish priest of Holy Family church in Gaza, that he has recently spoken with Pope Francis and his community finds great comfort in hearing the Pope’s voice,” he said in a Feb. 27 update.
During the Pope’s hospitalization, the Holy Family parish joined together to film a video, sending the leader of the Catholic church their well wishes. “Everyone is praying for you, they are very grateful, and we all wish you health,” a priest said.
Pope Francis’ last phone call with the parish reportedly took place on the weekend before his death, per Reuters.
The Holy Family parish is the sole Catholic Church in the Gaza Strip—one of the most densely populated areas of the world and where nearly 70% of the structures have been destroyed due to the war, according to a December 2024 analysis by the United Nations. Christians reportedly encompass just 0.05% of the region, making them a religious minority. The parish holds mass and often hosts over 500 people, offering them food and shelter.
[video id=V0uEvr1Q autostart="viewable"]
Pope Francis had long expressed concern about the war that followed the events of Oct. 7. His prayers for the region were reiterated during what would become his last message and blessing Urbi Et Orbi on Easter Sunday. The Pope called for a cease-fire in Gaza and peace across other war-ridden areas of the world.
“I express my closeness to the sufferings of … all the Israeli people and the Palestinian people,” the Pope said in a message delivered to the public by an aide. “I appeal to the warring parties: call a cease-fire, release the hostages, and come to the aid of a starving people that aspires to a future of peace!”
(Due to his poor health, Pope Francis was unable to preside over the Easter mass, but still made a public appearance and blessed those who had gathered.)
With his upcoming funeral, Pope Francis will one last time force the world to take a look at two U.S. Presidents who represent vastly different approaches to the job.
This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox.
Aboard Air Force One back in January, Joe Biden must have wondered if the cosmos was conspiring against him. With just a few days left in office, Biden had hoped to fulfill a personal wish: one last presidential meeting with Pope Francis.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
But factors beyond his control were making one final pilgrimage to the Vatican look increasingly unlikely.
[video id=dpJdrlgA autostart="viewable"]
Biden, who considered the priesthood as a younger man and prides himself on his Catholicism, met three Popes during his half-century in politics, starting with Pope John Paul II in 1980. But it was Pope Francis with whom he has likely forged the deepest connection. After Beau Biden died in 2015, Pope Francis counseled the Biden clan working through their very public grief about the golden child of the family. Over six days that summer during the Pope’s tour of the United States, Biden was often just an arm’s length away. A year later, Biden was again with the Pope, speaking at a cancer conference at the Vatican. In the Oval Office, a photo of Francis was mixed in with those of family members on Biden’s desk. They spoke by phone from time to time, just to check in with a friendly voice.
As Biden flew back from a California besieged by a fast-growing series of wildfires, he dialed into a meeting underway with aides huddled around a conference table back in the West Wing. The trip out West went about as off-schedule as any presidential trip could, with detours and delays plaguing their plans. Now, they were discussing his upcoming three-day trip to Europe, which was set to include time for Biden to surprise Francis with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor. But the crisis situation on the West Coast had now made the notion of Biden leaving the country politically untenable. When he returned to the White House that evening, he told aides to scrap the planned trip, which was due to start the next day. Biden personally called Pope Francis to explain the situation and inform him that he would be receiving an unexpected honor by way of the Vatican’s diplomatic reps in Washington. It was that last conversation, on Jan. 11, that stung the President particularly hard, according to two people who were involved in that decision.
The Pope is now back on Biden’s agenda, but in a very different way. The leader of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics died Monday, less than a month after a lengthy hospital stay for pneumonia. Biden—only the second Catholic to serve as President and one who still celebrates Mass most weekends—will likely want to attend Francis’ funeral, according to those in his inner circle. The politics of that might get tricky, as it’s not at all clear whether the current President has any interest in paying respects to a spiritual leader with whom he repeatedly clashed.
The funeral of a Pope—especially the first from the Americas, not to mention the first Jesuit—tends to be one of those events that dominates the diplomatic calendar. Its significance is up there with the deaths of icons like Nelson Mandela or a British monarch. It’s a moment that demands delicacy, and that is not exactly a skillset radiating from those in power in Official Washington.
In the early days of Donald Trump’s first presidential campaign, Trump seemed to relish picking a fight with Francis—who was on his way to visit the United States with Biden as his de facto chaperone—suggesting the pontiff was weak and was offering an opening for ISIS to take over the Vatican. During the 2016 South Carolina primary, Trump and the Pope got into a full-blown skirmish from afar, with Francis questioning if Trump was even Christian and the real estate tycoon suggesting the pontiff was a tool of the Mexican government. (Trump’s aides eventually convinced him the fight was not a net gain as he tried to convince voters of faith to take a chance on the thrice-married billionaire.)
The rift continued through Trump’s first term, although the pair’s meeting during Trump’s first foreign trip in office went pleasantly enough. Pope Francis, born in Buenos Aires to an Italian family fleeing fascism in Mussolini’s era, had little regard to Trump’s hard-line immigration views and never shied from criticizing his plans for a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border. “Builders of walls sow fear,” Pope Francis said during a visit to Panama. On a flight back from another trip, he told reporters that border walls were not the answer: “Those who build walls will become prisoners of the walls they put up.”
The enmity did not fade. Earlier this year, Trump’s top enforcer on border issues, Tom Homan, suggested the Pope was a hypocrite. “They have a wall around the Vatican. If you illegally enter the Vatican, the crime is serious. You’ll be charged with a serious crime and jailed,” Homan said.
Trump’s nominee to be his Ambassador to the Vatican, Brian Burch, has been a partisan operative and vocal papal critic, making it an awkward fit if he is confirmed as expected.
On another timeline, the White House might have made better use of Vice President J.D. Vance, who was baptized as a Catholic in 2019, to smooth things over with one of the world’s top religious leaders. But Vance’s aggressive cheerleading of Trump’s policies complicated that approach, so much so that Pope Francis dressed-down U.S. Bishops in a letter in February for not doing more to object to Vance’s defense of the deportation program on theological grounds. The skirmish continued, with Cardinal Timothy Dolan denouncing Vance’s suggestions that financial incentives were behind Catholic bishops’ defense of migrants as “nasty.” On Sunday, the day before Francis’ passing, Vance exchanged Easter greetings with an ailing Pope. Vance’s motorcade, according to the Associated Press, was on Vatican territory for just 17 minutes.
Contrast allthat to Biden, who met three times with Francis while Biden spent eight years as Vice President and twice when he became President. During a 2021 visit, the pair spent an astonishing 90 minutes together as aides from both delegations kept looking at each other, as if to ask which side wanted to interrupt the bosses. Those close to Biden say his humility toward Francisis genuine, with Biden often reminding his priest pals here in the United States that the Pope himself referred to him as a “good Catholic.” The last trip to the Vatican was meant as a reward for both men, who recognize they are often out-of-step with those around them and too often counted out.
Biden advisers say the boss and the Pope would occasionally trade phone calls, often with informal gut-checks and spiritual check-ins. In a December call, the Pope lobbied Biden to soften death-row sentences for convicts. Biden ultimately commuted the sentences of 37 of the 40 people on federal death row, tampering Trump’s plans to resume executions once back in office.
There were no immediate details about Trump’s plans around the funeral. (Francis revised his funeral plans last year to be buried in Santa Maria Maggiore basilica, not in the grottoes beneath St. Peter’s Basilica where most Popes find their final resting place.)
State affairs like a papal funeral typically bring even warring political rivals together. When Mandela passed away in 2013, then-President Barack Obama invited former President George W. Bush to join him on a whirlwind trip to South Africa where they were on the ground for just 13 hours. Even though Obama spent much of his 2008 presidential campaign eviscerating Bush, the two men were professional enough to bury the hatchet; Bush even showed off some of his post-White House paintings from his iPad, and Laura Bush, Michelle Obama, and Hillary Clinton all made pleasant conversations in the Air Force One conference room.
Trump is no Obama, to put it mildly. Trump’s capacity for grievance knows no limit, throwing uncertainty over whether he is willing to travel to attend Francis’ funeral. The prospect of him viewing Biden’s possible effort to attend in a positive light seems improbable.
So, in an unexpected way, Pope Francis one last time is holding a mirror up to this world and forcing us to take a look at two very different Presidents who represent vastly different approaches to the job. In the incumbent, there is a figure who has little regard for anyone who dares question his infallibility. In the former, there lies a sorrowed soul who thought of the Pope as the ultimate counselor to a President who wanted advice on what doing the right thing looked like in practice. In those two pews, America’s civic religion shows itself, with Biden and Trump clearly sitting on different sides of the chapel.
