Pope Leo on the Meaning of Words

ADDRESS OF POPE LEO XIV TO MEMBERS OF THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS ACCREDITED TO THE HOLY SEE  Hall of Benediction Friday, 9 January 2026

The purpose of multilateralism, then, is to provide a place where people can meet and talk, modeled on the ancient Roman Forum or the medieval square. At the same time, in order to engage in dialogue, there needs to be agreement on the words and concepts that are used. Rediscovering the meaning of words is perhaps one of the primary challenges of our time. When words lose their connection to reality, and reality itself becomes debatable and ultimately incommunicable, we become like the two people to whom Saint Augustine refers, who are forced to stay together without either of them knowing the other’s language. He observes that, “Dumb animals, even those of different species, understand each other more easily than these two individuals. For even though they are both human beings, their common nature is no help to friendliness when they are prevented by diversity of language from conveying their sentiments to one another; so that a man would more readily converse with his dog than with a foreigner!” [6]

Today, the meaning of words is ever more fluid, and the concepts they represent are increasingly ambiguous. Language is no longer the preferred means by which human beings come to know and encounter one another. Moreover, in the contortions of semantic ambiguity, language is becoming more and more a weapon with which to deceive, or to strike and offend opponents. We need words once again to express distinct and clear realities unequivocally. Only in this way can authentic dialogue resume without misunderstandings. This should happen in our homes and public spaces, in politics, in the media and on social media. It should likewise occur in the context of international relations and multilateralism, so that the latter can regain the strength needed for undertaking its role of encounter and mediation. This is indeed necessary for preventing conflicts, and for ensuring that no one is tempted to prevail over others with the mindset of force, whether verbal, physical or military.

We should also note the paradox that this weakening of language is often invoked in the name the freedom of expression itself. However, on closer inspection, the opposite is true, for freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed precisely by the certainty of language and the fact that every term is anchored in the truth. It is painful to see how, especially in the West, the space for genuine freedom of expression is rapidly shrinking. At the same time, a new Orwellian-style language is developing which, in an attempt to be increasingly inclusive, ends up excluding those who do not conform to the ideologies that are fueling it.

Unfortunately, this leads to other consequences that end up restricting fundamental human rights, starting with the freedom of conscience. In this regard, conscientious objection allows individuals to refuse legal or professional obligations that conflict with moral, ethical or religious principles deeply rooted in their personal lives. This may be the refusal of military service in the name of non-violence, or the refusal on the part of doctors and healthcare professionals to engage in practices such as abortion or euthanasia. Conscientious objection is not rebellion, but an act of fidelity to oneself. At this moment in history, freedom of conscience seems increasingly to be questioned by States, even those that claim to be based on democracy and human rights. This freedom, however, establishes a balance between the collective interest and individual dignity. It also emphasizes that a truly free society does not impose uniformity but protects the diversity of consciences, preventing authoritarian tendencies and promoting an ethical dialogue that enriches the social fabric.

No Absolute Immunity for Feds Who Break State Laws

Our chapter on federalism includes an extensive discussion of crime.

Devan Cole at CNN:

Vice President JD Vance’s claim Thursday that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer who fatally shot Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis is “protected by absolute immunity” drew immediate pushback from experts who said the legal landscape around a potential prosecution is far more complicated.

Speaking at the White House, Vance appeared to try to stymie any efforts by Minnesota prosecutors to pursue a criminal case against the agent.

“The precedent here is very simple. You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action – that’s a federal issue. That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job,” Vance said, echoing others in the Trump administration. “I’ve never seen anything like that. It would get tossed out by a judge.”

That assessment was quickly met with skepticism by experts who said the vice president was overstating the law around immunity for federal officials. Vance’s comments come amid nationwide protests of ICE officials and criticism of the agency’s efforts to carry out a historic deportation campaign with little to no oversight.

Bryna Godar at Lawfare:

As a baseline, federal officials are not immune from prosecution for state crimes just because they committed the offense while on the job. Some state prosecutions of federal officials that have gone ahead include a manslaughter charge against a postal worker who hit and killed someone while delivering mail, murder charges against military members who shot and killed a man they believed was stealing copper fixtures, and murder charges against federal officers who killed a passenger when shooting their guns at a departing car they alleged was illegally transporting whiskey.

The Supreme Court has long emphasized that “[a]n employee of the United States does not secure a general immunity from state law while acting in the course of his employment.” So when a federal officer—be it an ICE agent or a postal worker—violates a state criminal law, they can potentially face prosecution. This could include charges for trespass, breaking and entering, kidnapping, assault, manslaughter, murder, or a host of other state-law crimes.

What happens next is where things get complicated. Generally, federal officers will seek to move their case into federal court. They will claim that they are immune from prosecution under the Supremacy Clause, and a federal court will decide whether the state’s prosecution can proceed. If it does proceed, it will typically play out in federal—not state—court, though state or local officials will still prosecute the case. And if the trial ultimately leads to a conviction, that conviction will be for a state—not federal—crime. This is an important point in state-federal conflicts because the president’s pardon power extends only to federal crimes, not state crimes. (For a more thorough analysis of the procedural elements, see this Lawfare article.)

Breaking down the immunity piece, federal officials prosecuted for state crimes generally claim that they are immune from prosecution under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause provides that federal law is “the supreme Law of the Land” and overrides state law when the two conflict. Courts have interpreted this provision to preclude state prosecutions when federal officials are reasonably carrying out lawful federal duties. For example, in the foundational case on Supremacy Clause immunity from 1890, the Supreme Court concluded that California could not prosecute a U.S. Marshal for murder where the marshal, who was assigned to protect a U.S. Supreme Court justice, shot and killed an attacker. In other examples, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in 2006 affirmed dismissal of a Wyoming trespassing prosecution against federal wildlife officers who accidentally entered private land while collaring wolves, and a federal district court in the 1960s ordered the dismissal of disorderly conduct charges against a U.S. Marshal for his actions quelling a segregationist riot at the University of Mississippi.

The theory behind Supremacy Clause immunity, as explained in the 2006 Tenth Circuit wolf-collaring opinion authored by then-Judge Michael McConnell, is that, “while state criminal law provides an important check against abuse of power by federal officials, the supremacy of federal law precludes the use of state prosecutorial power to frustrate the legitimate and reasonable exercise of federal authority.”

To strike this balance, federal courts have adopted a two-part test for Supremacy Clause immunity: The federal official’s actions must have been (a) authorized by federal law and (b) “necessary and proper” in fulfilling the official’s federal duties. In other words, if an officer’s actions are unauthorized, unlawful, unnecessary, or improper, the state prosecution poses no Supremacy Clause problem because it is not undermining the implementation of federal law.

In practice, the contours of this two-part test are often contested. The U.S. Supreme Court has not weighed in on Supremacy Clause immunity in more than 100 years, so the doctrine has been developed largely in lower federal courts.

The Decline of Heritage

A number of posts have discussed the conservative movement.

 Jessica Riedl at X:

So for anyone interested, I was a Heritage fellow from 2001-2011 and saw the seeds of the mess starting in 2008. 

It's been long enough...I feel comfy telling the story:

In 2008, with the economy and markets collapsing, my colleagues in the econ dept felt necessary to endorse TARP. They were free marketers, but also Ph.D economists and accomplished lawyers trying to avert the threat of a potential depression. Anyway, TARP passed, markets recovered, and nearly all of the money was repaid. Agree or disagree with TARP, the scholar’s research at the time were wholly defensible and well-accepted by economists. (FWIW, I was not involved in the TARP debate).

Yet, after Obama took office, and many people linked up TARP with the Obama stimulus, a grassroots backlash developed claiming that Heritage had endorsed “Obamanomics and socialism” - and this spread to the board.

The key is that - ultimately - instead of defending their scholars, the fear of angering the small dollar donors, Fox News, and the Board won out. Within a few years, much of the economic team - including nearly anyone with a Ph.D. - was gone. They were often replaced with younger scholars who lacked the academic credentials but could be counted on to produce predictably partisan analysis without all the complicated nuance you get from more accomplished Ph.Ds and JDs.

This is also the time that Heritage Action was created, much of the Foundation leadership was replaced, and even Ed Feulner left by 2013. Nuance was out, brass-knuckles partisan politics were in.

I left during this time in 2011, following an incident when a reporter called me to fact check Rep. Michelle Bachmann's claim that we could balance the budget with a few waste tweaks (I endorsed the tweaks while gently noting they would not balance the budget).  

When the newspaper fact check column included my information, I learned that under the new rules, “friends of Heritage” were not to be publicly disagreed with, no matter how incorrect they may be.

As punishment, I was banned from talking to the media – or even answering my own office phone (a gallingly infantilizing punishment for a scholar with 300 publications and thousands of successful media appearances). Essentially, I was being told to put partisanship above truth and intellectual integrity. The Heritage I knew was gone, and as soon as I found the right job with Sen. Portman, so was I.

I hadn't told this story because I didn't want to spill beans on a former employer. But 1) its been 15 years, and 2) my ex-employee status didn't stop their leaders from trolling and mocking me when I came out last year.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

An Incident in Minneapolis

 Zolan Kanno-Youngs at NYT:

Just hours after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot a 37-year-old woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday, Mr. Trump told a group of New York Times reporters that the woman was at fault because she had tried to “run over” the officer.

We were in the Oval Office for an interview with the president, and the unfolding situation in Minneapolis was high on our list of questions. As soon as we started asking him about the incident, he said: “I want to see nobody get shot. I want to see nobody screaming and trying to run over policemen either.”

When we pressed Mr. Trump on his conclusion that the victim, Renee Nicole Good, tried to run over the agent, he asked an aide to pull up the video on a laptop in an effort to prove his point.

“That was a vicious situation that took place,” Mr. Trump said, apparently referring to what federal officials have said was an effort by Ms. Good to run down an ICE agent.

...

Before the video began, Mr. Trump acknowledged the tragic nature of the shooting. “With all of it being said, no, I don’t like that happening,” he said, before pivoting to his common refrain of criticizing illegal immigration.

As a slow-motion surveillance video of the shooting played on the laptop, we told him that this angle did not appear to show an ICE officer had been run over.

“Well,” Mr. Trump said. “I — the way I look at it … ”

“It’s a terrible scene,” Mr. Trump said at the end of the video. “I think it’s horrible to watch. No, I hate to see it.”

But did this fatal shooting mean his ICE operation had gone too far? Mr. Trump sidestepped the question, instead blaming his predecessor's immigration policies.

But did this fatal shooting mean his ICE operation had gone too far? Mr. Trump sidestepped the question, instead blaming his predecessor's immigration policies.

 

Btw, those in my QT's smugly asserting that law enforcement has wide latitude to use lethal force against fleeing suspects may wish to consult Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

— Jessica Riedl 🧀 🇺🇦 (@JessicaBRiedl) January 8, 2026

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) Argued: October 30, 1984 Decided: March 27, 1985 Annotation Primary Holding Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

The Growing Upper Middle Class

Many posts have discussed economic and educational inequality. 

Stephen J. Rose and Scott Winship at AEI:

Abstract:

Populists on both the political left and right routinely claim that the middle class has been hollowed out. These claims, to the extent they are based on evidence, rely on a relative definition of the middle class, such that if income doubles for every family, the middle class does not grow. Using an absolute definition of the middle class, we find that the “core” middle class has shrunk, but only because more families have become upper-middle class over time. The upper-middle class boomed from 10 percent of families in 1979 to 31 percent in 2024, and its share of income doubled. The share of families whose income left them short of the core middle class fell from 54 percent to 35 percent. Claims of a hollowed-out middle class wrongly reinterpret widespread (if unequal) gains across the income distribution as rising insecurity and declining living standards.

From the article:

We create five income classes, depending on how families’ inflation- and size-adjusted incomes compare with the poverty guideline: poor or near poor (less than 150 percent of the poverty guideline), lower-middle class (150 percent to under 250 percent), core middle class (250 percent to under 500 percent), upper-middle class (500 percent to under 1,500 percent), and rich (1,500 percent or higher). These thresholds were selected building on past research by one of us (Rose 2010, 2016, 2021). We report results using different thresholds as a sensitivity check below.

Table B1 displays the unadjusted family income ranges corresponding to each income class for families of different sizes. For a family of three, the thresholds dividing the five classes are, roughly, $40,000, $67,000, $133,000, and $400,000 (in 2024 dollars).

 

Weakening Nonprofits

Many posts have discussed the politics of philanthropy. 

Thomas B. Edsall at NYT:

In a detailed email, Kim Lane Scheppele, a sociologist at Princeton, described the administration’s evisceration of the nonprofit sector:

The entire nongovernment community (or — as we might say in tax parlance — the 501(c)(3) sector) has been threatened with a combination of loss of tax exemptions, cuts to federal funding and potential investigations.

Some statistics indicate that fully one-third of NGOS incorporated in the U.S. lost funding in the first half of 2025.

In this atmosphere, Scheppele continued,

NGOs are nervous — and some are pulling back from some of the causes that they know this administration does not support. Some NGOs have created “sister organizations” in other countries to shield resources from U.S. coercive measures (vindictive lawsuits, sudden tax-status changes) and provide an escape route if necessary.

Tracking the financial condition of nonprofit groups is difficult at best. They are only required to disclose receipts and expenditures annually in 990 reports to the I.R.S. A tax-exempt group reporting receipts and expenditures for the calendar year ending Dec. 31, 2025, does not have to file until this coming May 15. In addition, charitable organizations with 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) designations do not have to disclose donors.

 In this murky world of political dark money, Trump and Republican allies appear to have inflicted damage on the most powerful collection of pro-Democratic nonprofits, an interlocking network operating under the umbrella of Arabella Advisors that for two decades has channeled billions to liberal advocacy and get-out-the-vote groups. (I say “appear” because no documentation of current fund-raising and spending is available.)

In 2024 alone, according to I.R.S. reports, four groups aligned with Arabella — the Sixteen Thirty Fund, Windward Fund, Hopewell Fund and New Venture Fund — raised a total of $1.46 billion and spent $1.48 billion, largely in grants to liberal and Democratic-leaning groups.

The first clear signal that the Trump attacks were having considerable effect was a Gates Foundation announcement in June that it was halting grants to the nonprofits administered by Arabella Advisors.

Not Rallying Around the Flag

Many posts have discussed foreign policy, war powers and the US military. This weekend, the US snatched Maduro.

Bart Jansen at USA Today:

One in three Americans approve of the U.S. military strike to remove Nicolás Maduro from the presidency of Venezuela to face federal drug-trafficking charges, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Jan. 5.

In contrast, 72% of respondents worried about the United States becoming too involved in the South American country.

The two-day poll found a sharp partisan divide over the raid that President Donald Trump ordered, with his approval rating at 42%. The results found 65% of Republicans back the military operation, compared to 11% of Democrats and 23% of independents.