Pope Leo’s stance on key issues, from climate change to LGBTQ+ rights to U.S. politics

toggle caption Vatican Media/AP

Pope Leo XIV has already made history, as the first-ever American-born pope to lead the Roman Catholic Church. But how might he shape the institution?

Robert Francis Prevost was elected on Thursday after a two-day conclave to succeed the late Pope Francis — a progressive pontiff who was known for his commitment to social justice.

While Pope Leo is considered a centrist, he shares some of his predecessor’s views, including those about the environment and outreach to migrants.

Sponsor Message

Leo is also notable for being the first Augustinian friar to lead the church. The Order of St. Augustine, which dates back to 1244, says it has some 2,800 members throughout 47 countries. Its three core values are “truth, unity and love.”

“And so, Leo XIV has been formed on those foundational values,” the Rev. Robert Hagan, prior provincial of the Province of St. Thomas of Villanova, told NPR. “Francis spoke a lot about synodality, to listen. I think Pope Leo XIV is someone who is also willing to listen to the voices on the margins.”

Leo’s public comments and social media presence dating back years help paint a picture of his stances on certain issues.

At a 2023 Vatican news conference, for example, he said, “Our work is to enlarge the tent and to let everyone know they are welcome inside the church.” In an interview the following year, he echoed Francis’ view that a bishop is “called to serve.”

“The bishop is not supposed to be a little prince sitting in his kingdom, but rather called authentically to be humble, to be close to the people he serves, to walk with them, to suffer with them and to look for ways that he can better live the Gospel message in the midst of his people,” the then-cardinal told Vatican News in 2024.

Sponsor Message

Here’s what Pope Leo has said in the past about a number of issues, from LGBTQ+ Catholics to climate change — though it’s not clear whether his views have changed since or whether they are clear indicators of how he will guide the world’s billion-plus Catholic faithful.

Equality for women

Like his predecessor, Leo opposes the idea of ordaining female deacons. That’s in keeping with thousands of years of Catholic understanding, as he told journalists at a 2023 conference.

“Something that needs to be said also is that ordaining women — and there’s been some women that have said this interestingly enough — ‘clericalizing women’ doesn’t necessarily solve a problem, it might make a new problem,” he said.

At the same time, he touted Francis’ efforts to increase women’s participation and visibility in the Vatican, such as by appointing several women to prominent leadership roles. In fact, Francis tasked the now-pope with overseeing one of his most revolutionary reforms: adding three women to the office that vets bishop nominations, in 2022.

“I think there will be a continuing recognition of the fact that women can add a great deal to the life of the church on many different levels,” Leo added.

LGBTQ+ Catholics

While Francis was known for his efforts to make the church more open to members of the LGBTQ+ community — famously asking, “Who am I to judge?” — Leo may not follow in his footsteps.

In a 2012 address, Leo expressed concern that Western culture promotes “enormous sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the Gospel,” specifically referencing abortion, the “homosexual lifestyle” and “alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children.”

Leo’s views on the Vatican’s 2023 document “Fiducia Supplicans” — which permits nonliturgical blessings for same-sex couples, among others — are also ambiguous. He did not wholly endorse or reject the document, instead emphasizing the need for national bishops conferences to have the authority to interpret such guidance within their local cultural context.

During his eight-year tenure as a bishop in the Peruvian city of Chiclayo, he opposed a government plan to add teachings on gender in schools.

“The idea of promoting gender ideology is confusing because it seeks to create genders that don’t exist. So God created man and woman, and the attempt to confuse ideas from nature will only harm families and people,” he told the Peruvian newspaper Diario Correo.

Sponsor Message

He went on to say that people should “respect the dignity of each person, including the options that adult persons may have.”

“To talk about matters of identity and sexual orientation with a child who hasn’t yet reached a sufficient age of development will create much confusion,” he added.

Climate change

Leo — like his predecessor — has been outspoken about the need to confront climate change. In 2024 remarks, he called for the church to move “from words to action.”

The then-cardinal cautioned against the “harmful” effects of technological development and reaffirmed the Vatican’s commitments to protecting the environment, pointing to Pope Francis’ installation of solar panels and shift to electric vehicles as examples.

Leo said humanity’s “dominion over nature” should not be “tyrannical,” but rather a “relationship of reciprocity” with the environment.

Migrants

Leo spent most of his career in Peru and holds dual citizenship there.

Jesus Leon Angeles, the coordinator of a Catholic group in Chiclayo who has known the now-pope since 2018, told Reuters that he showed special concern for Venezuelan migrants in Peru.

“He is a person who likes to help,” he said.

The U.N. refugee agency says over 1.5 million forcibly displaced Venezuelans are living in Peru, making it one of the largest host countries for refugees fleeing the humanitarian and economic crisis there.

Pope Francis advocated vocally for the rights of migrants and refugees, often reminding people that he was a descendant of immigrants himself. He publicly criticized the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration over the years, most recently calling its mass deportation plan “a major crisis” in a February letter to U.S. Catholic bishops.

U.S. politics

Leo, who is from Chicago, voted in Republican primary elections in 2012, 2014 and 2016, and most recently in the 2024 general election, according to voting records obtained by Politico. Illinois voters don’t register as members of a political party, so he is listed as “undeclared” and it is not clear for whom he voted.

Sponsor Message

Occasional tweets and retweets on Leo’s X account may hold more clues to his political views.

His most recent retweet was critical of the Trump administration’s partnership with El Salvador to deport immigrants without legal status, quoting a bishop who asked, “Is your conscience not disturbed? How can you stay quiet?”

In February, he posted links to two op-eds disagreeing with Vice President Vance’s February comments on the Christian hierarchy of love, which were widely criticized, including by Pope Francis. One of Leo’s tweets repeated the headline: “JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others.”

Leo has also shared messages opposing the death penalty, supporting vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic and retweeting prayers for George Floyd after he was murdered by a police officer in 2020.

“We need to hear more from leaders in the Church, to reject racism and seek justice,” he tweeted at the time.

Online sleuths have dug up older tweets on his feed that criticize the first Trump administration, including its family separation policy, efforts to repeal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Trump’s “bad hombres” rhetoric.

Some right-wing figures in U.S. media were quick to criticize the new pope as his social media posts emerged, with Trump ally Laura Loomer calling him “WOKE MARXIST POPE.” Trump himself congratulated Leo on Thursday.

“It is such an honor to realize that he is the first American Pope,” the president wrote on Truth Social. “What excitement, and what a Great Honor for our Country. I look forward to meeting Pope Leo XIV. It will be a very meaningful moment!”

A new generation has arrived

Generation Z will soon surpass Millennials as the most populous generation on earth, with more than one-third of the world’s population counting themselves as Gen Zers. In the US, Gen Z constitutes more than a quarter of the population and, by 2020, will be the most diverse generation in the nation’s history.

As Gen Zers are about to step onto the world stage, the impact of their entry will be swift and profound, its effects rippling through the workplace, retail consumption, technology, politics, and culture. Radically different than Millennials, this generation has an entirely unique perspective on careers and how to define success in life and in the workforce.

To better understand the challenges facing this rising workforce and their impact on employers and the workplace, we worked with the Network of Executive Women (NEW) to explore the key events that helped shape Generation Z; dive into their individual behaviors, attitudes, and preferences; and separate the myths and stereotypes from reality.

Back to top

Presidential Actions PROTECTING AMERICAN ENERGY FROM STATE OVERREACH

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose. My Administration is committed to unleashing American energy, especially through the removal of all illegitimate impediments to the identification, development, siting, production, investment in, or use of domestic energy resources — particularly oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, geothermal, biofuel, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources. An affordable and reliable domestic energy supply is essential to the national and economic security of the United States, as well as our foreign policy. Simply put, Americans are better off when the United States is energy dominant.

American energy dominance is threatened when State and local governments seek to regulate energy beyond their constitutional or statutory authorities. For example, when States target or discriminate against out-of-State energy producers by imposing significant barriers to interstate and international trade, American energy suffers, and the equality of each State enshrined by the Constitution is undermined. Similarly, when States subject energy producers to arbitrary or excessive fines through retroactive penalties or seek to control energy development, siting, or production activities on Federal land, American energy suffers.

Many States have enacted, or are in the process of enacting, burdensome and ideologically motivated “climate change” or energy policies that threaten American energy dominance and our economic and national security. New York, for example, enacted a “climate change” extortion law that seeks to retroactively impose billions in fines (erroneously labelled “compensatory payments”) on traditional energy producers for their purported past contributions to greenhouse gas emissions not only in New York but also anywhere in the United States and the world. Vermont similarly extorts energy producers for alleged past contributions to greenhouse gas emissions anywhere in the United States or the globe.

Other States have taken different approaches in an effort to dictate national energy policy. California, for example, punishes carbon use by adopting impossible caps on the amount of carbon businesses may use, all but forcing businesses to pay large sums to “trade” carbon credits to meet California’s radical requirements. Some States delay review of permit applications to produce energy, creating de facto barriers to entry in the energy market. States have also sued energy companies for supposed “climate change” harm under nuisance or other tort regimes that could result in crippling damages.

These State laws and policies weaken our national security and devastate Americans by driving up energy costs for families coast-to-coast, despite some of these families not living or voting in States with these crippling policies. These laws and policies also undermine Federalism by projecting the regulatory preferences of a few States into all States. Americans must be permitted to heat their homes, fuel their cars, and have peace of mind — free from policies that make energy more expensive and inevitably degrade quality of life.

These State laws and policies try to dictate interstate and international disputes over air, water, and natural resources; unduly discriminate against out-of-State businesses; contravene the equality of States; and retroactively impose arbitrary and excessive fines without legitimate justification.

These State laws and policies are fundamentally irreconcilable with my Administration’s objective to unleash American energy. They should not stand.

Sec. 2. State Laws and Causes of Action. (a) The Attorney General, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, shall identify all State and local laws, regulations, causes of action, policies, and practices (collectively, State laws) burdening the identification, development, siting, production, or use of domestic energy resources that are or may be unconstitutional, preempted by Federal law, or otherwise unenforceable. The Attorney General shall prioritize the identification of any such State laws purporting to address “climate change” or involving “environmental, social, and governance” initiatives, “environmental justice,” carbon or “greenhouse gas” emissions, and funds to collect carbon penalties or carbon taxes.

(b) The Attorney General shall expeditiously take all appropriate action to stop the enforcement of State laws and continuation of civil actions identified in subsection (a) of this section that the Attorney General determines to be illegal.

(c) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the President, through the Counsel to the President, regarding actions taken under subsection (b) of this section. The Attorney General shall also recommend any additional Presidential or legislative action necessary to stop the enforcement of State laws identified in subsection (a) of this section that the Attorney General determines to be illegal or otherwise fulfill the purpose of this order.

Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

April 8, 2025.

These Words Are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration

As President Trump seeks to purge the federal government of “woke” initiatives, agencies have flagged hundreds of words to limit or avoid, according to a compilation of government documents.

accessible

activism

activists

advocacy

advocate

advocates

affirming care

all-inclusive

allyship

anti-racism

antiracist

assigned at birth

assigned female at birth

assigned male at birth

at risk

barrier

barriers

belong

bias

biased

biased toward

biases

biases towards

biologically female

biologically male

BIPOC

Black

breastfeed + people

breastfeed + person

chestfeed + people

chestfeed + person

clean energy

climate crisis

climate science

commercial sex worker

community diversity

community equity

confirmation bias

cultural competence

cultural differences

cultural heritage

cultural sensitivity

culturally appropriate

culturally responsive

DEI

DEIA

DEIAB

DEIJ

disabilities

disability

discriminated

discrimination

discriminatory

disparity

diverse

diverse backgrounds

diverse communities

diverse community

diverse group

diverse groups

diversified

diversify

diversifying

diversity

enhance the diversity

enhancing diversity

environmental quality

equal opportunity

equality

equitable

equitableness

equity

ethnicity

excluded

exclusion

expression

female

females

feminism

fostering inclusivity

GBV

gender

gender based

gender based violence

gender diversity

gender identity

gender ideology

gender-affirming care

genders

Gulf of Mexico

hate speech

health disparity

health equity

hispanic minority

historically

identity

immigrants

implicit bias

implicit biases

inclusion

inclusive

inclusive leadership

inclusiveness

inclusivity

increase diversity

increase the diversity

indigenous community

inequalities

inequality

inequitable

inequities

inequity

injustice

institutional

intersectional

intersectionality

key groups

key people

key populations

Latinx

LGBT

LGBTQ

marginalize

marginalized

men who have sex with men

mental health

minorities

minority

most risk

MSM

multicultural

Mx

Native American

non-binary

nonbinary

oppression

oppressive

orientation

people + uterus

people-centered care

person-centered

person-centered care

polarization

political

pollution

pregnant people

pregnant person

pregnant persons

prejudice

privilege

privileges

promote diversity

promoting diversity

pronoun

pronouns

prostitute

race

race and ethnicity

racial

racial diversity

racial identity

racial inequality

racial justice

racially

racism

segregation

sense of belonging

sex

sexual preferences

sexuality

social justice

sociocultural

socioeconomic

status

stereotype

stereotypes

systemic

systemically

they/them

trans

transgender

transsexual

trauma

traumatic

tribal

unconscious bias

underappreciated

underprivileged

underrepresentation

underrepresented

underserved

undervalued

victim

victims

vulnerable populations

women

women and underrepresented Notes: Some terms listed with a plus sign represent combinations of words that, when used together, acknowledge transgender people, which is not in keeping with the current federal government’s position that there are only two, immutable sexes. Any term collected above was included on at least one agency’s list, which does not necessarily imply that other agencies are also discouraged from using it.

The above terms appeared in government memos, in official and unofficial agency guidance and in other documents viewed by The New York Times. Some ordered the removal of these words from public-facing websites, or ordered the elimination of other materials (including school curricula) in which they might be included.

In other cases, federal agency managers advised caution in the terms’ usage without instituting an outright ban. Additionally, the presence of some terms was used to automatically flag for review some grant proposals and contracts that could conflict with Mr. Trump’s executive orders.

The list is most likely incomplete. More agency memos may exist than those seen by New York Times reporters, and some directives are vague or suggest what language might be impermissible without flatly stating it.

All presidential administrations change the language used in official communications to reflect their own policies. It is within their prerogative, as are amendments to or the removal of web pages, which The Times has found has already happened thousands of times in this administration.

Still, the words and phrases listed here represent a marked — and remarkable — shift in the corpus of language being used both in the federal government’s corridors of power and among its rank and file. They are an unmistakable reflection of this administration’s priorities.

For example, the Trump administration has frequently framed diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as being inherently at odds with what it has identified as “merit,” and it has argued that these initiatives have resulted in the elevation of unqualified or undeserving people. That rhetorical strategy — with its baked-in assumption of a lack of capacity in people of color, women, the disabled and other marginalized groups — has been criticized as discriminatory.

Indeed, in some cases, guidance against a term’s usage has arrived alongside directives intended to eliminate the concept itself. Federal diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are one example; the Gulf of Mexico is a very different one.

That shift is already apparent on hundreds of federal government websites. A New York Times analysis of pages on federal agency websites, before and after Mr. Trump took office, found that more than 250 contained evidence of deletions or amendments to words included in the above list.

Here are some notable examples. Words that have been removed are shown in red with strikethroughs, and words that have been added are in green with underlines.

Federal Aviation Administration’s job page Working at FAA offers a unique opportunity to experience a career where your impact not only reaches throughout the aviation industry but around the world as well. You’ll be a part of a diverse workforce utilizing the latest technology and systems dedicated to maintaining the safety and integrity of our civil airspace.

National Park Service’s Stonewall National Monument web page ​​Before the 1960s, almost everything about living openly as a lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) transgender, or queer (LGBTQ+) person was illegal. The Stonewall Uprising on June 28, 1969 is a milestone in the quest for LGBTQ+ civil rights and provided momentum for a movement.

2021 Head Start memo The last year has brought significant challenges to the Head Start workforce. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disparate impact on under-resourced communities including many of those served by Head Start programs.There has also been heightened attention to racial injustice in our country, which has led to calls for major reforms to address long-standing societal inequities. These are particularly important concerns for OHS and the Head Start workforce. All staff have been impacted by COVID-19. Further, 60% of Head Start teaching staff are Black, Indigenous and people of color, and 30% have a primary language other than English. As such, OHS is committed to a culture of wellness that includes holistic support for the entire Head Start workforce.

Key topics page of State Department’s Office of Global Change The climate crisis knows no boundaries, and both the challenge and its solutions range from local to global in scale. Because of this, international cooperation and collaboration through negotiation and implementation of international agreements are essential. The Negotiations Team represents the United States in negotiations under the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and in many other international fora that address climate change, including the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Maritime Organization (IMO), G7, G20, and others.

The total number of web pages identified by The Times as having changed is an undercount. The analysis involved searching for changes on more than 5,000 total pages, but it did not capture the entire universe of the federal government’s web presence. In addition, the pages were captured for comparison in early February, and more changes may have been made between then and now.

The president and some of his closest advisers, including Elon Musk, have frequently portrayed themselves as champions of free speech. One of the executive orders Mr. Trump signed on his first day back in office decried what it described as a pressure campaign by the Biden administration to stifle First Amendment rights “in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate,” by way of putting pressure on tech platforms. “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society,” it continued.

Indeed, the office of the presidency carries with it a tremendous power to drive the discourse. But the pattern of vanishing words established here suggests Mr. Trump and his administration may be more interested in chilling the national conversation — at least when it comes to their own disfavored topics — than in expanding it.

SSA is looking to partner with the Postal Service and allow beneficiaries to verify their identity in-person at thousands of post offices across the country.

The Social Security Administration is finalizing a stricter identity-proofing policy that will require millions of beneficiaries to set up an account online or show up in person at an agency field office or nearby post office.

SSA will eliminate an option for individuals to verify their identity over the phone to receive retirement benefits or request direct deposit changes. Instead, these SSA beneficiaries will have to verify their identity through the agency’s “my Social Security” online platform or show up at an SSA field office or post office to complete the verification process.

SSA is seeking these changes to reduce fraudulent payments. The agency planned to implement these changes on March 31, but put them on hold after getting immediate pushback from SSA beneficiaries and advocate groups.

Delma Cardona, SSA’s assistant deputy commissioner of operations, told agency officials in a meeting this week that a narrower set of identity-proofing changes will now go into effect on April 14.

SSA’s new identity proofing requirements will apply to retirees and their survivors, but will no longer apply to disability and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries.

“We’re hoping that addresses some of the concerns that we know are out there,” Cardona said in a recording of the meeting obtained by Federal News Network.

Starting April 14, SSA will also no longer accept direct deposit changes through its 1-800 toll-free number. Cardona said SSA will set up a specialized phone queue to help individuals calling to make a direct deposit change. SSA employees will help callers through the process of setting up a mySSA account or walk them through the steps to set up direct deposit through their accounts.

“We know that there’s individuals that are going to fall out from that process. We know that direct deposit for Title 16 does not exist on ‘my Social Security,’” Cardona said, referring to the section of the Social Security Act that covers SSI. “Those individuals will be reverted to in-person services until we have some additional options available to them that we are currently working on.”

The Associated Press reported last month that Leland Dudek, the agency’s acting commissioner, told reporters SSA is losing more than $100 million a year in direct deposit fraud.

SSA, at first, planned to no longer allow people to verify their identity over the phone starting March 31.

Those unable to verify their identity through the agency’s “my Social Security” online service would be required to visit an agency field office in person to complete the verification process.

This earlier plan would have also impacted recipients of disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income — a program that provides monthly payments to people with disabilities and older adults who have little or no income.

The initial plan received pushback from retirees and their advocates over concerns these changes would have a disproportionate impact on certain SSA beneficiaries, including older Americans living in rural areas far from an SSA field office, individuals with limited internet access and retirees with disabilities or limited mobility.

To address these concerns, Cardona said SSA is looking to partner with the Postal Service and allow SSA beneficiaries to verify their identity in person at thousands of post offices across the country.

USPS offers in-person identity proofing services at 19,000 post office locations across the country — a much larger footprint than SSA’s approximately 1,230 field offices. USPS has expanded its identity-proofing capabilities in recent years and is already working with several agencies to provide these services.

USPS, working with the General Services Administration, allows federal agencies to obtain or renew their Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards at post offices across the country. It’s also working with the Labor Department to offer in-person identity proofing for people looking to apply for unemployment insurance.

About 99% of the U.S. population lives within 10 miles of their nearest post office. Cardona said a partnership with USPS would make in-person identity proofing more accessible to SSA beneficiaries who live far away from the nearest field office.

“When you compare the number of post offices to the number of field offices that we have available, they are much, much larger,” Cardona said. “We have been in communication with the Department of Labor, and we are in communication very soon with the post offices to be able to leverage that option.”

Cardona said she doesn’t expect SSA will finalize a partnership with USPS right away, “but we are trying our best to make it available by [April] 14th or shortly thereafter.”

In cases where an in-person visit is inaccessible for SSA beneficiaries, Cardona said SSA is working on a “video service delivery” option for identity verification.

“They can use their phone, they can use an iPad — they might be able to use their relative’s, if they don’t have one —to be able to prove their identity with Social Security,” she said.

Remote identity proofing has been a longstanding challenge for the federal government.

Login.gov, a one-stop for government-provided public services, began offering facial recognition as a way for users to verify themselves in October 2024.

The previous year, an inspector general report found GSA misled agency customers about meeting the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Identity Assurance Level 2 (IAL2) standard for remote identity proofing.

The IRS faced scrutiny from Congress in 2022 when it launched a new identity verification process that required taxpayers to create an account with the vendor ID.me and submit a selfie. The agency now has ID verification options that don’t require facial recognition.

Cardona said SSA is currently working on a risk assessment to make sure its facial recognition service is secure.

“Keep in mind, what we’re trying to do here is to avoid fraud and waste, and to protect our customers. So every step that we take, we need to look at it from that perspective,” Cardona said. “If using video is not a secure option, then it’s going to defeat the purpose of what we’re trying to do. We need to make sure that it is safe and secure enough that it allows us to accept the documentation, and we are comfortable that it’s not a fraudster or a bad actor who’s behind the other side of the screen.”

Copyright © 2025 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.