Opinion | Trump Played Messiah. The Pope Didn't Clap.

"All the war propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting."

— George Orwell

Orwell wrote those words decades ago, but in the spring of 2026 they land with the force of cold iron. The public clash between Donald Trump, the U.S.-Iran war, and Pope Leo XIV is, at its core, exactly the kind of political theater Orwell described: named, framed, and consecrated by those who will never face its consequences, then presented to the world as something worth feeling moved by.

The two men could not be more differently armed. On one side stands the secular superpower — aircraft carriers, naval blockades, oil-price leverage, and dominant social media platforms. On the other stands a religious authority with no army, no sanctions regime, yet still commanding a transnational moral vocabulary and a global network of followers. When Leo XIV, speaking to journalists aboard a flight to Algeria, said "I am not a politician — I speak the Gospel," and added that he was "not afraid of the Trump administration," he was not trading insults. He was drawing a line that is rapidly disappearing from modern politics: the White House may command fleets, but it cannot instruct God to endorse a particular war.

What truly irritated Trump was not simply the Pope's pacifism. It was the Pope's refusal to provide a soundtrack for Trump's self-mythology. Trump has never been content merely to govern; he wants to be the one who names things — who decides what represents order, what represents civilization, who deserves history's favor. For a political personality of that kind, Leo XIV's most intolerable quality is not his theology. It is his restraint. Restraint is an implicit rebuke of exaggeration; proportion is a standing refutation of narcissism. This was less a diplomatic disagreement than a coronation ceremony gone wrong: the crown was placed, but the priest declined to consecrate it. What made it worse for Trump is that this particular priest is not the kind of adversary the right can easily dismiss. Leo XIV is not Francis — he cannot be quickly labeled a "liberal pope" and filed away. He is an American-born pontiff, fluent in the American political idiom, disciplined in manner, and far harder to caricature or marginalize.

The conflict's trigger was not a clash of personalities. It was the Iran war. On April 7, Leo XIV publicly condemned Trump's threat against Iran's "entire civilization" as "truly unacceptable," declared that "God does not bless any conflict," and warned at a peace vigil against what he called a "delusion of omnipotence." These words stung not because they were idealistic, but because they were precise. The most dangerous corruption in modern warfare is rarely the absence of moral language — it is the capture of moral language by power, which then uses that language to shut down moral scrutiny. Wars no longer need to justify themselves; they need only brand their critics as weak, naive, disloyal, or insufficiently patriotic. This is Orwell's screaming and lying in contemporary form: those furthest from the trenches are always most eager to name the battle.

The White House narrative ran in the opposite direction. It framed a naval blockade as the restoration of order and escalating military pressure as a form of therapy, while simultaneously leaving the door open for new negotiations. It claimed to be preventing a larger catastrophe while refusing to state honestly whether the goal was a negotiated peace or a submission victory. This is not strategic sophistication. It is the signature move of strongman politics: manufacture the crisis, then position yourself as the only one capable of resolving it. The arsonist moonlights as the fire brigade. Market panic becomes a governing achievement.

Leo XIV's authority lies not in hard power but in his willingness to preserve a piece of common sense that is becoming rare: the Gospel is not a military order. When he insisted on continuing to speak of peace, dialogue, and multilateralism, he was reminding the world that if religion is reduced to a comfort function, political power will use it as wartime incense — and the moment religion speaks plainly again, power will immediately complain that it has become "too political." This is the most practiced trick of contemporary cynicism: the White House is happy to borrow religious vocabulary for its own illumination, while demanding that the Vatican "stick to morality." That is not the separation of church and state. It is a demand that God remain in the background and never be allowed to speak.

This is also where the fundamental difference between Trump and Leo XIV is clearest. Trump treats people by price; the Pope regards people by value. Price habitually reduces persons to unit costs — calculating who is useful, who is worth a deal, who is merely a cost. Value addresses people with care and respect, reminding the world that human beings are not chips on a table, not fuel, not collateral damage to be converted into a footnote. Trump's political instinct always asks: what is this worth? Leo XIV's repeated question is: what are these people suffering? This is not the difference between left and right. It is the difference between treating a person as a price list and treating a person as a person.

The Strait of Hormuz offered the most candid commentary on this war. Technically, U.S. military operations targeted Iranian ports and Iran-affiliated shipping — not a literal ban on all maritime traffic. But the practical effect was felt across global shipping insurance, energy price expectations, and allied confidence simultaneously. The sharpest irony: the White House claimed to be restoring order, while markets responded by pricing in not order, but expensive, open-ended uncertainty. A war can be called a strategy in a press briefing; in a shipping insurance policy, it shows up only as risk.

This is a refined technique of modern hegemony: keep the legal perimeter narrow while making the psychological impact unlimited. Blockade Iranian port traffic; sell global fear. Invoke strategic necessity; collect the premium in the form of higher oil prices, inflation, and allied anxiety. For the White House, this war is an epic. At the Strait of Hormuz, it is an invoice. Those who pay the bill are never the ones who wrote the script — they are the ones who were never invited into the room where the script was written. Price asks what a barrel of oil costs. Value asks why a human life can be reduced to a footnote in an annex. That reduction is the oldest and crudest form of "national interest": other people's lives, converted into your own bargaining chips.

The darkest moment in this confrontation happened off the battlefield — and yet entirely within it. On April 13, Trump posted an AI-generated image on Truth Social: Trump in white robes, surrounded by divine light, laying hands on a patient, flanked by the Statue of Liberty, eagles, fighter jets, and fireworks. The backlash came not only from liberals but from religious conservatives. The image offended not because it was garish, but because it was too honest. This was not a political meme. It was a wishlist of power: Trump not merely as commander-in-chief, but as healer; not merely governing reality, but monopolizing the narrative of salvation. When a president begins depicting himself as a messiah figure, he is not joking. He is trying on the costume of sacred kingship.

What made the image more revealing still was what it said about the relationship between Trump and his supporters. A Washington Post art critic noted that the figure depicted as sick and in need of healing was, unmistakably, a tired, rough-edged working-class white man — Trump's own base. The image did not merely portray Trump as savior; it portrayed his core constituency as the afflicted body awaiting his cure. The cruelest truth the image accidentally disclosed is one the White House would never state openly: Trump's political energy depends on a following he continuously arouses and continuously exhausts. His supporters feed his myth with their fervor; the myth sustains their hunger. That is not leadership. It is a mutually sustaining codependency.

The punchline came when Trump deleted the image and explained that he simply saw himself as "a doctor who makes people feel better." This is mature strongman accountability language at its most polished: cross the line, deny the crossing, then transfer the responsibility for misreading back to the public. The problem, in this reframing, is not that I portrayed myself as a messiah — it is that you saw a messiah too clearly. When even an act of apparent blasphemy must be repackaged as an innocent misunderstanding, political cynicism stops being a posture and becomes institutional grammar. It becomes, more precisely, one of this White House's most reliable administrative competencies: reframe boundary violations as humor, redescribe excess as misreading, redescribe contempt as refreshing candor.

This confrontation is more politically dangerous for Trump partly because of who his opponent is. Francis occupied contested ideological ground within American conservative Catholicism for years, which meant that whenever Trump clashed with him, many right-leaning Catholics could frame it as part of the broader culture war. Leo XIV offers no such footing. As the first American-born pope, he is intimately familiar with the American political context. His style is measured, disciplined, and resistant to easy categorization. Attacking him as a "liberal pope" does not stick. His criticism of Trump therefore reads not as partisan emotion but as a calm, deliberate, and theologically grounded moral refusal — and that kind of refusal is much harder to silence.

The political consequences are real. The New York Times reported that Leo XIV has been rebuilding Vatican relations with American conservative Catholic circles since taking office. The Washington Post noted that Trump risks alienating conservative Catholic voters with his attacks. In other words: the less Leo XIV resembles a culture warrior, the more Trump's attacks on him resemble self-exposure. When a pope speaks carefully, avoids partisanship, and still declines to bless a war, a president who insists on treating him as a political enemy is effectively conceding the point — that what he fears is not an adversary who is too radical, but one who is too difficult to dismiss.

What Leo XIV has actually done is not interfere in American domestic politics. He has redirected back to democratic institutions the questions that democratic institutions are supposed to answer: Who authorized this war? On whose behalf is it being fought? Who will bear its costs? When he called on citizens to hold their legislators accountable for peace, he was not encroaching on Congress — he was reminding Congress not to diminish itself. The paradox of the moment is that the figure defending institutional boundaries is not the man who claims to represent the people's will, but the man who insists he is "not a politician." This is not the over-politicization of the papacy. It is the over-mythologization of the presidency.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's response added a sobering footnote. One of Europe's closest conservative allies to Trump, she nonetheless publicly called his attacks on the Pope "unacceptable" and affirmed that religious leaders should not be subordinate to politicians. This was not mere courtesy. It was something closer to a civilizational reflex: you may support certain Trump policies, but when he attacks the Pope, appropriates Christian imagery, and stirs war and religious rhetoric into a single volatile compound, even those willing to stand near him must step back. That step back is the quietest and sharpest verdict available on strongman politics.

The real conclusion here is not that Trump was rude to the Pope. It is this: a democratic president must never cast himself as history's anointed one, then demand that the public treat a war as a test of faith. When the White House becomes infatuated with messianic politics, the Pope's role is not to offer an alternative system of rule — it is to preserve for the world a minimum of common sense: that peace is not weakness, that restraint is not surrender, that war is never a miracle, and that death cannot be packaged as redemption. If the White House insists on occupying the pulpit, the Vatican will have no choice but to apply the brake. That is not a restoration of theocracy. It is evidence that contemporary civilization has not yet entirely abandoned its capacity for shame.

*The author is Dean of the College of Management at Shih Hsin University.

（Related： A Chinese Robot Just Went Viral in Europe. It Was Chasing Boars. ｜ Latest ）