Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which Catholic bishops or dioceses issued statements supporting or opposing Trump in 2016 and 2020, and what were their main concerns?
Executive summary
In 2016 and 2020 the U.S. bishops as a collective did not formally endorse Donald Trump, but individual prelates and some diocesan leaders publicly praised, criticized or worked with his administrations on discrete issues — especially religious liberty, abortion and immigration (e.g., bishops appointed to Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission such as Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone and Bishop Thomas Paprocki) [1] [2]. Starting in 2017 and intensifying by 2024–25, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and many individual bishops repeatedly voiced concern about Trump-era immigration policies and refugee resettlement freezes, suing the administration over funding suspensions and issuing near-unanimous rebukes of mass deportation efforts [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. No blanket “endorsement” — institutional caution and selective praise
The bishops’ conference did not issue a formal endorsement of Trump’s campaigns in 2016 or 2020; commentators and analysts note the USCCB’s traditional caution about overt partisanship even while many bishops and Catholic leaders aligned with Republican positions on abortion, religious liberty and related moral questions [7] [8]. Some individual prelates cultivated closer public ties to the Trump White House — for example, three U.S. bishops were named to or associated with Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission and publicly defended the importance of religious liberty as a priority (Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, Bishop Thomas Paprocki, Cardinal Timothy Dolan were identified in reporting) [2] [1].
2. Religious liberty and pro-life alignment — why some bishops praised Trump
Many conservative bishops and Catholic organizations welcomed Trump-era policies that they viewed as protecting religious institutions and restricting abortion-related mandates. Those bishops who served on or advised the administration’s religious liberty initiatives framed their engagement as defending conscience rights and institutional autonomy — a recurring concern in USCCB ranks and among named appointees to White House advisory bodies [2] [9]. Conservative-leaning bishops also highlighted shared goals on abortion and Catholic teaching as reasons for cooperation, even when they disagreed with other Trump policies [8] [10].
3. Immigration: a consistent source of public conflict and unified rebukes
Immigration policy became the clearest and most visible area of opposition from the institutional bishops. The USCCB and many individual dioceses criticized Trump’s immigration enforcement as creating a “climate of fear,” opposed “indiscriminate mass deportation,” and stressed pastoral access to migrants and detention centers; the conference even sued over refugee-resettlement funding freezes (USCCB lawsuit) and issued rare “special messages” condemning harsh tactics, with near-unanimous votes reported [3] [4] [5] [6]. Major diocesan leaders such as Archbishop José H. Gómez of Los Angeles and Cardinal Blase Cupich publicly decried deportation policies and urged legislative solutions [11] [12].
4. Internal fractures — bishops who criticized Trump from within Catholic advisory roles
Reporting shows prominent bishops tied to Trump advisory efforts nonetheless criticized aspects of the administration’s immigration or detention practices — indicating internal tension between cooperation on religious-liberty issues and opposition on enforcement and humanitarian treatment (e.g., Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop Cordileone, Bishop Paprocki were named advisors yet some bishops in those circles voiced criticism of detainee treatment) [1] [13]. That split illustrates competing priorities: defense of institutional religious liberty versus pastoral commitments to migrants and refugees [1] [6].
5. Tactical disputes and political interpretations — competing readings among Catholics
Conservative Catholic outlets and commentators argued that many lay Catholics supported stronger immigration enforcement or appreciated Trump’s positions on religious liberty and life issues, describing a “silent majority” of Catholics who did not mobilize against enforcement actions [14]. By contrast, mainstream and progressive Catholic voices and the USCCB framed the bishops’ interventions as moral challenges to policies they judged inconsistent with Catholic social teaching on human dignity and care for the vulnerable [6] [15]. Both perspectives appear in the reporting; the bishops’ near-unanimous vote on the 2025 pastoral message shows institutional weight behind immigration critiques even while lay opinion remains mixed [6] [14].
6. What the sources don’t say (limits of reporting here)
Available sources do not provide a comprehensive list of every bishop or every diocese that publicly backed Trump in 2016 or 2020; they focus on named individuals (e.g., Dolan, Cordileone, Paprocki, Rhoades, Coakley) and on USCCB collective actions, lawsuits and statements rather than exhaustively cataloguing local parish or diocesan endorsements [1] [2] [6]. They also do not present a systematic breakdown of how individual bishops voted in 2016 or 2020 elections; instead, reporting centers on public statements, advisory roles, and institutional votes [7] [8].
Bottom line: Catholic hierarchy engagement with Trump was issue-driven and divided. Some bishops allied with his administration on religious-liberty and pro-life priorities, while the USCCB and many diocesan leaders publicly opposed major Trump immigration policies, sued over refugee funding freezes, and issued rare, near-unanimous rebukes when they judged human dignity threatened [2] [3] [6].