Europe Emerges As Key Buyer Of U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve Oil

By Alex Kimani - Apr 26, 2026

• IEA-led SPR release is underway, with the U.S. already distributing ~80 million barrels—much of it going to major traders and European buyers amid tight supply.
• 
  
• European refiners are benefiting from discounted U.S. crude, as SPR barrels (often sour grades) are offered below local prices and shipped to hubs like Rotterdam
• 
  
• Impact is limited and temporary, as the release only offsets supply losses briefly while the Strait of Hormuz disruption continues to constrain global flows.

Last month, the International Energy Agency (IEA) announced the coordinated release of over 400 million barrels of oil from global strategic reserves to combat high energy prices amid the Middle East turmoil. The U.S. was to contribute approximately 172 million barrels of this total, with the release taking place over 120 days starting late March 2026 to help lower gasoline costs. And now reports have emerged that theTrump administration has authorized the release of millions of barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), with Europe emerging as a key buyer. According to Bloomberg, the U.S. has so far released 79.7 million barrels to 12 companies, with nearly 50 million barrels going to UK’s Vortexa Ltd. Global trading houses and Big Oil companies have been the main recipients of the oil, with Trafigura receiving 21.4 million barrels; Shell Plc (NYSE: SHEL) has received 18.1 million while Marathon Oil (NYSE:MRO) and BP Plc (NYSE:BP) have purchased 9.7 million barrels and 6.0 million barrels, respectively.

According to shipping data and maritime intelligence firm Kpler, supertanker Eagle Versailles is currently en route to Rotterdam, Netherlands, carrying a cargo of approximately 2.1 million barrels of Bryan Mound medium sour crude oil. The oil is sourced from the Bryan Mound Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) site in the US. The Texas SPR site holds approximately 250 million barrels of crude oil, making it the largest repository in the U.S. reserve system. The oil is also flowing to Asia and Latin America, with Peru’s state oil company purchasing a cargo of Bayou Choctaw crude in March to be delivered in May. However, the recent fall in oil prices might dampen Asian demand.

U.S. sour crude from the SPR is being offered to European buyers at discounts of about $5 per barrel relative to local grades, providing some relief as Brent crude remains elevated near $105 per barrel. The oil is being sold on an exchange basis, to be returned at a later date. A Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil exchange is a legal mechanism utilized by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to address supply shortages, such as during severe weather events or pipeline disruptions. Under this mechanism, the government loans oil from the emergency stockpile to refiners or traders, who are then required to return the same quantity of crude oil plus a premium, usually additional barrels, at a specified future date.

The return of loaned oil is expected in tranches. For some 2026 loans, the DOE requires high sulfur (sour) crude to be returned by 2028 with up to 22% interest, often in sweeter, more valuable crude grades. Following the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, the Biden administration loaned out millions of barrels, with returns delayed until 2026 to avoid market tightening. Europe was the destination of ~21 million barrels of crude from America’s SPR release four years ago, good for 10% of the total.

The U.S. SPR has a total authorized storage capacity of approximately 727 million barrels of crude oil. These reserves are stored in 60 underground salt caverns located at four sites along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast, designed for long-term emergency supply. The SPR held ~415 million barrels before the release began, good for roughly 60% of total capacity.

That said, SPR releases often fail to significantly impact oil prices because they are short-term, temporary solutions deployed to address structural supply issues. SPR releases constitute only a fraction of global demand: Standard Chartered estimates that the war has cut off ~8 million barrels of crude from global markets, meaning the IEA’s combined strategic release would be enough to bridge the deficit for only 50 days.

The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed to most commercial shipping, with Iranian officials stating it will remain closed because of blatant violations of the current ceasefire by the U.S. and Israel. Iran has granted priority passage to vessels from non-hostile nations, including China, Russia, India, Iraq, and Pakistan provided they pay tolls and follow Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) protocols. Iranian authorities are reportedly charging tolls of over $1 million per ship and requiring all vessels to secure permits from the IRGC. Shipping firms remain hesitant due to the presence of sea mines, drone attacks, and the threat of seizure, with only about 5% of pre-conflict shipping levels currently transiting the waterway. Meanwhile, insurance premiums have surged up to 10x since the war began, rendering the route untenable.

By Alex Kimani for Oilprice.com

Free public transport can help tackle the fuel prices crisis

AND CLIMATE CHANGE

HubMP2012

Public support has also grown for other forms of Government help to tackle the energy crisis.

Scrapping fares on public transport is an ideal way to respond to the soaring fuel prices caused by the war in the Gulf, Fare Free London says.

Abolishing fares makes public transport more attractive to drivers, as well as giving instant support to public transport users, whose journeys are far less fuel-intensive.          

“Free public transport would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and on world markets where prices are set by events outside our control”, Pearl Ahrens of Fare Free London said.

The fuel price shock from the US-Israeli attack on Iran is likely to last a long time. The UK will be hit harder than any other country in the G20, the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development has said. And the EU has warned that cutting taxes on petrol could cause a fiscal crisis.

This terrible war should force a permanent rethink of the transport system, Fare Free London believes. The drastic changes necessitated by climate change are long overdue, and the war just adds to the urgency of addressing energy vulnerabilities now.

This is an opportunity to put in place policies that make our transport system more resilient to shocks – both fuel shortages and economic crises – and work towards a sustainable transport system in the longer term. Instead of cutting taxes on fuel, which is already heavily subsidised, we should try and save fuel by encouraging people to travel on public transport.  

In Asia, municipal authorities have turned to free public transport to shield people from the worst effects of the sharp increases in oil prices.

In Pakistan, the state of Punjab, the largest state in the country, with 125+ million population, and the capital, Islamabad, have made public transport free for a month. The Punjab Mass Transit Authority reckons that more than 800,000 passengers are benefiting from the policy each day, and the provincial government is considering expanding the bus fleet to cope.

In Australia, both the state of Victoria and the island of Tasmania have also made public transport free, temporarily.

Municipal authorities in Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam – which has a population of 14.5 million, much more than London’s – are considering a permanent scheme.     

Free public transport as an emergency measure is not problem-free, but its implementation in UK cities would be a welcome relief from the costs of tickets. Evidence from Montpellier in France, where public transport has now been free for two years, is that a properly-managed scheme in a European city works very well.

In the run-up to the 7th May elections, more than 170 candidates have signed a pledge to “use our platforms to call for the extension of free public transport”. Fare Free London, together with Fare Free Yorkshire, Better Buses for West Yorkshire, West Yorkshire Needs a Tram, Tipping Point UK and the Greener Jobs Alliance, are backing the initiative.

The Government should help end our exposure to fossil fuel price shocks

The campaign chimes with shifts in public opinion, with households keen to break free from the cycle of fossil fuel price shocks for good, according to new polling.

Figures show that the ongoing conflict with Iran has prompted more than a third of adults to increase their interest in new technologies to cut their bills and reduce their exposure to volatile global markets.

Research by Survation for the End Fuel Poverty Coalition finds that 35% of the public have become more interested in home energy technology since the Iran conflict began. Of these people, 45% are now more interested in getting solar panels on their roofs, 36% would like more home insulation, 35% are more interested in the new plug in solar option and 26% are now more interested in getting a heat pump.

But with 60% saying such options are simply too expensive, the public is calling on the Government to act, with 71% wanting grants for insulation and 68% seeking support for solar panels and heat pumps.

With 83% of the public worried about energy bills and 44% saying they would be unable to afford the expected £228 annual increase in energy bills from 1st July, 73% want to see targeted support for households and 67% want to see help for all households with energy bills.

Heating Oil and LPG customers have already seen the cost of energy increase and as price rises loom for even more households from 1st July, a majority of the public (64%) believe that the energy industry is profiteering from the conflict in Iran and a  majority say that ending the Windfall Tax now would be the wrong thing to do.

Simon Francis, End Fuel Poverty Coalition coordinator said: “The public want to protect themselves from oil and gas price shocks for good, and the Government has both the means and the mandate to help them do it.

“Energy firms made £125bn in profits on their UK operations over the last five years and companies like BP are already expecting bumper profits from the fresh crisis. The Windfall Tax revenue raised by the Treasury should be going further to help households cut their bills for good.

“The Government’s Warm Homes Plan is the right vehicle, but now is the moment to make it even more ambitious and to ensure it comes with a guarantee that every upgraded home will see energy efficiency improve and bills come down.”

“A Trump Tax, plain and simple”

Three-quarters of the public (76%) hold Donald Trump responsible for energy bill increases set to hit UK households, while 65% also blame the energy industry directly. The anger runs deep enough that 63% of respondents agree the increases amount to a Trump Tax on their bills.

Robert Palmer, Deputy Director of Uplift, added: “People know they’re being hit with a Trump Tax, plain and simple. We’re facing higher energy bills, rocketing fuel prices and more expensive mortgages. Our dependence on fossil fuels is making all of us poorer. All except for the oil and gas bosses and their shareholders who – once again – are set to cash in at our expense.

“Now Trump is demanding that the UK doubles down on drilling. But we can’t drill our way out of this crisis. More drilling won’t take a penny off our bills, and would have no meaningful impact on the UK’s supply of gas. We’ve burned most of what was in the North Sea already.

“The only way to insulate ourselves from these risks is to press on with renewables, like wind, and upgrade our homes with solar power and heat pumps, so we can free ourselves from oil and gas and ensure we have a liveable planet. And this polling shows the public gets this, even if Donald Trump doesn’t.”

Image: c/o Labour Hub

Record-Breaking World Heat

Robert Hunziker

 April 24, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Image by Pavel Avakumov.

The world is its hottest in modern human history (circa 1500-present). Yet, fossil fuel CO2 emissions continue unabated, effectively creating an artificial blanket that retains heat. Despite decarbonization efforts, emissions continue to rise, driven by increasing energy demand and fossil fuel use. According to NOAA, over the past 60 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased 100-200 times faster than it did during the end of the last ice age. In essence, CO2 is the primary source, the genesis, of record-breaking heat.

Deadly Heat Thresholds Crossed on Five Continents, Non-survivable Conditions

A recent study conducted by researchers from The Australian National University and the University of Sydney… “led by Professor Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, looked at heat waves that occurred in Mecca (Saudi Arabia) during 2024, Bangkok (Thailand) during 2024, Phoenix (United States) during 2023, Mount Isa (Australia) during 2019, Larkana (Pakistan) during 2015 and Seville (Spain) in 2003. The events featured climatologically extreme conditions and, with the exception of Australia, were associated with at least 1000 deaths.”

Non-survivable thresholds were surpassed during all six of the events.

According to Professor Perkins-Kirkpatrick, of the ANU and the ARC Center of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century: “While many people are rightly concerned about the possible effects of future heat waves as global warming continues, our research shows that non-survivable conditions are occurring during present-day heat events,”

Clearly, record-breaking heat is a killer today. It has already struck five continents with deaths in each attributed to excessive heat waves.

Current Conditions- Breaking Records

“From Argentina to Australia to South Africa, record heat and raging wildfires are rampaging through the Southern Hemisphere at the start of 2026, with scientists predicting that even more extreme temperatures could lie ahead – and possibly another global annual high – after three of the hottest years on record.” (Record Heat and Raging Fires Ring in 2026 Across the Southern Hemisphere, Reuters)

Effective April 2026, Asia is under severe, early-season heatwaves with temperatures peaking at 45.4°C (113.7°F) in India, record-breaking heat in Southeast Asia, Indonesia, and East Asia. Regional temperatures are routinely exceeding 40°C (104°F) in India and 43°C (109.4°F) in Thailand driven by intense heat domes.(The Chosun Daily)

April 2025 to March 2026 was the hottest 12-month period on record for the continental U.S, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Just for laughs, President Donald Trump went on a climate change denial rant at a Turning Point event in Arizona d/d April 17^th, 2026, claiming Earth is actually “getting cooler.”

Earth Beyond Limits

Alarming statistics about record-setting worldwide heat generates interesting ‘buzz’ amongst smart people that recognize risks, before the fact. The Buzz: Earth being “pushed beyond its limits,” is a well-founded proposition as the planet’s energy imbalance reaches record highs. This extremely disturbing fact comes via the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

There’s also considerable ‘buzz’ about unlivable regions of the planet, growing worse by the year. It’s already an established trend. Alas, with major countries, such as the U.S., re-emphasizing fossil fuels and de-emphasizing renewables, the energy imbalance is likely to get out of hand, quickly.

For example, according to Where Climate Change Is Making Extreme Heat Unbearable, Bloomberg News d/d March 10, 2026: “Parts of Asia, Africa, Australia and North America are becoming unlivable for senior citizens… Younger adults also are losing time as climate-driven heat restricts their lives for 50 hours a year.”

“In Qatar, for instance, heat now makes it risky for older adults to engage in routine activities for a third of the year. Even 18-to-40-year-olds in that country must curb daily tasks for more than 800 hours a year or 10% of their time,” Ibid

Overall, more than a third of the global population resides in regions where heat severely affects daily life. Based upon current trends of fossil fuel usage and greenhouse gas emissions, it’ll get worse. When will countries finally squeal, “We can’t take it anymore!” Geez, what to do?

The WMO has confirmed 2015 to 2025 as the hottest 11 years ever measured.

Still, on the heels of that bleak report WMO delivered a bleaker message. The rising temperature on the surface that humans experienced was only a small percentage of the “faster-accumulating heat in the wider Earth system.” The oceans absorbed the great bulk of the heat imbalance. “The rate of ocean warming has doubled.” Indeed, this is the big-bad global heating bugaboo hidden from view that informed people believe will haunt society in due time, possibly sooner then later.

Astonishing Weather Events in SW US

In the United States, according to Yale Climate Connections, The 2026 Southwest U.S. Heat Wave Was One of the Six Most Astonishing Weather Events of the Century: “March 2026 was the warmest March on record for the continental United States in 132 years, with temperatures 9.4°F above the 20th-century average. A severe heat dome in late March brought summer-like temperatures to the Southwest, marking one of the most astonishing extreme heat events of the century.”

“The burning of oil, gas, coal and forests releases heat-trapping greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, which are all at their highest level in at least 800,000 years.” (Source: Earth Being ‘Pushed Beyond its Limits’ as Energy Imbalance Reaches Record High, The Guardian, March 23, 2026)

Scientists say the record-shattering heat in March in the SW was impossible without the impact of climate change. It’s shocking to get summer temperatures so early, which poses a question: Why does America promote oil and gas that directly influences scorching heat?

According to World Weather Attribution d/d March 20, 2026: “The impacts of this early-season heatwave are likely to extend beyond health and have environmental implications. High temperatures are expected to accelerate snowmelt in these parts, including the mountains of Colorado where the snowpack levels are already lowest since 1981 due to the preceding warm winter, and the Sierra Nevada region in California, where although snowfall was average, the high heat is likely to drive rapid snowmelt. Early snowmelt in these parts can reduce water availability during the summer months, increasing the risk of water shortages, prolonging and intensifying dry seasons and increasing wildfire danger,” Ibid.

Excessive CO2 fossil fuel emissions, like dominoes cascading one onto another, trap excessive heat impacting mountain snowpack reducing water availability intensifying dry season wildfires cranking up homeowner insurance premiums. The interconnectivity is remarkably precise.

The Production Gap – “Ten years on from the Paris Agreement, countries collectively plan even more fossil fuel production than before.”

According to a new study under the auspices of The Stockholm Environment Institute involving more than 80 researchers from several international institutes and the U.N. environmental agency, it warns that governments are planning to produce in 2030 more than twice the amount of fossil fuels than what’s consistent with complying with the Paris Agreement in 2015 signed by 193 countries pledging to cut emissions by 2030, they’re not. This guarantees more severe heat waves with additional crossings of the deadliest heat threshold in history, and it’s only going to get worse unless and until fossil fuels stop CO2 emissions, plus removal of current CO2 already in the system. But the technology to accomplish this is feeble.

Upcoming Research: There hasn’t been a March in America this dry in 131 years.

As of mid-April 2026, the US Drought Monitor has confirmed that much of America is locked in a vicious, dangerous drought. According to Yale Climate Connections, “Last month was the warmest March in records for the contiguous United States in national-scale data going back 132 years, according to NOAA’s monthly U.S. climate summary issued on April 8, 2026.”

Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at rlhunziker@gmail.com.

The Pope Is Right – The US-Israeli War With Iran Violates Just-War Theory

by Jordan Liz | Apr 24, 2026 | 

On April 10th, Pope Leo XIV posted on Twitter/X, “God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs. Military action will not create space for freedom or times of #Peace, which comes only from the patient promotion of coexistence and dialogue among peoples.”

The Pope’s condemnation of war drew the ire of the self-proclaimed “Peace President” and his allies. On TruthSocial, President Trump described the Pope as “Weak on Crime, Weak on Nuclear Weapons” and “terrible for Foreign Policy.” At a Turning Point USA event, Vice President J.D. Vance remarked, “When the pope says that God is never on the side of people who wield the sword, there is more than a 1,000-year tradition of just war theory.” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson was likewise “taken a little bit aback.” He told reporters, “It’s a very well-settled matter of Christian theology. There’s something called the just war doctrine.”

Yet just war is precisely the Pope’s point. As Bishop James Massa, the chairman of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, said in a statement:

“For over a thousand years, the Catholic Church has taught just war theory and it is that long tradition the Holy Father carefully references in his comments on war. A constant tenet of that thousand-year tradition is a nation can only legitimately take up the sword ‘in self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2308). That is, to be a just war it must be a defense against another who actively wages war, which is what the Holy Father actually said: ‘He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.’

Ultimately, this appeal to Just War Theory by Vance and Johnson is a desperate retort from a historically sinful administration. To date, Trump has authorized military strikes in 10 countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iran. Currently, the Pentagon is reportedly preparing for military action against Cuba – a nation that Trump has repeatedly threatened to “take.” This invasion would come months after the Trump administration imposed a total oil blockade that is causing widespread suffering and starvation there. No interpretation of Just War Theory would ever justify such rampant and senseless violence.

Just War Theory

Modern versions of Just War Theory are split into three components: first, jus ad bellum, or the conditions under which a nation may justifiably wage war. This includes: (i) a just cause (e.g., self-defense, protecting the innocent), (ii) war must be a last resort, (iii) right intention (i.e., the war must be conducted for the sake of justice – not self-interest or personal gain), and (iv) declared by a proper authority.

The second component is: jus in bello, or how a just war is waged. This includes: (i) distinguishing between civilians and combatants and (ii) proportionality (i.e., deploying the minimum amount of violence necessary to achieve one’s goal – no matter how righteous the cause, excessive destruction is unjust).

Finally, the third component is: jus post bellum, or how nations ought to act once the fighting has stopped, including during a ceasefire. This includes: (i) not punishing civilians, (ii) respecting the rights and traditions of the defeated, (iii) not exploiting the defeated nation, and (iv) rehabilitating the aggressor to avoid future violence.

Trump’s wars consistently fail these criteria. Consider the US-Israeli war with Iran.

Jus Ad Bellum

Trump alleges that this war was necessary to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. However, he had previously alleged that Operation Midnight Hammer had “significantly degraded Iran’s nuclear program.” There is no evidence that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon, had ambitions to develop nuclear arms, or that they posed an immediate threat to the US. There is no just cause here.

This war was also not a last resort. Not only was Iran negotiating with the US, but they also made major concessions to the Trump administration regarding their nuclear program. Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, who was mediating these talks, said, “I have seen a lot of flexibility on both sides, and I believe it’s really a matter of just keeping at it, keeping negotiating to get that to that finishing line.” Trump, however, unilaterally decided to stop these productive talks based on a “feeling” – not necessity.

The Trump administration has provided several, often conflicting, reasons for this war. Notably, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed that he has “longed” for this war “for 40 years.” President Trump has repeatedly insisted that, “If it were up to me, I’d take the oil, I’d keep the oil, it would bring plenty of money.” This is, after all, what he did in Venezuela after kidnapping President Nicolás Maduro. As Trump put it, after (rightfully) not winning the Nobel Peace Prize, he “no longer feel[s] an obligation to think purely of Peace.” His actions in Iran, Venezuela and elsewhere reflect this. They are not guided by the pursuit of justice or peace, but rather personal and financial gain.

As for proper authority, the Constitution is clear: Congress alone has the power “to declare War.” No congressional approval means no just war.

Jus In Bello 

On the very first day of the war, the US struck a girl’s elementary school killing more than 175 people. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies reports that at least 1,900 people have been killed and 20,000 injured in Iran since the start of US-Israeli attacks. On March 9th, Iranian Deputy Health Minister Ali Jafarian reported that 52 health centers, 18 emergency service locations and 15 ambulances had been damaged or destroyed. US-Israeli strikes also “completely destroyed” a synagogue in Tehran and at least 30 universities have been impacted. Trump has even gone as far as to threaten that, “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” Clearly, no distinction between civilians and combatants is being observed.

In clear violation of international law, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth pledges “no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.” On March 2nd, he remarked, “No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win, and we don’t waste time or lives.” There will be “no apologies, no hesitation” for “we are not defenders anymore. We are warriors, trained to kill the enemy and break their will.” By his own admission, Trump is likewise “not at all concerned about war crimes.” The point here is clear: excessive violence is this administration’s first resort.

Jus Post Bellum 

At the time of this writing, the US and Iran have agreed to a ceasefire. After the first round of talks, Vance, who was heading the US delegation, said Iran chose “not to accept our terms.” He remarks, “The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement, and I think that’s bad news for Iran much more than it’s bad news for the United States of America.” Vance’s wording makes clear that the US is not negotiating with Iran as equals. This is unsurprising. Throughout this conflict, Trump has repeatedly referred to Iran’s leaders as “lunatics” and “crazy bastards.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio has described them as “lunatics,” “insane” and “religious zealots.” This lack of respect for the Iranian people will only serve to further tensions and make a lasting peace less possible.

Indeed, the US initially sought to escalate hostilities during this ceasefire by imposing its own blockade on the Strait of Hormuz. The purpose here was clear: by blocking their oil exports, the US was hoping to coerce Iran into submission. Because of sanctions, the Iranian economy is already fragile – a blockade could have major financial and humanitarian consequences. Even during a ceasefire, the Trump administration’s first instinct is to cause collective suffering.

Amid the Lebanon ceasefire, Iran has agreed to open the Strait; however, Trump has declared that the American blockade on Iranian ships and ports “will remain in full force.”

Ultimately, this is not a war of self-defense. It is not a preemptive war against a legitimate threat. It is a war of glory and conquest. It is a war of sin.

The violence and suffering that the US and Israel have caused can never be undone. Yet, we can and must hold the responsible parties accountable. Trump, Netanyahu and everyone in their administrations who enabled this war must be brought to justice. They have shown themselves time and time again to lack the moral character necessary to lead a nation. Justice likewise demands that reparations be made. While no compensation can ever make up for the loss of innocent life, Iran must be provided with the tools and resources necessary to rebuild their nation.

On April 16th, Pope Leo XIV remarked, “The world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants, yet it is held together by a multitude of supportive brothers and sisters.” Once again, the Pope is right – we must never stop striving towards building a more peaceful and just world. A world where people are elevated, not buried under rubble; a world where children grow up safe and sound without fear of “Epstein’s Fury”; a world where love, compassion and respect for others trumps war, death and destruction.

Originally published at Common Dreams.

Jordan Liz is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at San José State University. He specializes in issues of race, immigration and the politics of belonging.

Trump tried to bully the Pope — and failed spectacularly: NYT analysis

Pope Leo XIV gestures after delivering the traditional Christmas Day Urbi et Orbi speech to the city and the world from the main balcony of St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican, December 25, 2025. REUTERS/Yara Nardi

Sarah K. Burris

April 24, 2026

ALTERNET

One thing that the ongoing spat between President Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV did was expose the hollow core of the Christian nationalism in his administration, one columnist argued on Thursday.

The New York Times' David French wrote that the spat between Trump and Pope Leo "may be the most important theological debate of my lifetime" for revealing how the administration's faith serves as a political prop but crumbles when confronted with actual Christian doctrine on war and morality.

Writing as the Pope finished up his packed 10-day trip across Africa, French explained that the one thing the new pontiff has exposed is that there is no real Christianity in Christian Nationalism.


His back and forth with Trump made it clear where he stands on war and peace, and his speeches across Africa on "global moral responsibility," aid for the poor, mentally ill, prisoners and others hammered the message home. He urged unity among all people, not just Catholics, calling on Christians in Algeria to strengthen ties with Muslims.

The result of Trump treating the pope "the way he would a freshman Republican congressman — trying to bully and bluster him into silence—" was outright failure, French said.


Trump brought the pope to the center of a national conversation about the war. A trip across Africa wouldn't normally have garnered much attention outside of religious publications and those who already follow it. But thanks to Trump, every word the pope said on the trip was reported, broke into the mainstream, and laid bare the "profound contrast between the two men."

"In this contest between a pope and a president, the president looks weak and erratic. He looks small. Between Trump and Pope Leo, there is only one man who is demonstrating strength and moral consistency on the world stage," French said.

The debate also made it clear that, despite its memes and public prayers, when the Christian part of "Christian nationalism" comes into conflict with the nationalist part, the latter prevails.


French cited Jesus’ words in Matthew 15: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.”

Further, the columnist said, Pope Leo raised the level of debate about war beyond Catholics, with a public debate about philosophy and religion regarding the nuances of "just war theory."

French pointed to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, making the theory clear: “The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy.”


He then compared it to the Department of Defense's Law of War Manual, which describes the "just war doctrine" as part of a “philosophical foundation” of the law of war.

“The just war tradition remains relevant for decisions to employ U.S. military forces and in warfighting," the manual says.

French cited Edward Feser, a Catholic philosophy professor, who penned a piece not long after the war began, to explain how Trump's decision failed the just war test. Even if there was a "just" reason for the war as a preemptive strike to protect future people, the administration hasn't made that case.

"If you’re going to argue that you intend to liberate the Iranian people, you have to show how your intervention — no matter how well intentioned — won’t actually increase their suffering," said French.


While it might focus on Iran now, it goes beyond just war doctrine and international law because it can bind nations in a moral alliance if they agree to follow only that doctrine.

"It helps bind together alliances. It enhances the effectiveness of the armed forces. American history demonstrates that national unity in a conflict is almost directionally proportionate to the justice of the cause. Contrast, for example, the unambiguous virtue of defending ourselves from Imperial Japanese and Nazi aggression with the far hazier justifications for our extended war in Vietnam," wrote French.

He noted that if a just war can bring allies together, then an unjust war can certainly tear them apart. A good example is NATO's response to Trump's Iran war compared to NATO's willingness to help the U.S. after Sept. 11, 2001.

All of this draws a clear line between the rhetoric that the Trump administration uses about Christianity to justify "corrupt and lawless actions" and the realities of Christian theology.


"The administration wants all the benefits of religion and none of the burdens. It wants to be seen as godly while acting godlessly," French closed.

Trump admin just exposed their contempt for Christians: analysis

Thomas Kika

April 22, 2026

ALTERNET

President Donald Trump and his administration talk a big game about their devotion to and support for religion, but in practice, their "high-octane condescension" exposes their "contempt toward Christianity," according to a new analysis from The Bulwark.

Mona Charen is a veteran writer and journalist who previously worked as a staffer for former President Ronald Reagan and as a speechwriter for First Lady Nancy Reagan. She is now an outspoken critic of Trump and his political agenda, writing for The Bulwark on Wednesday about the ways in which he has "revealed MAGA's anti-Christian nature."

"The past few days have featured the vice president of the United States lecturing the pope on morality and church doctrine; Sean Hannity making it official that he worships at the Church of Trump; Pete Hegseth quoting made-up verses from Pulp Fiction as if they were actual scripture; and Trump styling himself as Jesus Christ," Charen wrote. "A few years ago, one might have wondered how these acts of contempt toward Christianity would go down with the religious right, but after 10 years of cultishness, it would be foolish to expect many defections."


Speaking from her own background in the conservative movement, Charen called it "dizzying" to see "people who used to venerate religious leaders of all stripes" morph under Trump's influence into people who now "smack-talk the pope and commit what some have characterized as blasphemy." She took particular exception to Vance's "swipes at the vicar of Christ," in which he urged Pope Leo XIV "to stick to matters of morality," and "let the president of the United States stick to dictating American public policy," a set of assertions especially galling considering Vance's much publicized late-in-life conversion to Catholicism.

"You do Mass and baptisms and such and let us handle war and peace. That’s some high-octane condescension, but if he had stopped there, it would only have registered as normal MAGA insolence," Charen continued. "But no, Vance wasn’t finished. Speaking the next day at a Turning Point USA event, Vance rebuked the spiritual leader of 1.4 billion Christians (including himself: Vance converted to Catholicism in 2019) for his theology!"


While she herself is Jewish, Charen explained that she had always had an admiration for "serious Christians" and their commitment to doing good. In the face of Trump's contamination of right-wing religiosity, she called it "One of the sad revelations of our time" how MAGA has exposed "the shallowness of many Christians’ professed faith," becoming another in a long line of historical examples of faith being "perverted to enable cruelty and even atrocities."

"But the particular sacrilege that late stage Trumpism has adopted must be tearing at some hearts," Charen concluded. "From Trump’s declaration that unlike Erika Kirk, he doesn’t forgive his enemies, to his crude attacks on the pope as 'weak on crime,' to his insane AI rendering of himself as Jesus, he seems to be deliberately testing Christians’ forbearance. Above all, his threat to commit war crimes by deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure in Iran (bridges, power plants) and culminating in the maniacal vow to destroy Iranian civilization in one night ought to have produced a recoil in any nation with a conscience. Time to consider that he might be a false prophet—if people can distinguish truth from falsehood anymore."