“Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy.”

And so began President Trump’s Truth Social tirade against the current pontiff. The president and the Holy Father have not enjoyed the best relationship, even prior to Sunday’s social media outburst, but it can now be considered a feud.

Trump went on at length about Leo XIV’s opposition to Trump’s actions in Venezuela and Iran, as well as the pontiff’s criticism of the president’s domestic agenda. “Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician,” the president argued.

The Truth Social post did not receive widespread acclaim, even among Trump’s supporters. Americans consider it strange for a president to fight with the pope. Popes have frequently opposed American policy, both foreign and domestic. But they’re religious figures, not politicians, and Americans are accustomed to making that mental separation. Most lawmakers therefore avoid making a fuss when comments like these emerge from those quarters. It’s not like the pope controls his flock’s political opinions.

But this is a different situation. Leo and much of the church hierarchy seem eager to pick a fight with Trump. The first American pope and his prelates are waging an aggressive PR campaign against Trump’s agenda, particularly on immigration. When important leaders seem dead set on fighting Trump, it’s inevitable that this president will respond in kind. Trump may often express himself in what seems a crude fashion, but he has a point about these church leaders aiding the left. Leo and his bishops want to curtail immigration enforcement and encourage more liberal migration policies. That is bound to cause conflict with an administration keen on reversing America’s failed open border policies.

Fights between the pope and secular leaders were once a hallmark of Western civilization. Medieval kings and emperors regularly battled with the pope over who had greater authority, with some temporal rulers even imprisoning the pontiff, invading Rome, or recognizing a different prelate. The Reformation would’ve never gotten far without the support of secular authorities who were hostile to the pope’s authority. Tensions between the pope and secular rulers persisted into the modern era. Emperor Franz Joseph I, for instance, directly intervened in the 1903 papal election to ensure a candidate favorable to the Habsburg dynasty was selected.

Trump’s Truth Social post looks tame compared to a history of kings sacking Rome. But it’s unusual today because the pope lacks the temporal power he once had. He commands no armies, controls only a tiny state, and can barely get his fellow Catholics to follow his liturgical dictates. Modern developments have rendered the pope an unthreatening figure to secular authority. The Vatican is no longer the political power it was a century ago.

That is why politicians across the globe do not bother to get into fights with the papacy anymore. The Holy Father’s political statements are treated with gentle respect if they are in accord with the politician’s opinion or shrugs if they are not.

Trump has proven a notable exception to this rule. He tangled frequently with Leo’s predecessor, Francis, primarily over immigration. But the back-and-forth between the previous pope and Trump didn’t generate as much controversy as this current battle with Leo. Francis was likely easier to dismiss as he was not an American and had always been a vocal liberal. Leo, on the other hand, is an American with a more moderate image. His opinions, compared with those of the previous pontiff, appear to resonate more with American Catholics.

This is likely why Leo may want a battle with Trump. Unlike Francis, he has a greater ability to influence American politics. That may explain why he meets with prominent Democrats. Days before Trump’s anti-pope post, Leo met with Democratic strategist David Axelrod. Details of the meeting have not been released, but there’s speculation the encounter may have centered around setting up a one-on-one between the pope and Barack Obama. It’s also likely that American politics were discussed, and Axelrod, who helped engineer Obama’s victory in 2008, may have provided political advice to the Holy Father. It should be noted that Axelrod is not a Catholic, so it is odd for such a person to gain an audience with the pope.

Last November, the pope met with Illinois governor and 2028 hopeful J. B. Pritzker in the Vatican. This meeting may have a better explanation than Axelrod’s, as Pritzker is the governor of the pope’s home state. Still, it reinforces the impression that the pope is overly chummy with Democrats.

While criticism of Trump’s foreign policy may be the latest point of dispute between the two world leaders, many of the Catholic hierarchy’s problems with the president have centered on immigration. Leo frequently assails Trump’s immigration policies, which he considers “inhuman.” The mass deportations were so offensive in the eyes of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that this august body issued a rare pastoral document railing against the president’s agenda last year. The last time the conference issued such a message it was directed against Obama’s contraceptive mandate in 2013. Immigration appears to have replaced abortion as the hierarchy’s primary political concern.

Trump’s tirade was also inspired by a 60 Minutes report on three American cardinals and their objections to the policies of the administration. All three made it clear they strongly oppose Trump’s immigration policy, with admonitions against ICE, “indiscriminate” deportations, and noting how many of their churches in America now serve mostly the foreign-born.

This is not a message most conservative Catholics would agree with. Still, many on the right are finding themselves on the pope’s side in this dispute. Some believe it’s offensive for the president to bother criticizing the pope in such a manner. Some also believe that the Iran War is a grave mistake and think Leo is right to criticize the conflict. These are all understandable reasons to sympathize with the pope, but they overlook the Church’s chief motivation for conflict with the administration.

The Catholic hierarchy is pro-immigration and has long viewed Trump as a problem on this question. Leo and the bishops are choosing to engage in American politics to advocate for liberal immigration policies. This move is bound to draw opprobrium from the White House as it is the signature issue of this administration. The pope may think it’s a political battle he can win. Few are going to be thrilled with the president attacking the most prominent Christian figure in the world. But it might be a battle Trump can’t forego.

While the pope claims to be above politics, his own statements and those of his bishops belie this message. The Catholic hierarchy does have a political agenda, and its fundamental objective is to thwart restrictive immigration policies. The Trump administration defunded Catholic Charities USA, which was involved in migrant housing and resettlement. Immigration declines will affect churches that rely on the foreign-born to fill the pews, as the cardinals told 60 Minutes. If the Democrats return to power, they would advance this agenda. Catholic Charities USA would see its funding restored, and immigrant churches would be filled with parishioners again. It makes sense that Church leadership would make immigration their chief political issue since increased immigration is very much in its interest. But that doesn’t mean it deserves the respect of the laity.

Foreign policy is just the latest reason for tension between Catholic leaders and Trump. But make no mistake: the core dispute is, and always was, immigration. The bishops made that clear last year with their pastoral document. Moreover, the dispute remains one between the president and the hierarchy of the Church, more than one between him and American Catholics.

The president may have unartfully expressed his point, but it is true that the pope should stop being a politician and catering to the “Radical Left.” An “Immigrant First” agenda is no way to run the Church.