Last week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. State Department for halting refugee assistance to programs operated by church agencies under its oversight. The suspension is widely regarded as unjustified and detrimental.
For 45 years, long before the faith-based initiative introduced by George W. Bush, the USCCB has received federal funding allocated by Congress to assist legally admitted refugees. These individuals, often forced to flee their home countries due to threats or extreme hardship, rely on this support to integrate into American society. Under the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration within the State Department, Catholic agencies play a crucial role in helping refugees obtain Social Security cards, secure health insurance, and enroll in English language programs. Additionally, they receive cultural orientation and employment assistance for their first 90 days in the country.
As the largest non-governmental organization dedicated to refugee resettlement in the U.S., the USCCB is responsible for assisting 17% of all admitted refugees. For the current fiscal year, it was awarded $65 million in government contracts and contributed an additional $4 million of its own funds. However, with the sudden suspension of assistance, the program has been forced to lay off 50 employees. Without reimbursement from the government for ongoing expenditures, the organization faces the grim reality of scaling back services for the 6,700 refugees under its care.
The Trump administration has justified this move by claiming that it aligns with executive orders aimed at pausing foreign development aid and “realigning” refugee admissions policy. However, this reasoning appears flawed, as aiding refugees already admitted to the U.S. has little to do with either objective. In its letter to the USCCB, the administration stated that the funds “may no longer effectuate agency priorities” but failed to clarify what those priorities are or why the funding no longer aligns with them.
The administration’s priorities regarding refugees are clear. Under Trump’s leadership, policies have consistently sought to limit the entry of both refugees and immigrants into the U.S. When he previously held office, Trump slashed the annual refugee admissions cap to 20,000, a dramatic reduction from the 86,000 permitted during the final year of the Obama administration. Historically, the U.S. has accepted more than 90,000 refugees per year on average.
The decision to make life more difficult for those already admitted serves these priorities. The USCCB has highlighted the importance of refugee assistance programs, stating that they “promote the successful settlement of refugees in their communities, including by promoting gainful employment or connections to educational opportunities, thereby diminishing the likelihood that newly arriving refugees will be dependent on ongoing public support.” In other words, ensuring that refugees become self-sufficient undermines the administration’s broader agenda of restricting refugee resettlement.
In its lawsuit, the USCCB argues that the suspension violates multiple legal statutes and disrupts the constitutional separation of powers, as Congress had appropriated the funds in question. However, beyond the legal argument, the organization also emphasizes religious motivations for its involvement in refugee assistance.
The lawsuit asserts that refugee assistance is “an expression of charity taken in fulfillment of Christ’s commandment to serve those in need.” It further states that “The Catholic Church has cared for refugees since the earliest days of Christianity.” Additionally, it cites a passage from the Gospel, emphasizing the church’s moral obligation: “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me.”
The USCCB also references Pope Paul VI’s words on the duty of hospitality: “The ‘duty of giving foreigners a hospitable reception’ is ‘imposed by human solidarity and by Christian charity.’” Furthermore, Cardinal Blase Cupich has underscored the church’s commitment to this mission, stating, “USCCB does so not because the refugees are Catholic (many are not), but because we are Catholic.”
While the lawsuit raises religious arguments, it does not claim that the suspension violates the USCCB’s religious liberty under the First Amendment. The Catholic Church does not have an inherent right to federal funding for religiously motivated humanitarian work, and if the State Department’s policy applies to all recipients equally, there is no legal basis to argue that the church’s free exercise rights have been infringed.
However, this decision contradicts the rhetoric of an administration and political party that have positioned “religious liberty” as a core issue. Despite championing religious freedoms in other contexts, the administration appears indifferent when those freedoms intersect with immigration policy. The prevailing attitude seems to be: “Religious liberty be damned.”
This pattern is evident in other immigration-related actions taken under Trump. On the day of his second inauguration, the Department of Homeland Security revoked its long-standing “sensitive locations” policy, which had previously limited Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from conducting raids, arrests, and other enforcement actions at houses of worship.
Following this change, multiple religious organizations filed a lawsuit arguing that the new policy violates the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Just this past Monday, a federal judge in Maryland ruled against the administration, temporarily blocking ICE from conducting enforcement actions at the places of worship of the religious groups that had sued.
Meanwhile, in Texas, state Attorney General Ken Paxton is working to shut down Annunciation House, a Catholic nonprofit that has provided shelter to immigrants and refugees in the El Paso area since 1976. In a lawsuit argued before the Texas Supreme Court last month, Paxton contended that Annunciation House is not a Catholic institution and that its work—offering food and housing to impoverished migrants—does not constitute a religious practice.
This argument has been met with strong opposition from the Catholic bishops of Texas. In an amicus brief, they refuted Paxton’s claim, stating:
“The Catholic bishop of El Paso and his predecessors in office have determined that Annunciation House, whose very name invokes the angel Gabriel’s announcement of the incarnation of Christ, is and has been for many years a Catholic ministry. Determining who is Catholic or what ministerial activity is Catholic is left only to the Catholic Church, not to state actors. To allow otherwise would impermissibly place governance of the faith with the state rather than the religious organization itself, trampling on the very idea of free exercise of religion.”
Given these circumstances, one might expect legal organizations that have zealously defended religious freedoms in other contexts to support Annunciation House. After all, these same groups have fought for the right of religious institutions to refuse services to LGBTQ+ individuals, to keep places of worship open during public health emergencies, and to exclude abortion coverage from employee health plans.
However, when it comes to immigration, their silence is deafening.