Areas of Critical Concern, and Ways to Respond

2025 Annual Report of the Committee for Religious Liberty
Section VII

Section VII: Areas of Critical Concern, and Ways to Respond

Immigration was one of the prominent issues of the presidential election. The Trump campaign relied heavily on messaging about immigration. With the Republican Party finding electoral success with this kind of messaging, efforts to restrict the ability of Catholic ministries serving migrants will likely receive new momentum. The Trump transition team indicated intentions to rescind a policy against performing immigration enforcement raids in “sensitive locations,” such as churches.[89] 

The concern here is not limited to legislation and executive action. As the USCCB warned in 2024, beyond legal threats to religious liberty, the physical safety of staff, volunteers and clients of Catholic ministries and institutions that serve newcomers may be jeopardized by extremists motivated by false and misleading claims made against the Church’s ministries.

In 2025, the role of Catholics in political life will continue to be a hotly debated subject in the national discourse. Vice President-elect J. D. Vance has spoken openly about his conversion to the Catholic faith,[90] and he has said that his views are motivated by Catholic social teaching.[91] In addition to the vice president, it appears there will be a significant Catholic presence in the Trump administration.[92] Both supporters and opponents of the Trump administration can be expected to highlight the role of Catholicism in the administration, which may be a fresh source of partisan division among Catholics. As last year’s Annual Report noted: 

Catholics tend to regard their political affiliation as a more integral aspect of their identities than their Catholic faith. The positions of the two political parties, and the rhetoric on liberal and conservative media outlets, often form Catholics’ opinions on matters of faith more than Church teaching. The Church cannot offer an effective witness to religious liberty if we are beholden more to a political party than to God and the teaching of the Church, and if our beliefs are more political than religious.

In this sense, the long-running trend of political polarization within the Catholic Church in the United States seems likely to persist into 2025.

As reported in Section III, there is bipartisan interest in passing legislation that increases access to IVF procedures. Additionally, during the presidential campaign, President-elect Trump indicated his support for a nationwide IVF insurance coverage mandate.[93] It is unclear what kinds of exemptions for conscientious objectors the Trump administration will include in its plan. While much remains unknown, IVF mandates could pose religious liberty problems, as well as life and dignity problems, in 2025.

In 2024, attacks on the Jewish community rose precipitously. Anti-Muslim hate crimes also increased. When FBI hate crime statistics for 2023 were released in September 2024,[94] they revealed a sharp rise in antisemitic incidents in October, which continued through the remainder of 2023. Statistics for 2024 were not available at the time of publication for this report, but it is reasonable to believe those numbers remained elevated throughout 2024. While it seems most likely that the risk for continued elevated levels of anti-Jewish hate is especially high, it is possible that in 2025, members of the Muslim community could also suffer higher levels of attacks. As the conflict in the Middle East persists, antisemitic and anti-Muslim incidents will likely remain at elevated levels. 

Gender ideology has corroded religious liberty in recent years. However, there is reason to think that 2025 may mark a shift in this area. Arguments for things like “gender affirming care” increasingly face scrutiny. Following the 2024 election, Democratic strategists publicly questioned whether their party had become too extreme with some claims, such as the idea that biological males should be permitted to participate in women’s sports. Religious liberty advocates might find new openness on this issue. 

Recent years have witnessed surging interest in different forms of religious education, including parochial schools, classical schools, and homeschooling. Experiments in school choice programs have attained success at the state level. President-elect Trump supported school choice in his first term and in his campaign. In 2025, there may be an opportunity to help parents choose what is best for their children by promoting universal school choice proposals.

Threats and Opportunities

  1. Targeting of Immigration Services

The Catholic Church carries out ministries of service and charity in obedience to Our Lord, who has taught us that we will be judged on the basis of how we treated the stranger and the prisoner, the hungry and the thirsty (Matthew 25:31–46).[95] It is for this reason that the Church can be found serving people in need at our country’s borders and beyond. It is true that a nation has a right to regulate its borders and safeguard the communities within them. And it is true that religious liberty is not a license to injure the common good. However, it does not follow from these truths that Christian ministries can be prevented from serving immigrants and refugees. When a person in need comes before us, we don’t check their papers before serving them as Christ taught us. Rather, we recognize their inherent God-given dignity and the reality that “[e]very migrant is a human person who, as such, possesses fundamental, inalienable rights that must be respected by everyone and in every circumstance” (Caritas in veritate, 62). Ministry to migrants is not peripheral to the work of the Church. It is central. It institutionalizes those corporal works of mercy which are an expression of the love of Christ. 

A profound commitment to this expression of faith has been exhibited time and again throughout the history of the U.S. Catholic Church, even when anti-Catholic sentiment was more prevalent than it is today. In fact, the first American citizen to be canonized a saint by the Church was Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini, who was herself naturalized after arriving from Italy in 1889. Mother Cabrini devoted most of her life to serving her fellow immigrants and other vulnerable people “in order to communicate the love of Jesus to those who do not know Him or have forgotten Him.” Over one hundred years later, consistent with these same demands of Christian discipleship, the bishops of the United States and Mexico, in their joint pastoral letter from 2003, specifically called for “both a comprehensive network of social services and advocacy for migrant families.”[96] 

For these reasons, the targeting of faith-based immigration services constitutes a significant threat to religious liberty in 2025.

How to Respond

Catholic Charities and other religious service providers carry out the corporal works of mercy, regardless of the legal status of the people they serve. The USCCB is active in advocating for the rights of religious organizations, including religious charities that serve migrants. In the coming year, the USCCB may have the opportunity to urge Congress to clarify that merely serving vulnerable persons does not constitute encouraging “harboring” and that religious charities have the freedom to serve without discriminating on the basis of immigration status. Join the USCCB in these efforts by signing up for action alerts at www.votervoice.net/USCCB/register.

  1. Antisemitism

Religious freedom is not simply a matter of government policy. It is also a matter of culture. A political community does not have a culture of religious freedom when people are attacked for their faith. Widespread antisemitism is an affront to religious freedom.

Even prior to October 7, 2023, the Jewish community suffered hate crimes at a shockingly high rate. The volume and viciousness of the antisemitic attacks that have been taking place in this country—and all over the world—is unconscionable. No community—whether Jewish, Muslim, or Christian—should be persecuted because of its faith. No individual should be attacked because of his or her religion. 

Due to our common patrimony,[97] it is especially important that Christians express their solidarity with the Jewish people. As the Church and recent popes have acknowledged, over the centuries, Christians have often had turbulent relations with our Jewish sisters and brothers. We should be all the more willing to stand up to antisemitism.

As the elevated level of antisemitic incidents persists, the Church must be clear in her condemnation of attacks on Jewish communities and individuals. Antisemitism is one of the top threats to religious liberty in 2025.

How to Respond 

A first step toward confronting antisemitism, both in our country and among Catholics, is to learn how antisemitic thinking can insinuate itself in people’s thinking. The USCCB has partnered with the American Jewish Committee on a project called “Translate Hate: Catholic Edition,” which helps readers better understand how different words, symbols, and images communicate antisemitic ideas, and how the Catholic Church responds. The project also features ways you can make a difference by reporting antisemitic incidents to proper authorities. Learn more at www.usccb.org/resources/translate-hate-catholic-edition.

  1. IVF Mandates

The demand for IVF that has been expressed recently is understandable. Couples who suffer fertility challenges desire to grow their families, a good and holy desire, and IVF is presented as the solution to the problem. However, IVF procedures fail to uphold the dignity of the human person in multiple ways, most especially in the destruction of human life required by the procedure. IVF is inseparable from abortion, and it behooves Christians to find ways other than IVF to address fertility challenges in a way that respects human dignity.

The Catholic Church is committed to promoting and defending the dignity of all human life. Therefore, the Church opposes efforts to make IVF more accessible. Some of the proposed IVF bills have not only tried to expand access to IVF but have indicated that those who conscientiously object to these procedures could be forced to participate in them. The Catholic Church will resist these attempts to force people to participate in these procedures. 

IVF mandates represent a significant threat to religious freedom. But the national discussion of IVF also represents an opportunity for Catholics to evangelize and advocate for human dignity.

How to Respond

The USCCB advocates for policies that respect the dignity of all human life. In 2024, the USCCB was active in opposing IVF legislation. Sign up to receive action alerts at www.votervoice.net/USCCB/register and use your voice to advocate for legislation that defends human life and promotes an ethical restorative approach to reproductive medicine. 

  1. Scaling Back Gender Ideology in Law

As part of its 2022–2023 Do No Harm campaign, the USCCB worked on generating grassroots opposition to threats posed to religious liberty by new federal regulations. In 2024, most of the final versions of those regulations were released. These regulations impose severe burdens on people of faith. For example, under this regulatory regime, a Catholic hospital could be forced to participate in harmful gender transition procedures.

These regulations are bad for the people who would be harmed by the procedures they require. They are bad for the persons and institutions who would be coerced into participation in those procedures.

These regulations were proposed and finalized by the previous administration. A new administration presents the opportunity for the winding down of harmful regulations. In 2025, there may be occasion to take further action to ensure that religious liberty and conscience rights are protected in federal regulations.

In terms of the judicial branch, the Supreme Court will decide on a case with significant ramifications for the place of gender ideology in law. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, petitioners claim that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should be interpreted to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity, and thus invalidate the Tennessee law prohibiting the performance of gender transition interventions on children. As the USCCB argues in its amicus brief:

A ruling for Petitioner would . . . constitutionalize the view that the Catholic Church’s teachings are presumptively unlawful and undercut Obergefell’s guarantee that those who adhere to the Catholic and traditional understandings of marriage and the human body are “reasonable and sincere people” who do so “in good faith,”. . . , based on “decent and honorable religious” convictions. . . . The fallout would have wide-ranging effects across various social, economic, and professional contexts—including in Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools, Catholic shelters, Catholic charities, and even within Catholic churches themselves. And if the Court holds that classifications based on gender identity or sexual orientation are inherently suspect, there can be little doubt that the tax-exempt status of the Catholic Church as a whole will be questioned.

This case presents both a threat and an opportunity. As the USCCB brief notes, a ruling for the petitioners could be catastrophic for religious liberty. On the other hand, a favorable ruling could curtail some of the constant litigation religious groups have faced in recent years.

How to Respond 

The USCCB actively engages in the rulemaking process, and the voice of advocates can make a difference. USCCB advocates have submitted significant numbers of comments in previous campaigns, and they helped. As the new administration considers changes to regulations, the USCCB will continue to advocate for religious freedom. Sign up to receive alerts at www.votervoice.net/USCCB/register and make your voice heard.

5. Parental Choice in Education

One of longest running areas of concern for the Catholic Church in the United States has been the right of parents to direct the education of their children. Blaine Amendments—provisions in state laws that prevent religious institutions from receiving public funds—were developed by anti-Catholics in New England who sought to counter the efforts of Catholics to give their children a Catholic education when the public schools were essentially Protestant.

Today, although public education is now secular, it can still be hostile to some religious groups. In Mongomery County Maryland, for example, Muslim and other religious parents are engaged in litigation with the school district, which refuses to allow them to opt out of classes on sex and gender that are offensive to their faith.[98]

The Catholic Church is clear on this issue: parents have the right to direct the education of their children. That may mean something as simple as allowing parents to opt out of instruction that clashes with their religious beliefs. As Dignitatis humanae teaches:

Parents . . . have the right to determine, in accordance with their own religious beliefs, the kind of religious education that their children are to receive. Government, in consequence, must acknowledge the right of parents to make a genuinely free choice of schools and of other means of education, and the use of this freedom of choice is not to be made a reason for imposing unjust burdens on parents, whether directly or indirectly. Besides, the rights of parents are violated, if their children are forced to attend lessons or instructions which are not in agreement with their religious beliefs, or if a single system of education, from which all religious formation is excluded, is imposed upon all. (5)

This right may also entail that the government provide parents with the means to educate their children in accordance with their religion. The Church teaches that it is not enough for the government to merely allow parents to choose the right education for their children. The government should support parents. 

Public authorities must see to it that “public subsidies are so allocated that parents are truly free to exercise this right without incurring unjust burdens. Parents should not have to sustain, directly or indirectly, extra charges which would deny or unjustly limit the exercise of this freedom.” The refusal to provide public economic support to non-public schools that need assistance and that render a service to civil society is to be considered an injustice. “Whenever the State lays claim to an educational monopoly, it oversteps its rights and offends justice. . . . The State cannot without injustice merely tolerate so-called private schools. Such schools render a public service and therefore have a right to financial assistance.” (Compendium, 241)

In 2025, there may be opportunities to expand school choice programs across the United States. 

How to Respond

The USCCB Secretariat for Catholic Education is a leader in advocacy for the rights of parents to make authentically free choices regarding the education of their children. In the coming year, the Secretariat will be engaged in efforts to promote robust school choice policies. Get involved by subscribing to Catholic Ed Monthly, the newsletter of the Secretariat for Catholic Education.


[89] Julia Ainsley and Didi Martinez, “Trump plans to scrap policy restricting ICE arrests at churches, schools and hospitals,” NBC News, 11 December 2024: www.nbcnews.com/investigations/trump-scrap-restriction-ice-arrests-churches-schools-rcna183688.

[90] J. D. Vance, “How I Joined the Resistance,” The Lamp, 1 April 2020: thelampmagazine.com/blog/how-i-joined-the-resistance

[91] Matthew Schmitz, “Catholic Converts Like JD Vance Are Reshaping Republican Politics,” New York Times, 14 August 2024: www.nytimes.com/2024/08/14/opinion/jd-vance-catholic-convert-republican.html

[92] Megan Messerly, “The Catholics in Trump’s administration could take GOP in whole new direction,” Politico, 15 December 2024: www.politico.com/news/2024/12/15/conservative-catholics-second-trump-administration-000917

[93] See, for example, Meridith McGraw, “Trump calls himself ‘the father of IVF’ at Fox News town hall,” Politico, 16 October 2024: www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/10/16/2024-elections-live-coverage-updates-analysis/trump-father-of-ivf-enemy-within-00183982.

[94] U.S. Department of Justice, “FBI Releases 2023 Hate Crimes Statistics,” 23 September 2024: www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics.

[95] See also Bishop Mario Dorsonville, “Migration and the Judgement of Nations,” USCCB, 18 October 2022: www.usccb.org/resources/migration-and-judgement-nations

[96] See United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano, “Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope,” 22 January 2003: www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/strangers-no-longer-together-on-the-journey-of-hope

[97] See Pope Paul VI, Nostra aetate, 28 October 1965: www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

[98] Becket [news release], “Religious parents to Supreme Court: restore opt-outs for instruction on gender and sexuality,” 13 September 2024: www.becketlaw.org/media/religious-parents-to-supreme-court-restore-opt-outs-for-instruction-on-gender-and-sexuality/

Action alerts: Sign up for the tools you need to advocate for religious freedom

Sign up today!