Day: October 28, 2026

Catholic Voters Must Bring Catholic Social Tradition to the Polls | By Elena Jarm

elenajarm1

Catholic voters in the US do not belong to a single political party, yet they belong to the same Church. How do these Catholic values resonate with voters? More importantly, as political tensions rise in the midterm election, what factors should Catholic voters consider when heading to the polls? 

Republicans have coined the term “Religious Right,” and historically claim to promote conservative traditionalist values.1 In fact, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center study, 85% of white Evangelical Christian voters tend to align more directly with the Republican party. However, the party’s hold on Catholic voters–white and nonwhite–is not quite as strong. In the same 2024 Pew Research Center study, it’s reported that out of all Catholics, 52% were likely to vote Republican, compared to 44% for Democrats. It is worth noting that a huge proportion of Catholic voters in the US are Hispanic voters who are more clearly divided between the parties–60% Democrat to 35% Republican–as compared to White Catholics.2 Overall though, the data shows that Catholics still do not “belong” to any particular party. 

The mentioned Pew Research Center poll was from the 2024 election cycle, and a lot has changed in the world of US politics and in the Catholic Church since that time. In the realm of US politics, the Trump Administration has expanded its use of executive power, a move that remains highly controversial.3 The Trump Administration has also caused an uproar in issues of immigration and international intervention.4 On the other hand, in the world of Catholicism, Pope Francis passed away in 2025, leading way to the first Pope from the United States, hailing from the South Side of Chicago: Pope Leo XIV. Pope Leo since stepping into this vocation, has been outspoken against inhumane treatment of all individuals–vigorously calling for acts of peace.5

U.S. Catholics have experienced administrative changes in the Church and State, witnessing increased state-sanctioned violence within the US–such as deaths at the hands of ICE agents. As a result, it’s becoming increasingly imperative to watch Catholic voters as they face these dynamic shifts in authority figures. Knowing this, Pew Research Center recently conducted a new study on religious groups and their 2026 midterm preferences. From this study, it was revealed that the majority of Catholic voters, white and non-white, now prefer the Democratic Party (42%) to the Republican Party (39%). Despite this plurality, white Catholic voters still lean more Republican (50%) than Democrat (32%), but these margins are narrower than they were two years ago. Currently, data shows that the “Religious Right” only has a clear majority with White Evangelicals.6

There is no clear explanation for this new divide, but it’s worth noting that with the new Pope, there has been a strong emphasis on human dignity and peace. In Pope Leo’s Encyclical, he emphasizes that “ […] today we must once again reflect on the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice.”7 This emphasis on the common good is in conversation with not only world leaders, but with all Catholics. 

Since Catholics have been assigned homework, or perhaps reminded of Church Doctrine, it’s important for researchers, as well as political actors competing for the Catholic vote, to question if the Encyclical had any effect on party allegiances. It’s also crucial for researchers to consider that as the parties are increasingly polarized, is there any true representation of Catholic doctrine by either party? It is true that it is not the job of the government to encompass Catholic ideas, nor should it, as doing so would violate the long-established separation of Church and State. However, it would be interesting to study how Catholics vote in the 2026 midterm election: would the shift away from the Republican Party continue? 

Despite any new patterns that may occur in the midterm election, it’s for the best that not one party “owns” the Catholic vote; it is the job of the Catholic voter to vote for policies that they believe will bring forth a more just society. In this election, Catholic voters must reaffirm and reassess their politics to consider human dignity and ask themselves what it means to build and maintain a society that values the common good. 

  1. Wuthnow, Robert. “THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT.” In Red State Religion: Faith and Politics
    in America’s Heartland. Princeton University Press, 2012. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7rjr5.12. ↩︎
  2. Pew Research Center. 2024. “Party affiliation of US voters by religious group.” Pew
    Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/party-identification-among-religious-groups-and-religiously-unaffiliated-voters/. ↩︎
  3. Hennen, Mia. 2025. “Trump’s number of executive orders surpasses first term.” Pew
    Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/12/16/trump-has-already-issued-more-executive-orders-in-his-second-term-than-in-his-first/. ↩︎
  4. Baum, Matthew. n.d. “How do Americans feel about President Trump’s immigration
    policy?” Harvard Kennedy School. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/democracy-governance/how-do-americans-feel-about-president-trumps. ↩︎
  5. Smith, Gregory A. 2026. “Religious Groups Differ Widely in Their 2026 Midterm
    Preferences.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/10/13/religious-groups-differ-widely-in-their-2026-midterm-preferences/ ↩︎
  6. Pew Research Center. 2024. “Party affiliation of US voters by religious group.” Pew
    Research Center.
    https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/party-identification-among-religious-groups-and-religiously-unaffiliated-voters/. ↩︎
  7. Pope Leo XIV. 2026. “Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Leo XIV Magnifica Humanitas  
    (15 May 2026).” The Holy See.https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html. ↩︎

Nearly Two Years In, Has RFK Jr. Made America Healthy Again? | By Max Scharpf

maxscharp2

Two years ago, RFK Jr. made a promise to the American people that he would fix the nation’s chronic disease crisis, and “Make America Healthy Again.” Under his leadership, the Department of Health and Human Services has drastically changed directions, targeting food standards, assistance programs, and vaccination policies. However, much is still left to be asked, and much is to be questioned.

On August 23, 2024, Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. suspended his independent presidential campaign and endorsed then-candidate Donald Trump, pledging: “If I’m given the chance to fix the chronic disease crisis and reform our food production, I promise that within two years we will watch chronic disease burden lift dramatically. We will make Americans healthy again.”1 

Since his appointment as Secretary of Health and Human Services on February 13, 2025, Secretary Kennedy has sought to translate this promise into policy under the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) moniker. As the deadline for his end-of-campaign promise closes in, an evaluation of the Department under his leadership reveals the progress made toward reforming American public health and transparency, and whether MAHA policies are likely to produce measurable improvements in the nation’s wellbeing.

An immediate priority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under Secretary Kennedy was a review of the American diet, with an emphasis on reducing exposure to highly processed foods, added sugars, and artificial food dyes.2 In January 2026, the HHS and Department of Agriculture released the ‘Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2025-2030,’ detailing nutrition standards for schools, food programs, and future policy. The guide encourages Americans to “eat real food,” particularly whole, organic produce, and to consider calories, sodium, and added sugars.3 In a press conference, Secretary Kennedy remarked: “We spend three times more per capita than the European Union on healthcare, yet our life expectancy is five years lower, largely due to diet-related chronic disease.”4 While rhetoric and information promoting dietary conscientiousness represents a step in the right direction, the guidelines released by the HHS and USDA are not directly enforceable against food manufacturers nor consumers–their impact instead depends on the efficacy of other federal agencies in their implementation. A further consideration is food access: while the HHS may encourage the consumption of healthy dietary staples, its consideration of the ongoing increase in grocery prices and the consumer price index has been limited, if not inflammatory. Secretary Kennedy has been a vocal proponent of removing “junk food” from SNAP and other benefits programs–a policy implemented via waivers in 23 states, including Indiana.5 Critics of current HHS and USDA leadership argue that these restrictions place additional burdens on low-income Americans, due to the relatively higher cost of certain whole food products.

Another tenet of the MAHA-era HHS policy is combatting the use of petroleum-based artificial food dyes, in response to research suggesting that their consumption may lead to exacerbated behavioral problems and hyperactivity, particularly in children.6 The HHS has initiated a campaign to phase-out artificial dyes via expanding previous policies that scrutinize labelling and authorizations, as well as by coordinating with the nation’s top manufacturers in voluntary programs, the progress of which can be reviewed publicly.7 Action against potentially harmful dyes, and increased research and approval of natural dyes represents one of the Department’s major wins over the past twenty months, but the lack of decisive regulations and the slow transition from participating manufacturers demonstrate the limits of this success. Thus far, commitments have been made on the basis of government pressure of future legislation and the ability of firms to reap reputational benefits, but until solid policy is passed, these efforts lack formal enforcement.

The third, and undoubtedly most divisive stance that Secretary Kennedy has taken regards vaccination: a subject he brought up numerous times in his campaign suspension speech, and has since made a central focus. In June 2025, the Secretary cleared house within the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, intending on replacing all of its sitting members with new appointees, marking a major change in American vaccination policy.8 In January 2026, an attempt was made to revise the federal immunization schedule for children, reducing the number of covered diseases. The overhaul has since been blocked in the courts by Democratic judicial appointees, such as District Judge Brian Murphy, and efforts have also been obstructed by numerous state lawsuits.9 It is the view of MAHA’s current direction that parents ought to be more involved in discussions with pediatricians regarding children’s vaccination–a position held on the basis of improving transparency and addressing distrust in profit-seeking pharmaceutical companies and government regulators.10 Public reception is divided on this issue. Critics opposing Secretary Kennedy’s perspective call into question prior comments in which the Secretary linked autism and hypertension to vaccination, while those in favor approve of this skeptical approach and plans to further research the side effects of vaccines.11

As the deadline for these promises draws closer, it is clear that there is much left to be asked of Health Secretary Kennedy and his Department in addressing the chronic illness and broader health crisis that befalls the United States. While the Department has shown signs of direction and strong rhetoric, enforceable action has been limited and statistical improvement scarce. Today’s Verdict: No, America is not yet healthy.

  1.  Rev. “RFK Jr. Suspends 2024 Presidential Campaign.” August 26, 2024. https://www.rev.com/transcripts/rfk-jr-suspends-2024-presidential-campaign. ↩︎
  2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “HHS, FDA, and USDA Address Health Risks of Ultra-Processed Foods.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/hhs-fda-and-usda-address-health-risks-ultra-processed-foods. ↩︎
  3.  U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030. January 2026. https://cdn.realfood.gov/DGA.pdf. ↩︎
  4.  CBS News. “RFK Jr. Announces New Dietary Guidelines and End to ‘War on Saturated Fats.’” YouTube video, January 7, 2026. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OqPdybG7eo. ↩︎
  5.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Secretary Kennedy Celebrates More States Removing Junk Food from SNAP at MAHA Monday on the National Mall.” August 4, 2025. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/maha-monday-snap-waivers.html. ↩︎
  6.  Miller, Mark D., Chris Steinmaus, Myra S. Golub, et al. “Potential Impacts of Synthetic Food Dyes on Activity and Attention in Children: A Review of the Human and Animal Evidence.” Environmental Health 21 (2022): 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00849-9. ↩︎
  7.  U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Tracking Food Industry Pledges to Remove Petroleum-Based Food Dyes.” Accessed October 13, 2026. https://www.fda.gov/food/color-additives-information-consumers/tracking-food-industry-pledges-remove-petroleum-based-food-dyes. ↩︎
  8.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “HHS to Restore Public Trust in Vaccines with New ACIP Members.” https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-restore-public-trust-vaccines-acip.html. ↩︎
  9.  Raymond, Nate, Ahmed Aboulenein, and Leah Douglas. “US Judge Upends Kennedy’s Overhaul of Childhood Vaccine Policies.” Reuters, March 16, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-judge-blocks-efforts-reshape-childhood-vaccine-policy-2026-03-16/. ↩︎
  10.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “HHS to Restore Public Trust in Vaccines with New ACIP Members.” June 9, 2025. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-restore-public-trust-vaccines-acip.html. ↩︎
  11.  Sanders, Bernie. “Sanders Statement on Voting No on RFK Jr.” Office of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-statement-on-voting-no-on-rfk-jr/. ↩︎