Tom Homan, the former U.S. Border Czar, has openly challenged the recent stance taken by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) regarding immigration policy. The bishops have expressed opposition to mass deportations and condemned what they view as rising anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S. In response, Homan, a lifelong Catholic, accused the Church of undermining both national sovereignty and the enforcement of immigration laws, which he believes are essential for maintaining order and safety.
The disagreement gained traction during the USCCB’s Fall Plenary Assembly in Baltimore on November 14, 2025. At this assembly, the bishops overwhelmingly endorsed a “Special Message” that emphasized compassion for migrants. They voiced their concern over the “heated and often misleading rhetoric” pertaining to immigration. The bishops argued that threats against places of worship as sanctuaries for migrants are deeply troubling.
Homan responded with pointed criticism outside the White House, asserting, “The Catholic Church is wrong.” He stressed that ignoring the enforcement of immigration laws invites chaos, contending instead that “Secure borders save lives.” His statements reflect a growing conviction among critics who argue that compassion must not come at the expense of public safety.
The exchange sparked significant attention on social media, revealing a backlash particularly among conservative users. One viral tweet, featuring a line of clown emojis, derided the bishops’ position, capturing the sentiment that some view the Church as shifting from spiritual guidance to political activism.
Crucially, this debate unfolds against a backdrop of scrutiny surrounding the USCCB, which is currently under federal investigation for potential mismanagement related to government funds tied to contracts for migrant resettlement. Critics suggest that the Church’s involvement in this network may inadvertently incentivize dangerous migration patterns, raising concerns about the relationship between religious organizations and federal immigration policy.
Bree A Dail, an investigative journalist, pointedly noted, “USCCB is under investigation… encouraging unprecedented levels of human trafficking and smuggling.” This growing concern hints at a disconnect between the bishops’ compassionate rhetoric and the implications of their actions on the ground, as many fear that the Church may actively contribute to worsening vulnerabilities among migrants.
Matt Walsh, a commentator, criticized the bishops for what he perceives as a lack of moral consistency. He stated, “I don’t recall the bishops making any sort of video like this to condemn the Biden White House for… mass slaughter of children in the womb.” His critique highlights a frustration that many feel regarding the Church’s prioritization of issues, suggesting a selective approach to activism that overlooks significant moral challenges.
Homan reinforced these criticisms, questioning the bishops’ silence on other pressing issues while they vocally address immigration. “Where was the bishops’ outrage when parishes were shut down?” he asked. He highlighted the struggles faced by working-class communities adversely affected by drug and gang violence linked to porous borders. Through these remarks, Homan paints a picture of the bishops as increasingly detached from the realities impacting their congregations.
In contrast, the bishops remain steadfast in their pastoral message, asserting that their primary role is to reflect compassion toward those seeking refuge. They lament the fear and suspicion surrounding migrants, reminding their audience that “These are children of God.” While this language may resonate with some, it often disregards the stark statistics that underscore the consequences of lax border enforcement.
Data from Customs and Border Protection indicates over 2.4 million encounters at the southern border in the fiscal year 2025, marking an unprecedented high. Coupled with surging fentanyl seizures—over 14,000 pounds—these figures illustrate the tangible dangers associated with weak immigration control, which Homan argues must not be overlooked. “This isn’t about turning away the poor,” he asserts. “It’s about stopping cartels from exploiting our compassion.”
Homan further criticized the concept of sanctuary churches that offer refuge to undocumented migrants, claiming that this approach turns churches from havens into accomplices of illegal behavior. He cautions that the policy implications can endanger American families, especially when it allows for the presence of individuals with criminal backgrounds.
As the USCCB shows no indication of retracting their message, the rift demonstrates a broader division within the American Catholic community, particularly among congregants who supported stricter immigration policies during the Trump administration. With midterm elections approaching, pressure is mounting for Catholic leaders to clarify their stance: whether to prioritize adherence to the rule of law or extend unseen support to all migrants, regardless of their legal status.
Homan’s advocacy for stricter immigration enforcement reflects his belief that humanitarian efforts and border integrity can coexist. “A country without borders is not a country,” he declared. “You can’t show love by letting people die trying to get here.” In this ongoing debate, it is evident that the conversation has evolved beyond mere policy discussions. Now, it encompasses theological interpretations, moral authority, and broader institutional trust.
In essence, as the discourse intensifies, one truth remains clear: the immigration debate is not just about policy anymore; it involves deeply held beliefs and the accountability of institutions that claim to uphold moral values. For many observers, including those who resonated with sentiments expressed online, the bishops’ stance is viewed not only as misguided but as fundamentally at odds with the real experiences of communities affected by open borders.
"*" indicates required fields
