By John Tantillo
Wednesday, 06 May 2026 11:59 AM EDT
Branding principles can serve to illuminate the underlying motivations and strategies behind the “clash” between President Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV, helping readers grasp the deeper dynamics at play.
Like it or not, marketers can help us understand what’s going on, shedding some light as to why both personalities are correct in the positions they’ve taken.
Acknowledging and clarifying these brands’ roles can help readers feel more connected and see their relevance in this clash.
First, our nation’s 47th commander in chief’s brand is that of the leader of the free world, whose responsibilities include protecting, globally, those who seek to harm the innocent.
Pope Leo, on the other hand, has the brand of a holy man whose role is to educate and counsel his followers (the flock) on the best moral choices, especially when confronting complex ethical matters.
The pope’s brand, it may be argued, is one of an ideologist, challenging believers to act in the most moral way they can.
This is seen in the 1960’s, in the theological position proposed by Joseph Fletcher, “Situational Ethics,” which holds that right and wrong depend on the situation. (BBC (1967) Moral Responsibility: Situation Ethics at Work, by Joseph Fletcher; Westminster Press, 1967).
Stated another way, in this particular circumstance (situation), is the behavior in question justifiable in the eyes of God, or should an alternative action take precedence?
This question invites readers to feel curious about moral flexibility and the complexity of ethical choices.
Some have argued that this model doesn’t lay out an objective moral prescription for how to act, isn’t really a method at all, and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
For this group of critics, a more objective rubric is needed for the serious moral human being to follow, which is why the pope is weighing in on this question.
In a country that has become increasingly secular in recent years, the short- and long-term political effects of this dispute remain unknown, especially ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
According to one Catholic interviewee, Leticia Velasquez, a devout Catholic who registered as a Republican and is a three-time Trump voter, said Trump’s profanity-laced post threatening Iran on Easter Sunday bothered her. She bristled when the President lashed out at Leo after the pontiff’s public condemnation of the war in Iran and accused him of catering to the left.
Velasquez, 63 years old, said she doesn’t always agree with Leo — she sent him “snappy” replies on X over his immigration stance — but added that she can’t tolerate personal attacks on him.
Whether she will change her vote in the midterms is a fool’s errand, since she has voted for Trump three times.
This begs the question of whether there is in fact a real divide among today’s Catholics.
Another Catholic interviewee, Phil Liquori, who is 65 and lives in North Haven, Conn., retired from a career raising funds for a religious order and considers himself a devout Catholic, said: “Leo shouldn’t weigh in on politics, and that Trump’s artificial-intelligence post is satire from an imperfect man. Everybody seems to love to jump on Trump.”
For the partisan, there are plenty of arguments to support their position in the battle-of-the-brands debate. For the thoughtful person, it’s not that easy.
Here, one must address the brand issue, appreciate each brand and what it represents, and agree that both personalities’ positions have merit.
And that’s why it’s so much easier to evaluate moral/ethical matters when one has branding in mind.
Dr. John Tantillo is a Marketing professor at Lander College for Men. He also teaches Social Media Marketing and Branding at Touro University’s Graduate School of Business. He is the author of the popular book: “People Buy Brands, Not Companies.”
