One of the first lessons we are taught as children is that if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all. President Donald Trump’s rhetoric surrounding the war in Iran shows how far U.S. political discourse has deviated from that societal standard and why that shift matters. When the stakes involve war, civilian casualties and global instability, words are not harmless. Unlike hurt feelings on a playground, a president’s language carries real-world consequences.
Trump’s recent threats toward Iran, including warnings of catastrophic destruction, signal a willingness to escalate conflict in ways that could put millions of people in danger. With ongoing negotiations, uncertain ceasefire conditions and international actors offering conflicting accounts, such harsh and harmful rhetoric risks deepening fear, confusion and instability worldwide.
On Easter Sunday, April 5, Trump further escalated that rhetoric, posting a message to his Truth Social account that threatened the destruction of Iranian infrastructure. He posted, “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the [retracted] strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP.” This bizarre statement invoked violence and seemed to mockingly praise God in the same breath, blurring the line between political messaging and moral justification.
A week later, on April 12, Trump posted an AI-generated image depicting himself as a Jesus Christ-like figure before deleting the post on Monday. The same day, Trump posted a lengthy statement criticizing Pope Leo XIV, calling him “weak on crime” and “very liberal.” The post followed a 60 Minutes segment highlighting the Vatican’s criticism of the Trump administration’s war with Iran, with a group of U.S. cardinals skewering the war and saying that it did not meet the Church’s criteria for a “just war.”
As laid out by the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2307-2308, “The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war. All citizens and all governments are obligated to work for the avoidance of war.” In 2266, it states, “However, as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”
Trump’s rhetoric undermines the moral conditions required for a just war, as he is not taking every precaution possible to de-escalate conflicts and remain at peace. Throwing out profanities and insults is not diplomatic in the slightest. Instead, it directly escalates war and tensions. Threatening destruction contradicts “last resort” thinking. Reckless rhetoric like this undermines moral legitimacy, showing that Trump is taking just war theory and Christian values as anything but serious. Just war theory argues for jus ad bellum with the international legality of a war depending on its just cause, proper authority, last resort, proportionality and reasonable chance of success.
In a Palm Sunday homily, Pope Leo declared, “Brothers and sisters, this is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war. He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them, saying: ‘Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood’ (Is 1:15).” Following this statement, the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine Bishop James Massa explained, “When Pope Leo XIV speaks as supreme pastor of the universal Church, he is not merely offering opinions on theology, he is preaching the Gospel and exercising his ministry as the Vicar of Christ. The consistent teaching of the Church is insistent that all people of good will must pray and work toward lasting peace while avoiding the evils and injustices that accompany all wars.”
Trump’s failure to do so is especially evident in his April 7 post threatening mass destruction of Iranian civilization, where he states that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” While later the same day, Pakistan brokered a two-week ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran that consists of a halt to attacks and a temporary reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, Trump’s rhetoric left lasting harmful impacts. This ceasefire has been tumultuous and under threat ever since its implementation, fostering fear and uncertainty.
The language a president uses in times of global strife and conflict is essential for promoting peace efforts. Rhetoric emphasizing mass destruction, mockery or moral ambiguity directly influences how the general public and global leaders perceive and respond to conflict, how diplomacy is conducted and how escalation becomes more likely. Language can become part of the weaponry and war itself, with the power to narrow or expand peace efforts.
Just war theory and Catholic teaching hold restraint, proportionality and the preservation of human life as essential principles of peace, with action and intentions. It becomes dangerous territory when speech deviates from those principles. Global leaders have a grave responsibility to recognize the impact of their words and to think before speaking (or posting), so that their rhetoric may emphasize peace, diplomacy and a path away from conflict and towards restraint.
Hailey Baker, FCRH ’27, is a political science major from Gaithersburg, Maryland.
