“It’s a very Christian concept that you love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.” — Vice President JD Vance
Speaking with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Vice President Vance used Christianity to advocate for a “concentric circles” approach to moral obligation. While President Donald Trump’s “America First” foreign policy is not new, Vance’s use of Christianity to justify it is notable. After all, Christian teachings have long emphasized universal love, human dignity, and mercy—values that underlie both Christian charity and foreign aid. However, upon taking office, the Trump administration slashed Catholic Relief Services’ nearly $521 million in annual funding from USAID and subsidies to Christian charities working on refugee resettlement. In response, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops launched a lawsuit against the administration. Vance has shown outright hostility to these charities, stating: “The US Conference of Catholic Bishops needs to actually look in the mirror a little bit and recognize that when they receive over $100 million to help resettle illegal immigrants, are they worried about humanitarian concerns? Or are they actually worried about their bottom line?”
Vance’s framework may appeal to those who see pressing domestic issues—from the opioid epidemic to deindustrialization—as more important issues than foreign charity. The administration must tackle these domestic challenges. Vance’s rhetoric, however, is overly narrow. By preaching a selective reading of Christian theology, Vance creates a false choice between caring for our fellow citizens and maintaining moral leadership abroad. The United States can, and should, do both.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” – Galatians 3:28
Vance cited ordo amoris—a Catholic principle about ordered love—to justify the Trump administration’s cuts to foreign aid. The ancient theologian Saint Augustine explored this concept, noting that “all men are to be loved equally,” but “since you cannot do good to all, you are to pay special regard to those who, by the accidents of time, or place, or circumstance, are brought into closer connection with you.” Saint Augustine’s writing provides evidence that prioritizing those closer to oneself is rooted in Christian theology. This concept is also intuitive: It is natural that one will choose to support those who are closer because of kinship or national ties.
While Vance draws from precedents like Saint Augustine, he overlooks the message of other theological teachings such as the tale of the Good Samaritan. On February 10, 2025, Pope Francis, the highest authority in the Catholic Church, sharply contradicted Vance, noting, “the true ordo amoris that must be promoted is one which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan’… that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.” In the parable of the Good Samaritan, someone asks Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?” In response, Jesus shares how a Samaritan, despite religious differences, showed mercy to a wounded man. The Samaritan thus serves as a strong theological underpinning for Christians to not define “neighbor” merely as those closest to them but broadly to include a global community facing famine, war, and injustice.
Vance’s argument is also challenged by Thomas Aquinas—one of the foremost Catholic philosophers—who similarly contests Vance’s approach by noting that those in greatest need deserve priority. Aquinas argues that Christians should help those “who have greater want” rather than those “more closely united to us,” contradicting Vance’s “concentric circles” approach. Admittedly, Aquinas also says, “we ought to be most beneficent towards those who are most closely connected with us,” but his introduction of “want” frames ordo amoris as a more nuanced balancing act rather than the rigid delimitation that Vance proposes.
The Trump administration’s stop-work order of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is particularly concerning. Credited with saving over 25 million lives since the George W. Bush administration, PEPFAR represents a relatively low-cost yet highly impactful program. While international aid helps bolster US soft power, President Bush also saw it as the moral responsibility of a great nation to provide aid to those most vulnerable to HIV around the world. The cuts to PEPFAR shut down clinics and data systems across Africa as part of an unprecedented dismantling of the US foreign aid system, including lifesaving aid for mothers, food assistance, HIV medication, and refugee services.While Vance touts Christianity as a rationale for his insularity, the wholesale abandonment of this moral obligation in favor of a more localized, isolationist ethos contradicts the words of the Pope, the story of the Good Samaritan, and the teachings of Aquinas.
“What is needed … is stability, order, continuity, and a sense of gratitude for the past and obligation toward the future. … What is needed, in short, is regime change—the peaceful but vigorous overthrow of a corrupt and corrupting liberal ruling class and the creation of a postliberal order.” — Patrick Deneen
Vance’s use of Christianity to advocate for a “concentric circles” approach to moral obligations also contradicts liberalism’s emphasis on universal values. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith argues that “all those inferior interests should be sacrificed to the greater interests of the universe, to the interests of that great society of all sensible and intelligent beings, of which God himself is the immediate administrator and director.” Similarly, John Locke claimed that “[everyone] as he is bound to preserve himself… ought as much as he can preserve the rest of mankind.” This interest in “the rest of mankind” and the “great interests of the universe” emphasizes a global, collective concern for rights and freedoms—a hallmark of liberalism that Christian nationalism decidedly rejects.
Vance’s use of ordo amoris reflects a broader critique of liberal universalism, renouncing the idea that moral responsibility should extend beyond national borders. Liberalism—both religious and secular—has long defended the universal conception of human dignity. Influenced by conservative academics like Patrick Deneen, Vance has seemingly embraced the ascended argument for a more “rooted” politics focused on local ties and individual responsibility. Stronger community ties are a welcome change—it is odd, however, that Vance’s critique of liberalism focuses on the need to ration love rather than stemming from more legitimate concerns about failed government policies.
Ultimately, Vance’s selective invocation of Christianity to justify an insular moral frame- work shrinks the moral horizon of the United States at a time when global crises demand leadership. Contrary to his notion of “concentric circles,” Christian theology has a long tradition of interpreting ordo amoris to include a broader embrace of mercy and justice, as articulated by Pope Francis and Aquinas. The administration must offer policies that address the needs of local communities and prioritize US national interests, including the perceived failure of liberalism, but it should not lose sight of the moral leadership global programs like PEPFAR demonstrate.