Irina Tsukerman on faith, foreign policy and freedom of expression

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): El Prensero

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/06

How does Irina Tsukerman’s analysis of Pope Leo XIV, US deportation policies, and global media repression reflect broader trends in authoritarianism, disinformation, and the international defense of human rights?

Dialogue conducted on May 9, 2025. Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Irina Tsukerman, a lawyer specializing in human rights and national security, about the most pressing issues on the global stage. They discuss the implications of Pope Leo XIV’s centrist leadership, the resurgence of liberation theology, and the evolving role of the Church in international politics. Tsukerman criticizes US immigration practices under the Trump administration, particularly deportations to unstable regions such as Libya and Ukraine. The conversation also covers press freedom in Greece, disinformation campaigns, and the fine line between journalism and foreign political interference. Tsukerman emphasizes the need for moderation, institutional integrity, and strong global leadership in the face of rising authoritarianism. Interview conducted on May 9, 2025.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen:  Today we begin the first session of  Everywhere Insiders , with  Irina Tsukerman , a lawyer specializing in human rights and national security, political analyst, media strategist, and activist. She is the founder and editor-in-chief of  The Washington Outsider , a platform dedicated to in-depth analysis of public policy and international security. The name of this session, which is somewhat of an antonymous concept, is inspired by her work and her publication.

Tsukerman is known for writing extensively on  disinformation, information warfare, counterterrorism, and geopolitical dynamics . Her analyses have been published in  Newsweek ,  Modern Diplomacy ,  Legal Insurrection  , and other outlets, and translated into more than a dozen languages. She has appeared on global platforms such as  Fox Business ,  i24 News  , and  Al Arabiya , and has participated in debates and programs affiliated with institutions such as the United Nations and George Mason University.

She holds a bachelor’s degree in International and Intercultural Studies, specializing in the Middle East, and a Juris Doctor, both from Fordham University. She is admitted to the New York State Bar and is a member of both the New York State Bar Association and the New York City Bar Association. She also serves as a research fellow at the Center for Security and Foreign Affairs at the Arabian Peninsula Institute.

Let’s turn to current events. We have a new pope:  Leo XIV . In my analysis, he appears to be a moderate and centrist leader on many issues, although he maintains traditionalist theological and cultural positions. I don’t expect significant changes regarding marriage or LGBTQIA+ rights. However, I foresee increased dialogue, greater openness, and a diffusion of ecclesiastical authority, rather than a continuation of the centralized and rigid model.

Tsukerman:  I agree,  100% . It’s interesting because many people are trying to analyze his past, especially during his time in Chicago. Some claim that he wasn’t actively involved in interfaith dialogue, particularly with Jewish groups. However, that may not reflect his values, but rather the institutional norms of the environment. Some academic or religious institutions prioritize interfaith engagement, but often this stems from certain specific theological traditions. For example, the Jesuits are known for fostering interfaith dialogue, but this pope isn’t a Jesuit, so we shouldn’t expect the same approach.

Others have interpreted his comments on J.D. Vance ‘s Christian views   as a sign of support for pro-immigration policies or policies favorable to undocumented immigrants. I don’t see it that way. Vance’s statements can be interpreted much more broadly. When the pope—still a cardinal at the time—responded, I believe he wasn’t speaking directly about immigration. Rather, he was criticizing Vance’s opportunistic and self-centered use of theology, without any real doctrinal support.

Many people try to infer a political stance or partisan alignment from the new pope’s theological arguments, which don’t necessarily align with U.S. politics or the politics of any other country. That said, I agree with the general assessment. How theology and dogma manifest themselves in the real world—outside of Vatican circles and beyond doctrines that primarily affect practicing Catholics—will be interesting to watch. However, I don’t expect him to be as politically active or outspoken on specific issues as Pope Francis was. I see him as someone who will offer general theological commentary when necessary but will avoid becoming directly involved in political debates.

Some people also interpret his experience in Peru as a sign of excessive leftist leanings, but that’s a misreading. It forgets that one of the Church’s traditional roles has been to care for the poor. The fact that he did so effectively is a positive sign, not an ideological statement. Pope Francis was heavily influenced by liberation theology and received specific intellectual training in Argentina. In contrast, Pope Leo was educated in other regions and shows no visible signs of adhering to that current, at least according to his public writings.

Nor is he a pope particularly focused on publishing or doctrinal output; he is rather a practical pastor, which sets him quite apart from some of his predecessors. This could prove beneficial in administrative matters, especially in the face of long-standing problems such as  financial mismanagement . One need only recall the recent reports of  $500,000 found in a paper bag  —something worthy of a scene from the film  The Conclave —and the ongoing scandals involving sexual abuse.

I’ve seen at least one accusation that he turned a blind eye to cases of sexual abuse during his time in Chicago. However, I have no way of knowing if that’s true, or if the person who made the accusation—visibly traumatized—was projecting their own pain or expecting something that, at the time, the then-cardinal had no power to resolve. I don’t know.

What I can say is that this pattern—where popes are perceived as more protective of the institution than confrontational in the face of abuse—has been seen before. In practice, the way these cases are handled varies: some predators are quietly reassigned or expelled, while others are publicly exposed. What is clear is that  there must be a decisive response, and leadership on this issue must come from the top . That said, it remains a complex problem, and many things remain unresolved.

Ultimately, people must stop projecting their political preferences onto a religious institution. The Church will not act in accordance with contemporary political categories. Many doctrinally conservative Catholic leaders may appear progressive on economic issues, and many reformers who support the role of women within the Church may hold deeply conservative positions on issues such as LGBTQ rights, because they consider those positions consistent with Church authority and tradition.

Jacobsen:  I wouldn’t make firm predictions based on just a few isolated comments I’ve made. You raise very complex and nuanced points. There’s one aspect worth highlighting: the broader religious and political history of Latin America, including its connections with Portugal and Spain, not just with Central and South America.

As you mentioned, with Pope Francis there has been a resurgence of interest in the social teachings of the Gospel, particularly through the lens of  liberation theology , which focuses on caring for the poor and marginalized. Some of the leading thinkers of that movement were tragically killed during periods of political repression, especially in the 1970s and 1980s.

An interesting parallel is that many programs inspired by liberation theology, while rooted in Christian ethics, can be interpreted in secular terms. For example, António Guterres—current Secretary-General of the United Nations and former Prime Minister of Portugal—has supported policies such as the decriminalization of drug use. These initiatives reflect a compassionate public health approach rather than punitive moralism, which aligns, in many respects, with the spirit of liberation theology, even though Guterres’s religious beliefs are not particularly public.

Regarding the current pope, it is noteworthy that he has spent almost a third of his life in Peru. This Latin American background places him within a theological and cultural context that has repeatedly given rise to forms of socially engaged Christian thought. Whether expressed explicitly theologically or translated into models of secular governance, this tradition continues to significantly influence global leaders.

We may be witnessing a  turning point . The new pontiff is only 69 years old—a relatively young age for a pope—and could remain in office for a decade or two with access to excellent medical care. That is significant, especially if he maintains a  centrist and theologically traditional approach  at a time of great global cultural uncertainty. Such continuity and stability could become a valuable anchor for both Catholics and international observers.

Tsukerman:  From what I’ve heard, one of the reasons he was elected, despite being considered an unlikely candidate, was precisely because of his  perceived ability to provide stability . Some even interpreted his election as a subtle message of rejection of the kind of extremism that gained ground under  Donald Trump ‘s leadership , including certain expressions of politicized Catholicism that emerged during that period.

His election also sent another message: while certain ideological expressions may be rejected,  the United States as a nation is not . American leadership remains central within the global Catholic community and in the broader framework of international relations. His papacy could represent an effort to  reaffirm transatlantic ties , prioritizing cooperation over polarization.

I think the conclave was looking for a unifying, centrist figure. There has been a lot of speculation about this, much of it unfounded. For example, some extremist voices, like  Laura Loomer  —who isn’t even Catholic—have called him “the Marxist pope,” which I find  absurd . Many conservatives argue that the state shouldn’t act as a social safety net, that this is the role of private institutions and local communities.

So why wouldn’t it be welcome for the Catholic Church to assume that traditional charitable role and alleviate the burden on the state? Especially from those who have rightly criticized the Church for its corruption, shouldn’t they be encouraging it if someone is actively attending to the needs of the most vulnerable, both personally and in the exercise of their leadership? That is the  best possible response to institutional criticism . To call it Marxist for returning to the Church’s founding mission—for behaving like a true religious institution—strikes me as deeply contradictory.

Unless, of course, someone is confusing the Church with the  United States Supreme Court . Even if one starts from tradition, judicial philosophy does not automatically translate into endorsement of the policies of the executive or legislative branches. If people expect the Pope to act like a conventional head of state, they are completely misunderstanding the nature of his office.  Church doctrine will never fit neatly into shifting ideological categories or the demands of the current political cycle.

I hope there is something more “Catholic”—in the sense of universal and timeless—in religious doctrine than in the vicissitudes of political life. After all, that is one of the central reasons why religious institutions exist: to offer a moral and spiritual direction  separate from the volatility of political power .

If Pope Leo proves to be the centrist and unifying figure many hope for, that will be a profoundly positive development. Today, there is  far too much internal conflict . On the far right, some traditionalist factions are promoting extremist—and even openly intolerant—candidates whose positions stray far from Catholic theological orthodoxy and border on hate speech. Some have even gone so far as to call for the return of  Catholic monarchies , systems that have historically been disastrous, not only for religious minorities but also for many Catholics.

Those monarchs  ruined their nations  through unnecessary wars and authoritarian rule. Meanwhile, on the far left, there are those who seem to misunderstand religious tradition altogether, confusing emotional compassion and political activism with genuine spiritual practice. This confusion has contributed to the alienation of many faithful and the exodus of people from the Church, who return to purely political frameworks.

Of course, political engagement is legitimate. But if the  intrinsic value  of religious tradition within the Church—beyond secular political agendas—is not recognized, the Church will continue to lose relevance and coherence. Moderation  is essential , not only to preserve tradition but also to adapt it meaningfully to the challenges of the modern world. This includes difficulties with recruitment, evangelization in Western countries, and dialogue with the so-called Global South and other vulnerable populations.

A centrist pope offers flexibility. He can build bridges between these sectors and foster dialogue between communities with profoundly different realities, experiences, and challenges.  Transforming that dialogue into a coherent and inclusive conversation would be a powerful and much-needed legacy . So yes, I sincerely hope that if anything lasting comes from this election, it will be that legacy of  unity, dialogue, and compassionate leadership .

Even if this papacy is not defined by major geopolitical battles or ideological confrontations like the communism of John Paul II, even if it focuses on building better human and spiritual relationships,  that would already be an extraordinary achievement . The great challenge of our time is the growing  lack of understanding , the absence of dialogue, and the erosion of empathy toward those who think or live differently. If that is the legacy of Pope Leo, it would be of enormous historical significance.

Jacobsen:  Let’s move on to a more pressing issue: concerns about possible plans by the U.S. government to deport migrants to  Libya . As you know, Libya has a long history of  human rights abuses  against migrants. This includes arbitrary detentions, torture, extortion, rape, murder, and even reports of unusual mistreatment, such as force-feeding under inhumane conditions. What is your legal and ethical assessment, especially considering your experience as a human rights lawyer?

Tsukerman: Libya is currently a volatile and fragmented  country  . It is divided among rival governments, armed factions, and tribal authorities, with deep sectarian divisions. Foreign powers—particularly Russia and Turkey—exploit this conflict to advance their own strategic interests, further exacerbating the situation. Corruption is widespread, and the country faces enormous economic and infrastructure challenges.

In some regions of Libya, modern-day slavery practices   against migrants have even been reported. To be clear,  not all Libyans  support or participate in these atrocities, not at all. But there are specific areas where these human rights violations occur, and it is  horrifying . Furthermore, Libya has become a  proxy frontier  within broader migration conflicts, with destabilizing population flows deliberately encouraged to exert pressure on Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Geographically, Libya is in a particularly vulnerable position to be used as a weapon in this regard.

For this very reason, I find it  incomprehensible  that, under the Trump administration, anyone considered it morally justifiable to deport vulnerable people—many of whom  are neither African nor have any connection to the region—to such a dangerous place. It seems like an intentionally cruel  policy  , designed to demonstrate power by choosing the most unstable and dangerous destinations possible.

According to available information, these were  Asian migrants  with no ties to North Africa. Sending them to a country where they face even greater risks  makes no sense , from both a humanitarian and a legal perspective.

If the goal were truly safe repatriation, or even temporary relocation, the reasonable course of action would have been to negotiate agreements with a stable Asian country closer to their countries of origin, where  adequate infrastructure exists  for processing, protection, and even reintegration. Instead, what happened was the creation of a  list of unpredictable and dangerous destinations , completely disconnected from these individuals’ actual backgrounds.

From both a legal and humanitarian perspective, it is  indefensible . This is not merely bad policy; it is  gross negligence  or  deliberate cruelty . The plan was to send Asian migrants to Libya—despite the obvious dangers—and another group, of unspecified origin, to  Saudi Arabia , which reportedly  objected . Most astonishingly, yet  another group was slated for deportation to Ukraine … in the midst of a war.

And these weren’t Ukrainian migrants, but  Latin American migrants . The Trump administration considered sending Spanish speakers to a country at war, where neither Spanish, nor Russian, nor English, nor Ukrainian are spoken. The  cultural, linguistic, and geopolitical clash  was total. All of this within the context of an active war, where the risks are more than evident.

It is unclear why these highly  inappropriate destinations were chosen , instead of negotiating with relatively stable countries capable of receiving migrants in exchange for financial support. It appears to have been a  deliberate power play , a form of deterrence. The message was: “If you cross illegally into the United States, we will not only deport you, but we will send you to a completely foreign and potentially hostile place.” It was designed to  instill fear .

And there’s a second interpretation. It also seemed like a show of force against the receiving countries. Libya, for example,  doesn’t have a unified government . It has two competing governments and is in no position to negotiate. Depositing migrants in a fractured state  is neither a serious diplomatic nor humanitarian strategy . It’s an act of brute force: “We do what we want, and you can’t do anything about it.”

These people—many from warm, tropical regions—would be placed in unfamiliar climates, without a language, without a social support network, and without legal protection. They could be kidnapped by militias, detained, abused, or killed by armed actors such as the  Russians or Turks operating on the ground . This is a gross violation of U.S. international obligations and deeply damages the  country’s moral image .

I’ve never heard of any other country doing anything similar. Many have strict immigration controls, yes, but they don’t load families onto military planes and send them to completely dangerous and unsuitable destinations. That’s  not immigration policy: it’s senseless cruelty , designed to project fear and impunity.

The message was clear: “We can do whatever we want, to whomever we want.” Although this part may seem brief, it is  essential . It reveals how immigration policy has been  militarized  —not as a tool for border control, but as a spectacle of public punishment.

Jacobsen:  In Fangak County, South Sudan, there was what appears to be a deliberate act, possibly constituting a war crime: an aerial bombardment that killed at least seven people and injured more than 20. The target was a  Doctors Without Borders (MSF) facility  —including a hospital and a pharmacy. The attack was condemned by the UN Human Rights Commission in South Sudan. What is your opinion on this?

Tsukerman:  Unfortunately, this type of  abuse and violence against medical personnel in conflict zones  is becoming increasingly common. I don’t see how it could be reliably prevented without effective security or accountability mechanisms. Operating in active war zones is becoming increasingly  dangerous and risky .

More broadly, I observe an alarming trend: a  resurgence of global fragmentation and sectarianism . After a period in which violence seemed to be receding and sectarian clashes were becoming more political than military, we are now witnessing a  worrying reversal . Incidents like this bombing reflect a wider global pattern. As new hotspots of tension emerge, without clear resolution, consequences, or coordinated pathways to reconstruction or reconciliation, other vulnerable regions become susceptible to  similar outbreaks of violence .

The lack of consequences  emboldens violent groups . Instead of seeking diplomatic, legal, or political means to resolve disputes, they resort to armed conflict. Most troubling is the  absence of strong leadership  from the international community, the United Nations, the United States, or other potential stabilizing powers. There is no coherent strategy to protect humanitarian workers or medical personnel from these extrajudicial attacks.

We need more than deterrence. We need  visible, active, and sustained support . Strong messages must be sent to both potential perpetrators and those who risk their lives to provide assistance. As things stand, we are  failing  to protect the most essential actors in humanitarian crises.

Jacobsen:  Let’s talk about Greece and the deterioration of press freedom there, especially since the  New Democracy party  came to power in July 2019. A recent human rights report accuses the Greek government of creating a hostile environment for the independent press and journalists since the start of the pandemic. It details cases of  harassment, intimidation, surveillance, and abusive lawsuits —all practices that encourage self-censorship and undermine freedom of expression. As a media professional, what are your thoughts?

Tsukerman:  As a media professional in the United States, I firmly believe in fostering the  greatest possible press freedom and open dialogue . The best way to counter bad ideas is with better ideas, not censorship. Confronting harmful platforms requires clear, accessible, fact-based communication, not repression.

When journalists are intimidated into silence—whether through lawsuits, surveillance, or threats—not only is press freedom eroded, but  democracy itself is undermined . This pattern isn’t unique to Greece; we’re seeing it in various parts of the world. Governments are learning to  use legal tools, digital surveillance, and even social media manipulation  to stifle dissent under the guise of maintaining order or protecting the national interest.

The solution lies in  strengthening journalistic resilience , protecting whistleblowers, supporting independent media, and fostering  information literacy among the population . A vibrant press is a central pillar of any democratic society. If it weakens, everything else begins to crumble. Frankly, when I encounter hostile or disinformation-laden media outlets, my first reaction is not to censor them, but  to render them irrelevant  by creating better, fact-based alternatives. The goal should be to avoid giving them more complaints, more visibility, or advertising value. That said,  not all countries are like the United States .

In Greece, the situation is much more delicate. There are  active political operations and foreign disinformation campaigns  that are significantly more destabilizing than what we have seen, so far, in the United States. And that is saying a lot, considering the high level of  pro-Russian influence  that has even penetrated government levels in the US in recent years.

However, even under these extreme circumstances, the average American does not feel the same immediate and tangible impact as Greeks do. In Greece, hostile foreign actors  operate directly within the country in ways not seen in the US, at least not with the same physical presence or intensity.

One of the key reasons for this difference is the  relative strength of the U.S. institutional and law enforcement infrastructure . Historically, we have had better mechanisms for tracing illicit financing, investigating foreign interference, and acting to mitigate threats. That infrastructure—though under pressure today—has served us well.

In contrast, Greece has endured  prolonged periods of economic instability  and lacks the same resources and institutional resilience. Its financial capacity  is not comparable  to that of the United States. This makes responding effectively, when economic grievances, weakened public institutions, and limited experience in dealing with complex foreign interference are combined, far more difficult.

From a logistical and practical standpoint, it’s a much more challenging environment. It also makes the erosion of press freedom and public trust even  more dangerous . Regarding media confrontations, I’m not entirely convinced that  shutting down a foreign-funded media outlet whose sole purpose is to disseminate propaganda  constitutes an attack on press freedom. If a media outlet is funded by a foreign government and its mission is  to defame local authorities, spread conspiracy theories, or incite violence , then  it no longer functions as a legitimate media outlet , but as a  foreign political operation . And political operations  are not entitled to the same protections  as media outlets.

That’s very different from a media outlet with a critical editorial line that publishes controversial opinions or legitimate criticisms of a government, especially when those criticisms come from a domestic opposition. But when that opposition acts with  the backing or coordination of foreign powers , the analysis changes completely.

Tsukerman:  Now,  I’m not saying that governments can’t overstep their bounds . There’s always the risk of authoritarianism, where a state becomes paranoid and starts persecuting even legitimate opposition under the guise of combating foreign interference. But, based on my experience in risk analysis and intelligence,  I suspect there’s far more foreign interference, corruption, and covert financing than most people realize .

It’s easy to cite statistics—how many media outlets were monitored or shut down—and immediately conclude that there is repression. But  each case must be examined within its full context . Are these truly independent, national media outlets? Or are they fronts for foreign political operations?

Is there concrete evidence linking them to hostile foreign actors? Was the surveillance or restriction justified, or was it arbitrary and abusive? These are  complex and nuanced questions that must be addressed in  detail and with depth , not with simplistic generalizations.

Many extremist groups or those linked to foreign powers  count on the international audience not thoroughly investigating  these cases. They know that most people won’t read reports on media transparency or verify whether a media outlet is a legitimate newsroom, a foreign-funded PR agency, or worse,  a troll farm .

We’ve seen this in the US: for example, the FBI revealed that a purported media company in Tennessee was actually  a Russian disinformation front , created to undermine public trust. At first glance, someone outside the US might ask, “Why is the FBI shutting down a private media outlet?” But upon closer examination, it becomes clear that there was  foreign funding and direct coordination , justifying legal action.

Similarly, what is happening in Greece  may follow the same pattern . It is crucial to examine the details: who is involved, where the funding comes from, and what activities are being carried out. And then assess how the United States and the European Union can help. The goal must be  to protect Greece’s sovereignty , guarantee  press freedom  , and preserve spaces for legitimate criticism, while still addressing  actual foreign interference .

Jacobsen:  Irina, thank you for this first session of the inaugural  Everywhere Insiders series . I greatly appreciate your time and ideas.

Tsukerman:  Thank you very much. It was a great conversation.

Jacobsen:  I’m curious to see how this develops. It sounds like the beginning of a very interesting conversational newscast.

Tsukerman:  Absolutely.

Jacobsen:  Thanks again.

Tsukerman:  I hope you’re doing well.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.