Excerpts from an interview with Michael Schöpf SJ, JRS International Director, by Giuseppe Riggio SJ, Director of Aggiornamenti Sociali. The full interview was originally published in Italian in the April 2025 issue.  

What impact has [the decision by the United States (US) Government to temporarily suspend foreign aid] had on the work of JRS? 

The impact was immediate. In the case of JRS, the suspension affected funding from the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (BPRM). […] Halting [funded projects] would have meant abandoning thousands of people: a step we deemed ethically unacceptable. Not to mention the legal obligations we have towards those working on the projects. For this reason, we activated an emergency mechanism to ensure the continuation of these activities using JRS funds, as far as possible given the emergency circumstances. […] At present, the Trump Administration has exempted only emergency programmes from the freeze, interpreted in a very narrow sense: food, water, and possibly medicine, but not education or mental health services, which we consider to be life-saving measures. We must prepare for a scenario in which, in many places, certain life-saving services will no longer be available to refugees. 

What are the consequences of this new scenario?

[…] First and foremost, the measures taken by the US Government go far beyond a mere shift in the policies on refugees. […] A narrative of hatred and destruction is being constructed—one that envisions a different world order, no longer grounded in the dignity of the human person.

The second message these policies convey concerns the common good, which disappears when political agendas focus solely on pursuing ‘my own interests, or those of my family, my community, my country’. Recognising the interdependence that binds us to one another—as individuals and as nations—paves the way to building just relationships, founded on mutual care and reconciliation, which stand in direct opposition to the notion that the ‘other’ is an enemy.

There is also a third message, regarding multilateralism. According to this agenda, we are heading towards a world order defined by a handful of autocratic leaders making deals amongst themselves. […] In the absence of relationships based on mutual recognition and equal dignity, we will soon find ourselves in conflicts that will escalate into open warfare or increased violence.  

[…] It is a highly coherent programme: it dictates that we must rid ourselves of anything that upholds dignity, freedom, and multilateralism, and silence all dissent; we must do this as swiftly as possible, before the public realises what is happening and begins to push back. 

What sort of response is possible?

The response in this situation is to seek out new partners, beyond the traditional ones, to create a counter-narrative that outlines the kind of life we want to lead twenty years from now. […] It is time to say it, and to offer a genuine alternative.

In 2024, we developed a new global strategic framework for JRS through a broad process involving our teams and external contributors from universities, donors, and other NGOs. […] We agreed that we must continue to insist on a rights-based approach. We must work with communities and increase people’s self-reliance as much as possible so they can take control of their own futures. Where the law fails to protect the individual, perhaps a strong community is the best available option. […] We must seek broader coalitions that do not fall into hatred and include not only NGOs but also local communities, universities, and businesses. Any other strategy, in my view, will not generate the narrative momentum needed at this stage. 

What steps can be taken?

I believe we need to help people understand that if we continue down this path, we are heading towards a world of destruction. At the moment, it is refugees or other marginalised groups who are rendered invisible, but with the collapse of multilateralism, we will all be affected—and very quickly. This is evident in the reactions of European politicians. 

In my view, the Church has an important role to play, especially with regard to the two main challenges we face today. The first is the need to construct a counter-narrative […] The second immediate challenge is that we need someone who can facilitate engagement and dialogue to give shape to this counter-narrative […]. 

In this entirely new situation, we cannot reach a compromise with those who take such political positions. We cannot deceive ourselves into thinking we can ‘learn to speak their language’ in the hope of changing their minds or securing new funding. That would be extremely unrealistic and raise serious moral concerns. We must seek dialogue by all means possible—but always grounded in truth. 

I believe the disaster is not behind us; it lies ahead, if we continue to deny the dignity of so many people.