Surveying several countries in Central and South America, Tomás Henríquez notes the various threats to religious believers:

In Mexico, it is illegal for clergy to speak about politics. Since 1917, priests, pastors, and other religious figures have been stripped of their fundamental freedoms by the law that prohibits Mexican citizens who are religious ministers from speaking for or against political candidates or parties. To this day . . . religious leaders are persecuted for what they say from the pulpit, parish radios, and church publications. Simply delivering reflections on the political, social, and cultural circumstances in their country may lead to the termination of a church’s legal personhood—speaking for or against a candidate is a criminal offense.

During the Mexican federal-election period in 2021, Juan Sandoval, Mario Ángel Flores, Carlos Aguiar, and Ángel Espinosa de los Monteros—members of the Catholic clergy—issued, at different times, calls for Catholics to participate in the electoral process and to vote according to their convictions. The priests were denounced by the ruling political party of President López Obrador, tried before an electoral tribunal under Article 130 of the Mexican constitution, and found guilty of “unlawful” politically oriented speech. Not only does the silencing of religious leaders violate their fundamental right to freedom of speech, it is also inherently discriminatory. . . .

In Argentina, there is growing discrimination in access to public office based on religious belief. Judicial officials have been known to question applicants as to whether they are religious believers in order to filter them out. There have also been instances of political impeachment of judges for daring to criticize the tenets of gender ideology underpinning the Argentine supreme court’s decision that liberalized abortion. These are but a few examples of an insidious climate of hostility that has permeated the interplay of faith and civic life in Argentina, threatening the country’s democratic processes at their core.

Last week, the New York Times reported, based on unnamed sources within the Trump administration, that the president had asked Israel not to carry out a planned strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. That is, somebody deliberately gave this information to the press, which later tried to confirm it by speaking with other officials. Amit Segal writes that, “according to figures in Israel’s security establishment,” this is “the most serious leak in Israel’s history.” He explains:

As Israel is reportedly planning what may well be one of its most consequential military operations ever, the New York Times lays out for the Iranians what Israel will target, when it will carry out the operation, and how. That’s not just any other leak.

Seth Mandel looks into the leaker’s logic:

The primary purpose of the [Times] article is not as a record of internal deliberations but as an instrument of policy itself. Namely, to obstruct future U.S. and Israeli foreign policy by divulging enough details of Israel’s plans in order to protect Iran’s nuclear sites. The idea is to force Israeli planners back to the drawing board, thus delaying a possible future strike on Iran until Iranian air defenses have been rebuilt.

The leak is the point. It’s a tactical play, more or less, to help Iran torpedo American action.

The leaker, Mandel explains—and the Times itself implies—is likely aligned with the faction in the administration that wants to see the U.S. retreat from the world stage and from its alliance with Israel, a faction that includes Vice-President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and the president’s own chief of staff Susie Wiles.

Yet it’s also possible, if less likely, that the plans were leaked in support of administration policy rather than out of factional infighting. Eliezer Marom argues that the leak was “part of the negotiations and serves to clarify to the Iranians that there is a real attack plan that Trump stopped at the last moment to conduct negotiations.”