Milwaukee Archbishop Jeffrey Grob went to the White House last Thursday expecting to discuss immigration, religious worker visas, and other issues affecting the Catholic Church.
Three days later, he was publicly apologizing for what happened.
The White House had released photographs and video showing Grob and 11 other Catholic bishops praying with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office. Trump’s campaign account also shared the video less than two weeks before the November 3 midterm elections.
Grob said the bishops had not authorized the public release of the images. More importantly, he wanted people to understand that their participation was not a political endorsement.
In a statement published Sunday, October 25, Grob said the meeting was not intended to support Trump, his policies or his party.
He believed the bishops had been used for political publicity.
They came to discuss policy
According to Grob, the October 22 meeting was the second of two gatherings the Heritage Foundation, a conservative organization with close ties to Trump’s political movement, arranged.
The bishops were invited to discuss issues affecting Catholic communities, including immigration enforcement, visas for foreign-born clergy, and human dignity.
The meeting had a legitimate purpose.
Religious leaders regularly engage with elected officials, including those whose policies they oppose. Catholic bishops have been outspoken about immigration enforcement, religious liberty, abortion and assistance for vulnerable people.
Grob said he accepted the invitation because he thought the conversation might improve people’s lives.
After a 90-minute meeting with White House domestic policy staff and advisers, the bishops entered the Oval Office.
Trump greeted them, sat at his desk, and presented commemorative tokens. According to Grob, the bishops were then directed to stand behind the president and pray.
Photographs followed. Grob said the bishops did not know they were also being recorded on video.
The White House subsequently released the images.
Margo Martin, a White House communications adviser, posted the video on October 22. Trump’s campaign account also shared it.
The video showed the bishops gathered around the seated president, some with their hands resting on him as they prayed.
Nothing about the prayer itself was improper. Religious leaders can pray with presidents, just as they can meet with them to advocate for policies.
The problem began when a private religious encounter became political publicity that the participants say they never authorized.
The bishops object
Grob began hearing from people who believed he had participated in a political event shortly before an election.
Some were troubled by the appearance of Catholic bishops supporting Trump. Others, according to Grob, felt personally harmed by administration policies and wounded by the images.
In his October 25 statement, titled A Public Apology, Grob acknowledged those concerns.
He said he regretted participating in something that could be interpreted as a political endorsement. He also accused the White House of manipulating a sacred moment.
Furthermore, he was not the only bishop to object.
Bishop William Joensen of Des Moines issued a statement on October 24 explaining why he had attended. Like Grob, he saw an opportunity to discuss Church teachings with government officials.
But Joensen also concluded that partisans had exploited the meeting for political purposes.
Denver Archbishop James Golka, who participated in the prayer, offered another perspective. He acknowledged that the images could be used politically but defended his decision to pray with Trump. He maintained that praying for elected leaders was part of his religious responsibility, regardless of political differences.
These distinctions matter.
The bishops were not all expressing identical regrets about attending. But they made it clear that praying with Trump did not mean endorsing his political party or administration.
Their objection was not to praying for the president. It was that the prayer was presented in a political context they had not agreed to.
What the White House has said
The White House was asked directly whether the bishops had given permission to distribute the photographs and video.
It did not answer that question.
Instead, spokeswoman Taylor Rogers defended Trump’s record with Catholic Americans, pointing to his administration’s positions on religious rights and other issues.
That response leaves an important factual dispute unresolved.
The bishops say they did not authorize the public distribution. The White House has not publicly explained whether it sought permission, what participants were told about recording, or why it distributed the video through political channels.
The evidence also has an important limit.
The video accurately depicts the bishops praying with Trump. The caption accompanying the original post identified them as Catholic bishops praying with the president. It did not explicitly claim that they had endorsed him.
But when the president’s campaign shares a video of religious leaders gathered around him in prayer, the images can suggest political or religious support that those participants did not intend to give.
That is especially important as an election approaches.
What power was being used?
The president has access to people and institutions that most political candidates do not.
He can invite prominent religious leaders to the White House, meet with them in the Oval Office, and rely on administration communications staff to publicize the encounter.
Those are legitimate features of the presidency when used for appropriate government purposes.
But documenting an official meeting differs from using it to strengthen the president’s political image.
In this case, White House staff distributed the video, and the president’s campaign subsequently shared it.
That is where the distinction becomes important.
The White House could turn the bishops’ prayer into a political message without the bishops ever making a political endorsement.
The bishops’ presence gave the images religious significance. As Catholic leaders, they made the footage more valuable than an ordinary photograph of a president receiving visitors.
The administration controlled how the images were distributed. The bishops did not control how the public would encounter them or what political meaning viewers might attach to them.
The evidence does not establish that Trump personally ordered the release, that the bishops’ participation was unlawful, or that distributing the images violated federal law.
It does establish that official White House communications became material circulated by a political campaign, and that participating religious leaders objected to how their appearance was used.
This is an example of the Pattern of Power, in which the resources and prestige of public office can advance the political interests of the person holding it.
Did speaking out accomplish anything?
Yes, but only to a point.
Grob and Joensen used their positions as religious leaders to challenge the video’s public impression. Their statements gave Catholics and other viewers information they did not have when the footage first circulated.
The bishops made clear that their prayer was not an endorsement.
That is a meaningful correction to the public record.
But it is not the same as getting the White House to acknowledge their objection, correct its own communications, or change how it handles similar meetings.
As of the reporting reviewed for this article, no such corrective action has been established.
The bishops have publicly rejected the political interpretation of their participation. Whether the administration will respond to those objections remains unresolved.
For ordinary readers, the most useful immediate step is to read the bishops’ actual statements alongside the video rather than relying on the campaign’s presentation of the event.
Those statements establish what the participants intended. They also help you judge whether later descriptions of the encounter accurately reflect their position.
This is a national story without a documented Kentucky-specific government action. But the distinction matters wherever religious leaders meet with elected officials, including in Kentucky.
The question now
The bishops have explained why they object to the White House video. But another question deserves attention.
What happened to the concerns they brought to Washington?
They came to discuss immigration enforcement, the treatment of vulnerable people, religious worker visas and other policies affecting the communities they serve.
Archbishop Grob says they spent 90 minutes with White House advisers. His account of their subsequent visit with Trump describes a greeting, commemorative gifts, and a prayer, but no substantive policy discussion.
We know what that prayer looked like because the White House released the video.
We still don’t know what the bishops specifically asked the administration to do, what answers they received, or whether anyone committed to making changes.
The bishops have made clear that they did not endorse the president. Now the bishops and the White House must answer an equally important question.
What came of the meeting they originally went to?
Sources
Archdiocese of Milwaukee, A Public Apology, Archbishop Jeffrey Grob. October 25, 2026. Firsthand account of the meeting, its publicity and the archbishop’s objections.
Diocese of Des Moines, Bishop William Joensen’s Statement. October 24, 2026. Explains the policy discussions and rejects political endorsement.
National Catholic Reporter, Ahead of Elections, White House Shares Video. October 22, 2026. Documents the original distribution.
National Catholic Reporter, Archbishop Golka’s Response. October 24, 2026. Provides his explanation and qualifications.
Associated Press, Catholic Bishops Regret White House Prayer Photo. October 25, 2026. Includes the White House response to questions about authorization.