With the death of Pope Francis, people in Rome are already beginning to think about his successor. These are frenetic and uncertain days in the Vatican — a time of mixed grief and the urgency of thinking about the future, all set against an extraordinarily complex global backdrop and within a deeply divided Church. The first congregation of cardinals — the assembly that convenes after the death of the Pontiff — will take place this Tuesday with those already in Rome. This marks the beginning of both formal and informal discussions among them as they search for a new Pope.

Early lists of potential papal candidates are already circulating, both within Vatican circles and in the Italian and international media. These lists are part of the maneuvers underway to promote certain names. These are usually confusing days, where rumors abound, but what stands out so far is that the Italian press has remained notably silent on the subject — something that was commonplace during the final years of John Paul II. This silence reflects the deep uncertainty about the direction the Church may now take in what will be a conclave more numerous and international than ever before: 135 cardinals from 71 countries, compared to 115 electors in 2005 and 2013 from 52 and 48 countries, respectively. In other words, the Sistine Chapel will be filled with unfamiliar faces, both outside the doors and within, and some of them do not even speak Italian.

Strong internal division makes the situation even more challenging. As has always been the case, a reformist faction of the Church, more aligned with Pope Francis, seeks to continue his path, while a more conservative faction, which has fiercely opposed his decisions in recent years, aims for a retreat. Given the intensity of this clash in recent years, there is now a real concern within the Holy See about something that did not exist in previous conclaves — at least not on this scale: disinformation campaigns and fake news designed to influence the election of the Pope, with hoaxes spreading on social media, aiming to discredit candidates who are undesirable to certain sectors. This will be something to watch in the coming days.

The task of shifting votes and organizing the conclave typically falls to the so-called “great electors” — cardinals who do not expect to be elected themselves but who gather support and are respected figures who can steer the trends. On the conservative side, there are figures such as Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, and the former Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, Gerhard Ludwig Müller.

On the more progressive side, there are influential cardinals close to Pope Francis, such as Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg, the general rapporteur of the Synod. However, at 66, Hollerich is considered too young, as it would likely result in a pontificate that could last for many years. Another prominent figure is the Canadian Michael Czerny, Prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, who is a Jesuit. However, it seems unlikely that the Church will choose another pope from this order.

The key factor to remember is that 90 votes — two-thirds of the 135 cardinals entering the conclave — are required to elect the new pope. A faction with some support isn’t enough; it must be a truly consensual decision. Many who disagree must be convinced of a shared vision, where strength and personal magnetism also play a role. However, unlike previous conclaves, there are no clear frontrunners, and this one is expected to be more laborious and prolonged.

In 2005, with four votes, and in 2013, with five, the process lasted only 24 hours. This time, it could resemble the conclave of October 1978, which took eight votes and resulted in the election of an unknown, John Paul II. It is likely that surprises will emerge once again. Pope Francis has certainly structured this conclave to encourage such outcomes. He has appointed 79% of the cardinals, often selecting lesser-known figures — profiles that reflect the Church he has sought to shape: one that is closer to the people and the margins of society.

At present, it is possible to draw up a list of at least 15 potential papal candidates. To begin with, despite this being a conclave that is no longer Eurocentric, the belief that the pope must come from Italy still persists, as it has for centuries, though much of the Church finds it impossible to return to that tradition. Italy boasts the largest group of cardinals, 17 in total, and this carries weight.

Three Italian cardinals are currently being mentioned as possible contenders. One of them is Pietro Parolin, 70, the current Secretary of State. This position is typically associated with papal candidates due to the experience it offers in governance and as a symbol of continuity — if that is the goal, rather than a change. However, despite his experience, Parolin has little pastoral experience and has alienated some sectors due to the balancing act he has had to navigate in recent years.

The second Italian in the running is Matteo Zuppi, 69, Archbishop of Bologna and president of the Italian bishops’ conference. He is aligned with Pope Francis and is a member of the Sant’Egidio community, known for its work in international conflict mediation and its strong social vocation. Another contender is the Patriarch of the Holy Land, the Franciscan Pierbattista Pizzaballa. Well-known in the media for his role in the Middle East, Pizzaballa is highly regarded, but he faces a disadvantage due to his age — 59 — at a time when a transitional solution might be preferred.

Another name that has frequently emerged in recent years — he was a papal candidate in 2013 — is 67-year-old Filipino Luis Antonio Gokim Tagle, whose mother is Chinese. He would be the first Asian pope, a possible option if Francis, the first pontiff from the Americas, is to be followed by a pope from outside the Western hemisphere. However, his popularity has waned due to his controversial management of the charity organization Caritas International.

In Asia, two other names often come up. The first is Charles Bo, Archbishop of Yangon in Myanmar. Bo is distinguished for his defense of human rights in a country under military rule and has presided over the Federation of Asian Episcopal Conferences for the past six years.

The second potential candidate is Malcolm Ranjith from Sri Lanka, Archbishop of Colombo, who previously served as secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship. At 77, Ranjith brings a wealth of experience, making him a candidate for a short papacy — potentially serving as a temporary counterbalance to Pope Francis. He is considered part of the more traditionalist camp, which could hinder consensus.

The same applies to another frequently mentioned name, Robert Sarah of Guinea, who has openly clashed with Pope Francis in recent years, positioning himself further on the conservative side.

The most frequently discussed African candidate is Fridolin Ambongo Besungu, Archbishop of Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A Franciscan, Ambongo is well-regarded by conservatives and has led the opposition to the blessing of same-sex unions.

After Pope Francis became the first pontiff from the Americas, there have not been many standout names in the continent. However, one candidate who straddles both halves of the continent is Robert Francis Prevost, 69, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. He is American but has spent nearly his entire life in Peru. His candidacy would send a strong signal in facing the complex challenges of the Donald Trump era, particularly as the U.S. Church is at odds with him. The ultraconservative movement in the United States is eager to politically co-opt the Christian message, framing it as a crusade between good and evil.

Following the election of Pope Francis, the first non-European pope since Gregory III (who was born in Syria in the 8th century), leaving Europe now appears to be a clear direction. However, there are still candidates from the Old Continent. The most unusual among them is Anders Arborelius, 75, Bishop of Stockholm. A Carmelite who was raised Lutheran and later converted to Catholicism, he combines social openness with pastoral rigor. Another potential candidate is Peter Erdo, 72, Archbishop of Budapest. Born under Communism, he is a cultured man and a leading figure in the conservative camp in recent years.

Also in the running is Jean-Marc Aveline, 66, Archbishop of Marseille. A seasoned bishop with a strong presence among the socially underprivileged, a group emphasized by Pope Francis, Aveline is an expert in interreligious dialogue. However, his age suggests that he could serve a lengthy papacy.

On the conservative side, one respected figure is Willem Jacobus Eijk, 71, Archbishop of Utrecht, who remains faithful to the line of Benedict XVI. Another candidate is José Tolentino de Mendonça, a 66-year-old Portuguese cardinal. Prefect of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, a poet and theologian, he has been steadily rising within the Curia and is known for his intellectual approach, his attention to the poor, and his connection to Africa — having spent his childhood in Angola. Finally, Mario Grech, 68, from Malta, has served as Pope Francis’s right-hand man in the synodal process as Secretary General.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

Last weekend, immigration attorney Liudmila Armas Marcelo spent her time not just listening to — but above all, calming — many of her desperate clients who had received orders to leave the United States within seven days. Her phone rang nonstop. On the other end were people on the brink of a breakdown. One client’s blood pressure skyrocketed. Another’s son, who suffers from health issues, was severely affected. “People panicked,” Marcelo recalls.

What she never expected was that she, a U.S. citizen, would also be notified by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to leave the country “immediately.”

On April 11, she received the same email that had been landing in the inboxes of over 936,500 people who entered the U.S. since January 2023 via the CBP One appointment system — a tool introduced by the Biden administration to help manage the migration crisis at the southern border. It’s a message that could rattle anyone — citizen or not — with a tone Marcelo describes as “very aggressive and very frightening.”

The DHS email, obtained by EL PAÍS, begins with a blunt message: “It is time for you to leave the United States.” It goes on to say that the department is exercising its discretion to terminate the parole previously granted — along with any associated government benefits, such as a work permit. The letter warns that failing to comply could lead to “potential law enforcement actions that will result in your removal.” In another line, the threat is even more explicit: “Do not attempt to remain in the United States — the federal government will find you.”

The email began arriving in inboxes in early April — often in the middle of the night, at 2 a.m., 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. Some recipients saw it immediately; others found it when they woke up.

Marcelo says she wasn’t alarmed when she received the email because she is a naturalized Cuban, and immediately thought it could be “a mistake.” She later learned that the message had reached not only other citizens like her, it had also been sent to permanent residents, individuals in the process of regularizing their immigration status, and even to people who had never entered the U.S. through the CBP One system — individuals who remained in Mexico after the Trump administration disabled the app on its very first day in office.

Adriana and Luis, two 29-year-old Cuban residents of Odessa, Texas, arrived in the United States through CBP One in November 2023. Like many others, they received the same message that landed in attorney Marcelo’s inbox. Adriana saw it in the early hours of April 11; Luis, the night before. Both were frightened, but something about it felt off. Adriana is currently awaiting her green card after applying under the Cuban Adjustment Act, which grants legal status to Cubans living in the U.S., while Luis has been a permanent resident for several months.

“I was worried that it could have been a system error,” says Luis. Amid the uncertainty, they immediately contacted their lawyer. “I emailed her, and she cleared up my doubts,” adds Adriana. “Seeing that it has reached people who are even citizens has put my mind at ease.”

But Marcelo believes that arbitrarily sending the email to so many people has already caused serious harm and is “unforgivable.” “They didn’t bother to determine who the person was, whether they actually entered the United States, whether they are in the country illegally or are already residents,” she says. “I’m waiting for an explanation from the [government], but so far nothing has come. I don’t know if they’re waiting for some people to panic and leave.”

The ‘mistakes’ that the Trump administration won’t fix

The Donald Trump administration is making alleged “mistakes” that are already taking their toll on the country’s migrant community. Throughout his campaign, Trump promised to purge the country of “criminals,” yet many of those detained or deported under his policies had no criminal records.

Perhaps the most well-known case is that of Kilmar Abrego García, a 29-year-old Salvadoran deported to El Salvador’s notorious Cecot mega-prison. He was deported with more than 230 other men allegedly tied to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and the Salvadoran group MS-13 — but his family say he has no connection to the gangs.

Now, the email instructing thousands of migrants who entered the U.S. via the CBP One app to leave the country represents yet another “failure” of the system — another action by the administration that violates “due process.” Attorney Marcelo is certain that, as the months go by, “we’ll begin to see more and more cases where due process may have been violated. That’s what happens when there’s this lack of responsibility and negligence,” she says.

The lawyer argues that it’s clear the government is operating in a highly disorganized manner in its push to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. Or worse, that it hopes migrants will take the initiative to self-deport using CBP One’s counterpart, the CBP Home app, which allows individuals to voluntarily report their departure from the country — though the supposed benefits of using it remain unclear to both migrants and their attorneys.

Other lawyers like Marcelo received notices to leave the United States simply because they had registered accounts with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to monitor their clients’ cases. “They didn’t even bother to check who had actually entered through CBP One or which emails were professional, belonging to a lawyer. That’s why I see a lack of seriousness in how this was handled,” she says.

As if that weren’t enough, Marcelo insists the government also failed to properly identify the recipients in the messages. “How can anyone be sure the email was really meant for them and not just a system error?” she asks. “They’re not concerned about people’s peace of mind; on the contrary, they’re contributing to a level of fear and panic that many have no reason to feel.”

Self-deport or stay?

A week after the DHS emails were sent, the government began revoking I-94 entry permits for those who arrived through CBP One, stripping them of their legal status in the U.S. and invalidating the work permits they had been granted. The fear has left many wondering what to do next: self-deport, as the email urges, or stay put and wait.

Marcelo strongly advises against leaving the country, especially for those with pending immigration court cases. “If people start leaving, that doesn’t count as voluntary departure, and when the court arrives and the judge asks for the person, he or she will immediately issue a deportation order in absentia,” she explains.

The attorney believes that what’s happening with CBP One beneficiaries could foreshadow similar outcomes for other programs like Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or humanitarian parole, which the government attempted to suspend, a move that was blocked by the courts.

“The same thing is going to happen, because these are programs that, in their context, were created to regulate entry into the country. You can’t say now that the program is illegal and all the existing ones are illegal, because you’re retroactively punishing the person,” says Marcelo.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

Marcela Guerrero (San Juan, 1980) has made history twice: in 2022, by becoming the first Latina principal curator of the Whitney Museum of Contemporary Art in New York, and by being the first Latina to co-direct — along with Drew Sawyer — the museum’s contemporary art biennial, after being entrusted with the 2026 edition. The Whitney Art Biennial is the oldest and most prestigious in the United States — it began in 1932 — and has catapulted to fame now-essential artists such as Jackson Pollock and Jeff Koons. It is also one of the leading fairs for taking the pulse of contemporary art. Guerrero’s leadership is a milestone considering that Latinos represent only 3% of museum leaders, curators, and educators, according to a study by the Mellon Foundation that, although conducted in 2015, remains the most specific.

From her office at the Whitney, Guerrero discusses current Latinx art and shares her journey to success — from how she felt at 18 that the art world could be the path she needed to follow, to the various jobs she took without skipping a beat, to becoming one of the country’s leading Latina curators.

Question. How did your interest in art arise?

Answer. Many curators come from parents who are artists or collectors, but that wasn’t my case. I didn’t grow up going to museums. I became interested in art after reading a book, Happy Days, Uncle Sergio, by Magali García Ramis. The protagonist, Uncle Sergio, was a Matisse fanatic, and that’s how I became curious about who that artist was. Later, when I was 18 and went to visit my sister who was studying in Washington, D.C., I visited many museums because the Smithsonians were free. There I could think and reflect, and being a single woman, I felt free from harassment, safe. That’s when I began to see art as a possible career for me.

Q. You received your PhD from the University of Wisconsin. Did you intend to pursue an academic career?

A. My parents were professors, so I originally thought about pursuing a PhD and becoming a professor of art history. But I decided to experience working in a museum while writing my thesis on Caribbean art. I got my first job at 29 at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. I was a research coordinator under Mari Carmen Ramírez, director of the International Center for the Arts of the Americas (ICAA). It was the perfect time and the perfect job to dip my toe in the water.

Q. Was it difficult to rise to the position of senior curator at the Whitney Museum?

A. It’s difficult to advance in curatorship at the same museum. Moving up the ranks often requires changing institutions, which often involves changing cities and states. I moved from Wisconsin to Houston, then to Los Angeles, and finally to New York. After three years working with Mari Carmen Ramírez, I landed a curatorial assistant position at the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles. It was a temporary position to organize the exhibition Radical Women: Latin American Art, 1960–1985, and I spent another three years there learning the entire curatorial process, from the research phase, which I had already mastered, to the implementation phase, which was very rewarding. I never skipped a step. Only after that experience did I feel capable of applying for the curatorial assistant position that the Whitney Museum had advertised on their website. They hired me, and everything changed from then on.

Q. In what sense?

A. While at the Whitney, I’ve been promoted twice, to associate curator and then to full curator. It’s not often that you get opportunities to advance within a single institution. That’s why I want to do my best to make it easier for younger people, to be a kind of mentor to the Latinx people who work with me, and to ensure that after working with me here, they can move on to another museum as curatorial assistants. So far, I’ve supervised three fellows: Alana Hernández, who now works at the ASU Art Museum in Tempe, Arizona; Angélica Arbelaez, who is at the High Museum of Art; and Sofía Silva, who is pursuing her PhD at Stanford University.

Q. How will the 2026 Whitney Biennial differ from previous editions?

A. The last biennial was quieter, more somber. It was before the elections, and I think you could feel that pressure coming, but not directly, just latently. The tone of this biennial is much higher, full of sharper nuances.

Q. What has it been like working with Drew Sawyer?

A. We’ve decided to approach this biennial with an open mind. Since we began the research process in August, visiting artists’ studios, we’ve been traveling twice a month outside of New York. We’ve been to Puerto Rico, Mexico, Hawaii, New Orleans, Toronto… And when we’re in New York, we do four to eight visits a week, in addition to the virtual ones. We’re still absorbing, so we haven’t decided what the guiding thread will be. Our strategy is not to go in with a well-defined thesis, but to focus on the present with a granular view and understand what artists are thinking at this moment. Whether or not they’re responding to what’s happening politically, and if so, how. But in general, the artists have already been working for a long time on ideas that have to do with climate change, the community — especially among trans artists — and how the government extends its tentacles in different ways. There are Latinx artists who, decades ago, had already felt the presence of the United States as a giant neoliberal political entity with many consequences.

Q. Is the inclusion of Latinx artists in major cultural institutions real or still symbolic?

A. We’ll have to wait and see if the museums have a real commitment or if it was just a symbolic representation. I’m very interested to see how they react. I don’t want to see cowardice on the part of either the museums or the patrons.

Q. How do you think current U.S. politics might impact Latin art?

A. At the end of February, two exhibitions of Caribbean and queer art were canceled at the Art Museum of the Americas in Washington, D.C., but I haven’t noticed any changes toward Latinx art at the museum where I work. I think there’s more sensitivity to the Gaza war. What I fear is that collectors and donors will start taking measures that no one asked them to and that an unnecessary conservative shift will occur.

Q. How can we reframe American art history to better reflect the diversity of voices?

A. By making exhibitions more plural. For example, from November 2024 to February 2026 we have an exhibition called Shifting Landscapes, where the vast majority of the works on display are acquisitions the museum has made in the last five years, and 40% of the 80 artists on display are Latinx.

Q. What do you think about the recent rejection of the Spanish language by government agencies?

A. I’m concerned because at the Whitney, we’ve invested in a very strong bilingual program, developed by the Education Department headed by Cris Scorza. Starting this summer, we’ll have all the exhibits translated for the first time — the explanations, the fact sheets, the labels, all the exhibits in the gallery.

Q. What is your biggest challenge right now?

A. Not to get lost, overwhelmed, or intimidated by everything that’s happening in the sociopolitical context. Curators are at the service of art and artists, and that will always be the main goal.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition