Critics say Trump's religion agenda will benefit conservative Christians the most
President Donald Trump has won plaudits from his base of conservative Christian supporters for establishing multiple faith-related entities.
'We're bringing back religion in our country,' Trump said at a recent Rose Garden event, on the National Day of Prayer, when he announced the creation of the Religious Liberty Commission. 'We must always be one nation under God, a phrase that they would like to get rid of, the radical left.'
But others, including some Christians, are alarmed by these acts — saying Trump isn't protecting religion in general but granting a privileged status to politically conservative expressions of Christianity that happen to include his supporters.
What's up with the 'separation of church and state' debate?
Critics are even more aghast that he's questioning a core understanding of the First Amendment. 'They say 'separation between church and state,'' Trump said at the prayer day gathering, when he talked about establishing the White House Faith Office. 'I said, all right, let's forget about that for one time.'
Trump's creation of these various bodies is 'definitely not normal, and it's very important to not look at them as individual entities,' said the Rev. Shannon Fleck, executive director of Faithful America, a progressive Christian advocacy organization.
'They are indicative of an entire system that is being constructed at the national level,' she said. 'It's a system specifically designed to guide and shape culture in the U.S.'
Fleck worries about the combined effect of Trump administration actions and a spate of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years. The court, now with three Trump appointees, has lowered barriers between church and state in its interpretations of the First Amendment's ban on any congressionally recognized establishment of religion.
'My freedom of religion runs right up to the point when yours begins, and if I am then trying to establish something that's going to affect your right to practice your faith, that is against the First Amendment,' Fleck said.
But religious supporters of Trump are happy with his expansion of religion-related offices.
'We were a nation birthed by prayer, founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic to ensure that people could worship as they wished,' said Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican, at the Rose Garden ceremony where he was announced as chair of the Religious Liberty Commission. Many members are conservative Christian clerics and commentators; some have supported Trump politically. The event featured Christian praise music along with Jewish, Muslim and Christian prayers.
White House assistant press secretary Taylor Rogers, via email, said the commission is ensuring 'that all Americans' God-given right is protected, no matter their religion.' Rogers said the criticism is coming from anti-Trump advocacy groups that are trying to undermine his agenda.
A closer look at the new religious entities
The three entities created under Trump overlap in their marching orders and, in some cases, their membership.
In February, Trump established the White House Faith Office, led by evangelist Paula White-Cain as a 'special government employee,' according to the announcement. She's resuming a similar role she held in the first Trump administration.
White-Cain — who also serves on the new Religious Liberty Commission — was one of the earliest high-profile Christian leaders to support Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and is considered Trump's spiritual adviser.
Her office is designed to consult 'experts within the faith community' on 'practices to better align with the American values.' It also is tasked with religious-liberty training and promoting grant opportunities for faith-based entities; and working to 'identify failures' in federal protection for religious liberty.
Also in February, Trump created a Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi with representatives from several federal departments.
Its mandate is to expose and reverse what Trump claims were 'egregious' violations of Christians' rights under former President Joe Biden. Many of those claims have been disputed, as has the need for singling out for protection the nation's largest and most culturally and politically dominant religious group.
A White House action focused on a specific religion is not unprecedented. The Biden administration, for example, issued strategy plans to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia. Both Trump administrations have issued executive orders on combating antisemitism.
An April hearing of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias featured witnesses from across federal departments, alleging that Christians during the Biden administration faced discrimination for such things as opposing vaccine mandates or 'DEI/LGBT ideology' on religious grounds. Some claimed that schools' legal or tax enforcement actions were actually targeted because of their Christian religion.
The State and Veterans Affairs departments have asked people to report alleged instances of anti-Christian bias.
The White House said the Justice Department formed specific task forces to respond to what it called a 'concentration of bias' against Christians and Jews, but that it's committed to combating discrimination against Americans of any faith.
The latest entity to be created, the Religious Liberty Commission, has a mandate to recommend policies to protect and 'celebrate America's peaceful religious pluralism.'
Patrick, the chair, has supported legislation requiring Texas school districts to allow prayer time for students and says he wants his state to emulate Louisiana in requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in public school classrooms.
Among the commission's mandates: to look into 'conscience protections in the health care field and concerning vaccine mandates' and government 'displays with religious imagery.'
Among the commissioners are Catholic bishops, Protestant evangelists, a rabbi and attorneys focused on religious liberty cases. Its advisory boards include several Christian and some Jewish and Muslim members.
A commission member, author and broadcaster, Eric Metaxas, supported its work in a column Friday for the conservative site Blaze Media.
'This commission's goal is to strengthen the liberty of every single American — regardless of that person's faith and even of whether that person has any faith,' he wrote. 'It also aims to restore those liberties attacked by hostile and misguided secularists.'
Fulfilling a priority for Trump's conservative Christian backers
Charles Haynes, senior fellow for religious liberty at the Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan foundation focused on First Amendment rights, said the various entities reflect Trump's attempt to fulfill an agenda priority of his conservative Christian supporters.
He said the entities' work reflects their long-standing contention that the First Amendment has "been misapplied to keep Christians out of the public square, to discriminate against Christianity, by which they mean their understandings of Christianity.'
Trump's moves and recent Supreme Court cases are reversing a consensus dating at least to the 1940s that the First Amendment strictly prohibits government-sponsored religion at the federal and state levels, Haynes said.
He said the First Amendment actually provides broad protections for religious expressions in settings such as public schools. He helped write a Freedom Forum guide on religion in public schools, endorsed by groups across the ideological spectrum. It notes that within some limits, students can pray on their own time in schools, express their faith in class assignments, distribute religious literature, form school religious clubs and receive some accommodations based on religious belief.
But Haynes noted that the Supreme Court is now considering allowing Oklahoma to pay for a Catholic charter school, which he said could erase a long-standing standard that public-funded schools don't teach a particular religion.
'It's a very different day in the United States when both the Supreme Court and the president of the United States appear to be intent on changing the arrangement on religious freedom that we thought was in place,' Haynes said. 'It's a radical departure from how we've understood ourselves.'
___
Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
What happens if gay marriage is overturned? The question alone is horrifying.
The more we talk about gay marriage as if it's something that could be questioned legally, the more the public will begin to question whether Obergefell was a mistake. A recent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seeks to overturn the landmark 2015 case Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, giving the entire LGBTQ+ community reason to be fearful – even if the case is unlikely to be heard by the court. Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky, filed a petition in late July asking the court to appeal a decision that she must pay $360,000 in damages and legal fees for refusing to issue a gay couple a marriage license after the Obergefell decision came down. According to the appeal, this infringed upon Davis' First Amendment right to freedom of religion. There are a variety of reasons gay marriage is likely safe despite this appeal, including changing opinions on the court, public support for same-sex marriage and the 2022 Respect For Marriage Act. It doesn't change the fact that the very notion of this right being overturned is a reminder to the LGBTQ+ community that our rights are dependent upon the whims of politicians and judges, and could easily disappear. I don't trust this Supreme Court to leave same-sex marriage alone In 2015, Davis wound up in jail for six days for contempt of court when she refused to grant a marriage license to gay couples in Rowan County, Kentucky. One couple who were refused a license, David Moore and David Ermold, sued Davis for violating their constitutional right to marry. Moore and Ermold were awarded $50,000 each in damages, plus $260,000 for legal fees. Davis attempted to appeal the ruling with the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals but was denied this March. She then sent her appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in July, which is how we ended up here. Mat Staver, Davis' lawyer, told Fox News he believes this case will be heard by the nation's highest court based on the fact that three of the dissenting justices from Obergefell – Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito – are still on the court. Other legal scholars aren't so sure that five justices are willing to overrule the case. Robbie Kaplan, a lawyer who argued in defense of LGBTQ+ rights in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 in a ruling that eventually paved the way for Obergefell, told Axios it would cause a lot more legal problems than it's worth. "It's not just a recipe for administrative chaos," Kaplan said. "It also would result in an almost indescribable amount of (needless) suffering and heartache." Opinion: I was the named 'opposition' in Obergefell v. Hodges. I've never been happier to lose. I'm skeptical that the very court that sent abortion rights back to the states cares about the legal complications that a ruling like this could cause. In the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, Thomas even issued a concurrent opinion saying he believed Obergefell should be reconsidered. The Supreme Court has also asked Moore and Ermold to respond to Davis' petition, which hints at the possibility that this case could be considered by the court. Kim Davis' petition reminds us our rights are revocable Davis' appeal isn't the only attack on gay marriage since President Donald Trump returned to the White House and Republicans took the majority in Congress. Resolutions were introduced in five states that would have formally asked the Supreme Court to review Obergefell. In two of those states, Idaho and North Dakota, the resolutions passed the House of Representatives before failing in the Senate. While these measures were unsuccessful, it's a sign of growing discontent among Republican politicians with the legality of same-sex marriage. In June, the Southern Baptist Convention voted for a resolution to ask the court to reconsider gay marriage. A denomination may have no legal authority in our secular government, but the resolution signals that we should be worried. Opinion: I told you GOP would come for marriage. Southern Baptists just proved my point. The fact that these resolutions were even introduced is scary for the LGBTQ+ community. It's a sign that there are still people out there who think we shouldn't be able to marry the people we love, that our rights as couples should differ from the rights of straight couples merely based on a few verses in the Bible. It's a reminder that the rights we fought for years to gain can be reversed, that all it takes is a conservative shift in government to send us back to a time before legal gay marriage. What would happen if gay marriage were overturned? Thankfully, Democrats in 2022 passed the Respect For Marriage Act, which says that same-sex and interracial marriages must be recognized by the federal government and every state, even if Obergefell were to fall. However, the loss of the 2015 Supreme Court ruling would affect future generations of LGBTQ+ people looking to get married. If the Obergefell ruling were overturned tomorrow, same-sex marriage would become illegal in 32 states that have constitutional and/or legislative bans on marriage equality. This would affect more than half of the LGBTQ+ people in the United States. Per a May 2025 Gallup poll, 68% of Americans say same-sex marriages should be legally recognized. While this is a safe majority of people, support is down from a high of 71% in 2023 – signaling a potential shift in the acceptability of gay marriage nationwide. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. I'm also not one to believe that public support will sway the justices from hearing a case. After all, abortion rights were also widely popular, but that didn't stop the court from sending legality back to the states. Gay marriage is not going to disappear tomorrow. This does mean, however, that gay people are once again being reminded that their rights are dependent on a handful of people and the opinions of politicians and can easily be stripped away. We've already witnessed how the trans community has lost rights in a matter of months. The more we talk about gay marriage as if it's something that could be questioned legally, the more the public will begin to question whether Obergefell was a mistake. Even if it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court will take up this review, the fact that an appeal was even introduced is bringing anxiety to the LGBTQ+ community – and it should be taken seriously. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.


New York Post
25 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump moving closer to decision on making weed less criminal in eyes of federal government: sources
It isn't quite the ruckus involving the Jeffrey Epstein docs, but there is a quieter, more important conflict inside Trump world over weed — namely whether the president should legalize it and just how legal it should be, The Post has learned And according to my sources, Trump is in a compromising mood. He appears to be moving closer to making a decision in the coming weeks to make weed something less criminal in the eyes of the federal government. Advertisement Trump is ready, several MAGA pro-pot sources tell me, to make a decision on at least reclassifying weed as a so-called Schedule III drug, putting it on par with semi-controlled substances like anabolic steroids. Not to get too far into the proverbial weeds, but Pot Inc. wants marijuana reclassified so it's not being lumped in with hard drugs like heroin — and it's a drama these pages first covered in late April. That way this booming business continues to grow with access to the banking system as cultural norms continue to shift and the majority of Americans see pot as no more dangerous than booze. Tax revenues would flow into federal coffers as the industry expands. Trump appears to be moving closer to making a decision in the coming weeks to make weed something less criminal in the eyes of the federal government. AFP via Getty Images There are headwinds. Many MAGA types believe pot is leading to cultural rot. Breeding a population of stoners isn't good for the country since the pot today is far stronger than the joints Cheech & Chong rolled years ago. Advertisement Trump barely drinks and personally hates anything that dulls the senses. He's a law-and-order guy — witness his takeover of DC policing over quality-of-life issues, including the persistent smell of pot almost everywhere you walk. That said, the president seems to be leaning toward a compromise on federal legalization, including allowing for medical use based on evidence of its efficacy in severe pain relief. He's also said to be compelled by the business and the political argument of going soft on pot. He's done that before, doing his famous 180 on crypto for votes during the 2024 election and delivering with deregulation that is propelling the blockchain industry. Advertisement There are an estimated 17 million-plus Americans who use pot regularly, and Trump understands math. The pot lobby could help in key races as the midterms approach. MAGA loyalist Matt Gaetz, the former Florida congressman and Trump's initial pick for attorney general, is one who believes embracing pot would further expand Trump's base among working-class people of all races, where pot u sage is most prevalent. 'President Trump would cement [these voters] for Republicans for 25 years by 'rescheduling' marijuana,' Gaetz said. 'Obama always wanted to do it but didn't have the balls.' Gaetz added that Biden with his 'autopen presidency' was too busy destroying the country to care. 'This is yet another opportunity for Trump to notch a generational win where Ob- ama and Joe Biden failed.' Advertisement Longtime hedge fund trader Marc Cohodes is even more adamant about legalizing marijuana. He is both an investor in Pot Inc. and a medical user after shoulder surgery. 'If he totally legalizes, Trump will totally destroy the Democratic Party,' Cohodes tells me. 'Polls show that most Americans want this legalized. Trump will turn the GOP into the people's party.' Trump's options include totally 'declassifying' pot, making it 100% legal in the eyes of federal law. He could also 'reschedule' pot as a 'Schedule III' controlled substance, along the lines of anabolic steroids and other drugs that the feds have modestly blessed for specific medical-related uses. If he does nothing, pot would r emain a Schedule I drug, where the federal government views it as a highly controlled substance. Up to $60 billion annually The various distinctions matter for the pot industry, which is estimated to rake in between $40 billion and $60 billion a year. While marijuana is fully legal or decriminalized in most states, without the federal government taking it off the Schedule I list it can't be 'banked.' Wall Street shies away from underwriting the stock of any company that in Pot Inc. parlance 'touches the plant.' If Wall Street can begin underwriting pot stocks, financing US-based growers, for example, Pot Inc. could grow exponentially. Still, legalization skeptics on Trump's team will have a say. New Drug Enforcement Administration chief Terry Cole is a veteran at an agency with a long anti-pot bias. Advertisement Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the head of the Department of Health and H uman Services, has spoken about decriminalizing weed but also how there are negative health effects from consuming the 'high-potency' stuff. Many critics say today's bud has hallucinogenic effects, and could be a gateway to more dangerous stuff like opioids. That's why Gaetz thinks Trump won't go for full legalization and allow it only for medical use. Ditto for longtime Trump political guru Roger Stone. 'I don't think he ever completely de-schedules it, which is what I would do,' Stone tells me. Advertisement Cohodes says not going all the way would be a mistake. First, banking for Pot Inc. would remain difficult if it is only re- scheduled. Plus, making it totally legal could help decimate a major source of income for the various drug cartels. It would be age-restricted by the government. 'By eliminating prohibition, illegal cartels get removed because legal businesses not currently banked become bankable,' Cohodes said.


Boston Globe
25 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Once again, Trump sends soldiers to do police officers' jobs
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It's clear that he intends to keep sending troops into American cities. But Americans can't let that become the new normal. Advertisement There ought to be bipartisan pushback. After all, Republicans used to be the first to object to federal interference in local affairs. Indeed, it should not have to be said how dangerous this is: Federalized police takeovers of cities are hallmarks of autocracies. When leaders cannot govern by democratic means, they turn to force to bend citizens to their will. And, as is often the case in backsliding democracies, they falsely claim to be acting for people's own good. Advertisement 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs, and homeless people, and we're not going to let it happen anymore,' Trump said at His words are not backed up by data. Among other things, he cited 2023 crime statistics from the city, which did experience a post-pandemic crime surge. But since then, violent crime has plummeted in the city. Even if the district really were the dystopian hellscape Trump describes, though, it is wrong to think the military could fix it. Crime is a complicated, multifaceted problem, not something that can be solved with Humvees. Trump, though, was not deterred by facts. 'I'm officially invoking Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, you know what that is, and placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control,' Trump said. Trump's announced plan is, at least in part, of debatable legality. Because of D.C.'s unique status as the nation's capital, the president and Congress do have powers there that they lack elsewhere. Still, the law Trump cited does not allow the president to commandeer local law enforcement in Washington, as he seemed to imply. The Home Rule Act, which established D.C.'s local government, gives the president no local law enforcement powers at all, meaning he cannot direct local police to conduct patrols, detain people, or arrest them. What the law does allow is for the president to direct the local police, under Section 740, if 'special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for federal purposes .' The law also caps the amount of time such emergency declaration can last to 48 hours, which can be extended to 30 days if Congress is properly notified of the action. Advertisement 'In other words,' borrow the [Washington police] for his own priorities; but he can't control how they discharge their other duties.' This is something Trump could have done, for example, on Jan. 6, 2021 during the violent siege of the US Capitol building to allow seamless coordination of local and federal law enforcement to assist Capitol Police in stemming the violence. But in that emergency, he chose not to. Something else the president has done in D.C. this week that he didn't do during the Jan. 6 attack is to mobilize the D.C. National Guard. Unlike in states, where governors direct the National Guard, the D.C. National Guard reports directly to the president, who reportedly deployed The federal government also has some powers to deploy agents from other agencies, such as the US Park Police, the Department of Homeland Security, and ICE, but the law limits some of those agency's powers based on jurisdiction and subject matter. For example, ICE agents can only conduct civil immigration enforcement, they cannot conduct an arrest for suspected carjacking or any other local criminal action, and Park Police only have jurisdiction on federal land. Whether all law enforcement officials are staying within legal and constitutional lines is yet to be determined. In California, where a trial is underway to determine if the administration violated the law with its deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles, it will take months if not years for the matter to make its way through the courts. The same will be true with the latest gambit in D.C. Advertisement But in the meantime, the president and other administration officials have the The president is taking advantage of the fact that he can implement legally and constitutionally dubious actions before courts have time to vet and stop them. But leaders, including Republicans who have long called for limited government, should decry this and do what they can to stop this autocratic move. Whether it is part of a cynical play to the the GOP's base ahead of midterm elections, or part of a deeper plan, as outlined by the White House earlier this year to ' Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us