Attorney General Pam Bondi vows to preserve religious freedom against 'emerging threats'
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Trump tells Christians they won't have to vote after this election
The GOP presidential nominee delivered the comments during a keynote speech at Turning Point Action's Believers' Summit.
President Donald Trump created the Religious Liberty Commission with a May 1 executive order.
The commission met for the first time at the Museum of the Bible on June 16 in Washington, D.C.
WASHINGTON −U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said religious liberty has 'come under attack' in the nation during the inaugural meeting of President Donald Trump's Religious Liberty Commission.
The commission met at the Museum of the Bible and Bondi referenced Trump's May 1 executive order, which established the panel and said Americans must work to 'preserve (religious freedom) against emerging threats.'
'The federal government became complicit in sheltering these threats, becoming the greatest threat itself,' Bondi said before listing events under former President Joe Biden's administration.
She mentioned the nearly two-dozen anti-abortion activists whom Trump pardoned in January and claimed Biden 'marked Easter Sunday, the holiest day in the Christian calendar, as Transgender Day of Visibility.' As USA TODAY previously reported, the latter commemoration has long been celebrated on March 31, and Easter also landing on that date in 2024 was coincidental.
Bondi said the administration has dropped cases that stemmed from the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, under which anti-abortion activists have been arrested, and has supported the 'rights of parents to protect their children from transgender books" in public schools. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on a case involving the latter issue.
Bondi's message didn't sit well with Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons of Interfaith Alliance, who was one of a half dozen people who left the museum's theater during what he described as Bondi's 'very extreme' remarks.
'To see the attorney general use her short remarks to just act aggrieved was disturbing, but expected,' he said.
Graves-Fitzsimmons was already skeptical of the commission before June 16, and he found the meeting affirmed his suspicion by having 'very little diversity of thought.'
A theme among numerous speakers was a belief that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment doesn't prevent the government from promoting religion and that it can and should do so.
South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman said posting the Ten Commandments in a public school classroom, for example, does not violate the clause. Mark David Hall, a Regent University professor who served as a witness at the meeting, said the founders didn't believe religion must be 'scrubbed from the public square.'
Such sentiments reflect what Graves-Fitzsimmons described as the commission's 'misuse of religious liberty.'
'I think most Americans believe separation of church and state is good for both, and their voices aren't being heard at all by this commission,' he said.
Rabbi Meir Soloveichik supported what he described as the Supreme Court's shift to a 'more accurate' understanding of religious freedom in recent years.
Several speakers referenced legal concepts and court cases that they hoped would be revisited in the years to come. Alliance Defending Freedom President Kristen Waggoner, for example, supported challenges to the so-called Johnson Amendment, which prohibits churches from getting involved in politics.
Bondi, who previously led the inaugural meeting of the 'Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias,' said the Department of Justice will use 'every legal and constitutional tool available' to uphold religious liberty.
'Let this commission serve as a reminder – elections have consequences,' Bondi said. 'And this president and this administration are fully committed to restoring and defending religious liberty for all Americans.'
The commission's next meeting will be held in September.
BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@usatoday.com.
USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
13 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
9th Circuit keeps freeze on Southern California ICE patrols
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a stinging blow to the Trump administration's mass deportation project Friday night in a fiery opinion upholding a lower court's block on 'roving patrols' across much of Southern California. 'If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion,' the panel wrote. The ruling leaves in place a temporary restraining order barring masked and heavily armed agents from snatching people off the streets of Southern California without first establishing reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally. Under the 4th Amendment, reasonable suspicion cannot be based solely on race, ethnicity, language, location or employment, either alone or in combination, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of Los Angeles wrote in her original order. 9th Circuit Judges Marsha S. Berzon, Jennifer Sung and Ronald M. Gould agreed. 'There is no predicate action that the individual plaintiffs would need to take, other than simply going about their lives, to potentially be subject to the challenged stops,' the opinion said. Fourth Amendment injunctions are hard to win, experts say. Plaintiffs must show not only that they were hurt, but that they are likely to be hurt again in the same way in the future. One way to meet that test in court is to show the injury is the product of a government policy. Throughout a hearing Monday, the appellate judges repeatedly probed that question, roughly doubling the administration's time to respond in an effort to get an answer. 'After the district court injunction here, the secretary of Homeland Security said, 'We are going to continue doing what we're doing' — so that's not a policy?' Berzon asked. 'The policy is to follow the 4th Amendment and to require reasonable suspicion,' said Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Yaakov Roth. Roth also rebuffed questions about a 3,000-arrests-per-day quota first touted by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller in May. In a memo to the panel on Wednesday, Roth clarified that 'no such goal' had been established. The court rejected that argument Friday, writing that 'no official statement or express policy is required' to prove one exists. 'Agents have conducted many stops in the Los Angeles area within a matter of weeks ... some repeatedly in the same location,' the opinion said, making the likelihood of future stops 'considerable.' The ruling scolded the Department of Justice for 'misreading' the restraining order it sought to block, and said it 'mischaracterized' Judge Frimpong's order. And it rejected the government's central claim that its law enforcement mandate would be 'chilled' by the district court's order. 'Defendants have failed to establish that they will be 'chilled' from their enforcement efforts at all, let alone in a manner that constitutes the 'irreparable injury' required to support a stay pending appeal,' the panel wrote. The case is still in its early phases, with hearings set for a preliminary injunction in September. But the 'shock and awe' campaign of chaotic public arrests that first gripped Southern California on June 6 has all but ceased in the seven counties covered by Frimpong's order: Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. 'The underlying 4th Amendment law is not complicated,' said Mohammad Tajsar of the ACLU of Southern California — part of a coalition of civil rights groups and individual attorneys challenging cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests. 'Even a more conservative panel would have been concerned about what the government is doing.' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, whose city was among a number of Southern California municipalities allowed to join the lawsuit this week, celebrated the news. 'Today is a victory for the rule of law and for the city of Los Angeles,' Bass said. 'Los Angeles will stand together against this administration's efforts to break up families who contribute every single day to the life, the culture and the economy of our great city.' The Trump administration has previously signaled its intent to fight judicial limits on its deportation efforts any way it can. It was not immediately clear where an appeal would proceed.
Hamilton Spectator
42 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK (AP) — It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. It's part of a larger effort around American stories The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' It shows how the presentation of history matters In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.' ___
Hamilton Spectator
42 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
DeSantis set a Florida record for executions. It's driving a national increase
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — In the final moments of a life defined by violence, 60-year-old Edward Zakrzewski thanked the people of Florida for killing him 'in the most cold, calculated, clean, humane, efficient way possible,' breathing deeply as a lethal drug cocktail coursed through his veins. With his last breath, strapped to a gurney inside a state prison's death chamber, Zakrzewski paid what Florida had deemed was his debt to society and became the 27th person put to death in the U.S. so far this year, the highest number in a decade. Under Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis , Florida has executed nine people in 2025 , more than than any other state , and set a new state record, with DeSantis overseeing more executions in a single year than any other Florida governor since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Across the country, more people have been put to death in the first seven months of this year than in all of 2024 . Florida's increase is helping put the U.S. on track to surpass 2015's total of 28 executions. And the number of executions is expected to keep climbing. Nine more people are scheduled to be put to death in seven states during the remainder of 2025. Florida drives a national increase in executions After the Supreme Court lifted its ban on capital punishment in the '70s, executions steadily increased, peaking in 1999 at 98 deaths. Since then, they had been dropping — in part due to legal battles, a shortage of lethal injection drugs, and declining public support for capital punishment, which has prompted a majority of states to either pause or abolish it altogether. The ratcheting up after this yearslong decline comes as Republican President Donald Trump has urged prosecutors to aggressively seek the death penalty and as some GOP-controlled state legislatures have pushed to expand the category of crimes punishable by death and the methods used to carry out executions . John Blume, director of the Cornell Death Penalty Project, says the uptick in executions doesn't appear to be linked to a change in public support for the death penalty or an increase in the rate of death sentences, but is rather a function of the discretion of state governors. 'The most cynical view would be: It seems to matter to the president, so it matters to them,' Blume said of the governors. 'The only appropriate punishment' In response to questions from The Associated Press, a spokesperson for DeSantis pointed to statements the governor made at a press conference in May, saying he takes capital cases 'very seriously.' 'There are some crimes that are just so horrific, the only appropriate punishment is the death penalty,' DeSantis said, adding: 'these are the worst of the worst.' Julie Andrew expressed relief after witnessing the April execution of the man who killed her sister in the Florida Keys in 2000. 'It's done,' she said. 'My heart felt lighter and I can breathe again.' The governor's office did not respond to questions about why the governor is increasing the pace of executions now and whether Trump's policies are playing a role. Deciding who lives and who dies Little is publicly known about how the governor decides whose death warrant to sign and when, a process critics have called 'secretive' and 'arbitrary.' According to the Florida Department of Corrections, there are 266 people currently on death row, including two men in their 80s, both of whom have been awaiting their court-ordered fate for more than 40 years. Speaking at the press conference in May, DeSantis said it's his 'obligation' to oversee executions, which he hopes provide 'some closure' to victims' families. 'Any time we go forward, I'm convinced that not only was the verdict correct, but that this punishment is absolutely appropriate under the circumstances,' DeSantis said. US ranks alongside Iran and Saudi Arabia for executions For years, the U.S. has ranked alongside Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt as among the countries carrying out the highest number of confirmed executions. China is thought to execute more of its citizens than any other nation, although the exact totals are considered a state secret, according to the non-profit Death Penalty Information Center. Robin Maher, the center's executive director, says elected officials in the U.S. have long used the death penalty as a 'political tool,' adding it's 'a way of embellishing their own tough-on-crime credentials.' Florida executions vary year to year In 2024, DeSantis signed one death warrant. From 2020-2022, Florida didn't carry out a single execution. In 2023, DeSantis oversaw six — the highest number during his time in office until this year. 2023 was also the year the governor challenged Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. There are a number of reasons why the rate of executions may vary from one administration to the next, said Mark Schlakman, an attorney and Florida State University professor who advised then-governor Lawton Chiles on the death penalty. The availability of staff resources, the tempo of lengthy legal appeals, and court challenges against the death penalty itself can all play a role, Schlakman said, as well as a governor's 'sensibilities.' 'The one person who can stop this' One execution after another, opponents of the death penalty hold vigils in the Florida capitol, outside the governor's mansion, and near the state prison that houses the death chamber, as people of faith across the state pray for mercy, healing and justice. Suzanne Printy, a volunteer with the group Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, has hand-delivered thousands of petitions to DeSantis' office, but says they seem to have no effect. Recently, DeSantis signed death warrants for two more men scheduled to die later this month. Still, Printy keeps praying. 'He's the one person who can stop this,' she said. ___ Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
