Religious Liberty TV, by Michael Peabody: During the May 1, 2025, National Day of Prayer ceremony at the White House, President Donald Trump introduced the Religious Liberty Commission with a striking comment: “They say, ‘Separation between church and state.’ I said, ‘All right, let’s forget about that for one time.’” He added, “Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I’m not sure,” before telling faith leaders, “Whether there’s separation or not, you guys are in the White House where you should be, and you’re representing our country, and we’re bringing religion back to our country.”
While Trump is known for using hyperbole and provocative phrasing to appeal to his political base, his statements—when paired with the official launch of a federally-backed Religious Liberty Commission—have renewed legal scrutiny over the line between government and religion.
The executive order establishes a 14-member body, chaired by Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and vice-chaired by former HUD Secretary Dr. Ben Carson. It includes religious figures like Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Bishop Robert Barron, and Franklin Graham, alongside public personalities such as Dr. Phil McGraw. The commission is authorized through July 4, 2026, to coincide with America’s 250th anniversary.
According to the White House, the commission is tasked with delivering a report on:
– The “spiritual and philosophical” foundations of religious liberty.
– Threats to religious freedom domestically and globally.
– Policy recommendations to protect conscience rights, parental control in education, and institutional religious autonomy.
– Recommendations on legislative and executive action to safeguard religious liberty.
The panel will also provide ongoing guidance to the Domestic Policy Council and the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative. The order explicitly encourages the commission to propose methods for celebrating “peaceful religious pluralism”—while also prioritizing protections for houses of worship, religious education, and faith-based service organizations.
Some advocates, however, point out that such commissions risk privileging dominant religious perspectives, particularly Christianity. Critics argue that this initiative is less about protecting religious freedom broadly, and more about reinforcing conservative Christian values through government policy. Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, claimed, “This commission is not about religious liberty, but about advancing Christian Nationalism.”
Trump’s style of exaggeration, while discounted as mere rhetoric and often entertaining, can become more consequential when embedded in official government action. When a president jokes about ignoring the First Amendment while signing an order that empowers religious leaders to shape public policy, that is something to follow closely.
The commission has no direct policymaking power but could influence future executive actions, legislation, and agency rules. The scope of its recommendations—on issues ranging from school choice to conscience exemptions in healthcare—could create legal clashes over whether religious liberty is being used to justify discrimination or exclusion in public institutions.
Supporters, including many of the commission’s members, say the initiative is a necessary response to what they describe as an increasingly hostile climate for people of faith.
The commission is expected to issue its final report to the president by July 4, 2026. Until then, we will watch for how the commission addresses the delicate balance between religious advocacy and constitutional neutrality between faith groups.
Prophetic Link:
“I have been shown that Satan is stealing a march upon us. The law of God, through the agency of Satan, is to be made void. In our land of boasted freedom, religious liberty will come to an end. The contest will be decided over the Sabbath question, which will agitate the whole world.” Evangelism, page 236.3.
Comments