Trump Buttresses Religious Freedom - 19 April 2026

I noted with interest that President Trump is set to read scripture (II Chronicles 7:14-22) from the Oval Office during an "America Reads the Bible event, starting today, Sunday, 19 April 2026. How appropriate this is, I thought, considering that Trump has done more than any president in my lifetime to buttress freedom of religion which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Freedom of Religion has been under assault over the last several decades.

Grok: Freedom of religion, protected by the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, has faced challenges over the last few decades through government mandates, anti-discrimination enforcement, public school policies, and cultural shifts that sometimes prioritize other interests over religious exercise.
Key examples include:

  • Contraception and abortion-related mandates: The 2012 Affordable Care Act's HHS rule required most employers to cover contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients in health plans, with a narrow exemption limited essentially to houses of worship. This forced many religious nonprofits, hospitals, schools, and businesses (e.g., Hobby Lobby, Little Sisters of the Poor) to facilitate services violating their beliefs or face fines. Multiple Supreme Court cases and accommodations followed, but the initial policy exemplified regulatory pressure on religious institutions.
  • Conflicts with LGBTQ anti-discrimination laws: In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Colorado's commission showed anti-religious hostility when penalizing a baker for declining to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple on religious grounds. Similar tensions arose in cases involving florists, photographers, and adoption agencies. In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021), the Court unanimously held that Philadelphia violated Catholic Social Services' free exercise rights by excluding it from foster care contracts unless it certified same-sex couples, as the city's policy allowed discretionary exceptions and thus was not generally applicable.
  • Public education and parental rights: Schools have implemented curricula on gender and sexuality without opt-outs, prompting challenges. In Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), the Supreme Court ruled that parents have a right to notice and opt-outs from materials posing a "very real threat" of undermining their religious upbringing of children, applying strict scrutiny. Earlier cases involved limits on religious expression or unequal treatment of faith-based schools in funding programs (e.g., Espinoza v. Montana, Carson v. Makin).
  • COVID-19 restrictions: Some states imposed stricter limits on churches and religious gatherings than on secular venues like casinos or stores, leading to successful challenges. These highlighted unequal application of neutral laws.
  • Broader trends: Reports documented rising incidents of hostility against churches (vandalism, arson, threats), with numbers increasing sharply in recent years. Government actions occasionally targeted religious hiring, campus groups, or social services. Employment Division v. Smith (1990) weakened protections by allowing neutral laws of general applicability to burden religion without strict scrutiny, spurring the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and ongoing litigation. Supreme Court decisions since the 2010s have often reaffirmed stronger free exercise protections (e.g., Kennedy v. Bremerton on coach prayer, Trinity Lutheran on funding neutrality).
Critics argue these reflect a cultural push to confine religion to private spheres, subordinating it to evolving secular norms on sexuality, gender, and public health. Defenders of restrictions emphasize anti-discrimination, public access, or health imperatives. Courts have frequently required accommodations or struck down overt hostility, but disputes persist, with religious claimants winning many high-profile cases while facing prolonged legal and financial burdens. Overall, while the First Amendment framework endures, its application has been tested by competing rights claims and regulatory expansion.
Grok:  How, if at all, has Trump, as president, strengthened religious liberty in the US?
Yes, President Trump has taken multiple concrete actions during both of his terms to strengthen religious liberty protections under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, primarily by directing federal agencies to enforce existing laws more robustly, expanding exemptions and conscience protections, appointing judges who have ruled in favor of broader religious accommodations, and creating new institutional mechanisms to prioritize these issues. These steps have led to measurable policy shifts and a string of favorable Supreme Court outcomes. Critics, including groups like the ACLU and some progressive faith organizations, argue that these efforts selectively favor conservative Christian perspectives, potentially enabling discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals or minorities and eroding church-state separation. First Term (2017–2021): Executive Orders, Guidance, and Judicial Appointments On May 4, 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13798 ("Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty"). It declared it the policy of the executive branch to "vigorously enforce Federal law’s robust protections for religious freedom." Key provisions directed the IRS to avoid adverse actions against houses of worship or religious organizations for expressing views on political candidates (effectively de-emphasizing enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits 501(c)(3) nonprofits from endorsing or opposing candidates). It also instructed the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and HHS to review and potentially expand religious exemptions to the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate.
This was followed by an October 2017 Attorney General memorandum providing detailed guidance to agencies on federal religious liberty protections. The administration expanded faith-based initiatives, ensuring religious organizations had equal access to federal funding without compromising their beliefs, and issued conscience protections for healthcare providers (e.g., declining to participate in abortions or gender-transition procedures).
Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices—Neil Gorsuch (2017), Brett Kavanaugh (2018), and Amy Coney Barrett (2020)—plus hundreds of lower-court judges. These appointments shifted the Court's approach. Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court ruled in favor of religious claimants in orally argued cases about 81% of the time (a sharp increase from prior eras), with Trump's justices frequently in the majority on free-exercise issues.Notable examples (many decided during or shortly after his first term):
  • Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020): Broadened the "ministerial exception," shielding religious schools from certain employment discrimination suits.
  • Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020): Struck down COVID-19 restrictions treating houses of worship more harshly than secular venues.
  • Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021): Protected a Catholic foster agency from being excluded for its religious views on marriage.
  • Later cases like Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022, coach's public prayer) and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023, web designer's refusal of same-sex wedding projects) built on this foundation, often with 6-3 or 7-2 majorities including Trump's appointees.

These rulings lowered the bar for religious exemptions and emphasized that government cannot burden sincere religious exercise without a compelling reason. Second Term (2025–Present, as of April 2026): New Institutions and Regulatory Rollbacks Trump has built on this with explicit institutional focus:

  • February 2025: Established the White House Faith Office (first of its kind in the West Wing) to advise on faith-related policy and ensure faith leaders' input.
  • Early 2025: Created a Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias within federal agencies.
  • May 1, 2025: Executive Order 14291 established the Religious Liberty Commission (chaired by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, with members including Dr. Ben Carson, Bishop Robert Barron, and others; term ends July 2026). It advises on issues like pastors' First Amendment rights, attacks on houses of worship, conscience protections in healthcare/vaccines, school prayer, parental rights in religious education, and government displays with religious imagery. It explicitly aims to "vigorously enforce" religious liberty protections.
  • Directed agencies to repeal regulations conflicting with recent Supreme Court religious liberty precedents (e.g., on school aid and nondiscrimination).
  • April 2026: Treasury and IRS announced plans for new guidance clarifying the Johnson Amendment's application to religious organizations' communications during services, building on the 2017 EO.

Additional actions include DHS rescinding limits on enforcement near churches and warnings to schools about prayer policies to avoid losing federal funding.

Overall Assessment
These actions have institutionalized stronger enforcement of religious free exercise, expanded exemptions from generally applicable laws (e.g., mandates, antidiscrimination rules), and leveraged judicial appointments for lasting doctrinal changes. Proponents, including groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and First Liberty Institute, credit them with protecting faith communities from government overreach.
Critics contend the focus (e.g., anti-Christian bias task force, commission membership skewed toward conservative Christians) privileges certain faiths, risks violating the Establishment Clause, and could undermine protections for other groups. Legal challenges have been filed (e.g., over the commission's composition and transparency under the Federal Advisory Committee Act).
In sum, Trump has actively strengthened religious liberty from a free-exercise perspective through policy, personnel, and process—shifting federal practice and jurisprudence in favor of broader accommodations. Whether this represents a net gain for all Americans' religious freedoms remains debated along ideological lines.
II Chronicles 7: 14-22
Before posting this blog, I read II Chronicles 7:14-22. 
In II Chronicles 7:14-22, following the dedication of the temple in Jerusalem, God appears to King Solomon at night and responds to his prayer of dedication. The passage begins with a conditional promise (verse 14): if God's covenant people Israel—who are called by His name—humble themselves, pray, seek His face, and turn from their wicked ways when He sends judgment in the form of drought, locusts, or plague (verse 13), then He will hear from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land, restoring blessings tied to the temple as a house of sacrifice.
Verses 15-18 reaffirm God's attentive presence at the consecrated temple and His commitment to establish Solomon's throne if he walks faithfully before God like his father David, keeping the statutes and rules. However, verses 19-22 deliver a solemn warning: if Solomon or the people turn away, forsake God's commands, and worship other gods, He will uproot Israel from the land, reject and destroy the temple (making it a byword and object of ridicule among nations), and bring calamity upon them. Onlookers will recognize the cause as Israel's abandonment of the Lord who delivered them from Egypt, directly linking national disaster to covenant unfaithfulness (echoing the blessings and curses in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28).
In its original context, the passage underscores God's faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant with Israel: obedience brings blessing and restoration through repentance, while persistent idolatry leads to judgment and exile, serving as both assurance and caution for Solomon's reign and future generations. Christians today often apply its principles of humility, prayer, repentance, and seeking God personally or corporately for spiritual renewal and forgiveness, while recognizing it is not a direct political promise to any modern nation.
Final Note
Amongst Donald Trump's many contributions to date to reverse the course of US decline, buttressing the principle of freedom of religion, may be his most important one.