Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

How Trump is using religion to undermine our democracy

Opinion

President Donald Trump at St. John's Church

President Trump "has played politics with religion in a way that damages America's democratic norms and practices," writes Amherst College professor Austin Sarat.

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images
Sarat is a professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.

The country has been consumed with a pandemic, an economic collapse and an uprising in the name of racial justice. But instead of rising to the challenge of addressing these colossal problems, President Trump has helped make freedom of religion a battlefront in the fight to stop the spread of Covid-19 and in the response to the killing of George Floyd.

He has played politics with religion in a way that damages America's democratic norms and practices.

In March, Trump called for the reopening of the national economy and places of worship by Easter, citing the symbolic significance of the Christian holiday.

In April, he met with conservative religious leaders and praised evangelical minister Franklin Graham for declaring the coronavirus"is a result of a fallen world, a world that has turned its back on God."

In May, the president highlighted the political dimension of his religious messaging when he said churches "are not being treated with respect by a lot of the Democrat governors." Playing to the fault lines of America's culture wars, he also criticized officials who have "deemed liquor stores and abortion clinics as essential, but have left out churches and other houses of worship."

And then on June 1, after tear gas and brute force moved peaceful protesters out of his way, the president walked from the White House to St. John's Church so he could be photographed awkwardly holding a Bible. That provoked a firestorm of criticism, but little of it focused on the ramifications for American democracy of a president's political use of religion during a national crisis.

Wariness about that kind of mixing of religion and politics has been a critical component of America's democratic experiment right from the start.

It is enshrined in the First Amendment's prohibition of the "establishment of religion" and its guarantee of religious liberty, and in the clause of the Constitution specifying that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust."

It also marked George Washington's presidency. His speeches contained many references to an "Almighty Being," or "the Benign Parent of the human race." Yet, believing it to be a danger to democracy, Washington opposed merging religion and public life.

Since then, American presidents have been more or less open about their religious beliefs — and their commitment to separating religion and politics.

Theodore Roosevelt offered one of the most explicit examples in 1908. "To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church," he told supporters who wanted to make a campaign issue of his opponent's religion, "is an outrage against the liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life."

Confronting such bigotry a half century later, John F. Kennedy, campaigning to be the first Roman Catholic president, assured voters that "I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me."

Amid such cautions, religious leaders for much of the 20th century played key roles in various movements seeking to build a more equal and inclusive society — just as they had a century earlier in the struggle against slavery.

Yet today the politicization of religious differences is much greater, complicating faith communities' efforts to avoid partisan entanglements. Polarization and tribalism now dominate American politics and have taken on a religious flavor.

A 2016 survey uncovered stark partisan differences among members of different religious groups. It found that the Democratic Party attracts voters from various spiritual backgrounds, while the Republican Party is an increasingly theological party, dominated by white evangelicals.

And not only do adherents of different religions align themselves with different parties these days; they treat one another as enemies who threaten their faith.

Many Democrats see what they call Christian "nationalism"as antithetical to "the vital interests of the country." In turn, some Christian leaders describe contemporary Democratic leaders as the "greatest threat to the free exercise of religion in American history" because they are "attacking the foundation of America's goodness."

The institutions of democracy are endangered by such intense religious entanglements and deep religious chasms, because they are ill-equipped to resolve conflicts over life's ultimate questions. Moreover, respect for procedure and the spirit of compromise that democracy requires cannot thrive when each side in a political debate sees the other as a danger to their deepest values.

This is the context in which the president's stoking of religious animosities has occurred. It helps explain why Trump's photo op two weeks ago was so significant.

The event's iconography intensified polarization and endangered democracy. And it suggested an alarming presidential point of view: People protesting police brutality and systemic racism, in the aftermath of Floyd's death under the knee of a Minneapolis officer, were like the Democratic governors Trump has reviled for refusing to open churches during the pandemic. They would defile religion if not contained — despite the fact that some of the people forcibly removed from the area were parishioners of the very church where the president posed.

By politicizing religion throughout this period of pandemic and protest, Trump is following the lead of authoritarian leaders in other nations by using "religion to reinforce his image as a strongman defending a particular brand of tradition against infidels."

James Madison alerted Americans to the threat that mixing religion and politics would pose for their fledgling democracy. "A zeal for different opinions concerning religion," he wrote in 1787, "divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good."

The warning rings true today: To use religion to divide Americans is to fail to "cooperate for their common good." If Trump genuinely wishes to build on religious precepts in a way that does not damage democracy, he would do well to heed the commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself.


Read More

Confirmation on Easy Mode: Sen. Mullin’s nomination to lead DHS

U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) testifies during his confirmation hearing to be the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Confirmation on Easy Mode: Sen. Mullin’s nomination to lead DHS

Since arriving in Congress in 2013 Sen. Markwayne Mullin has been known for disappearing for a few weeks to Afghanistan in a putative effort to rescue Americans still there after withdrawal and tried to draw the president of the Teamsters into a fight during a hearing. Ironically, or possibly appropriately, Sean O’Brien, that same president of the Teamsters, endorsed Mullin’s nomination. He has written several laws supporting Native American communities and pediatric cancer research. A Trump loyalist, on January 6, 2021 in the hours after the riot at the Capitol, Mullin voted to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election by omitting Arizona and Pennsylvania’s votes for Joe Biden.

His work experience prior to his political career was primarily in running his family’s plumbing business after his father became ill. He spent four months as a mixed martial arts fighter with a record of three wins. (He’s also gotten a lot richer while in Congress.)

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people signing papers.

A deep dive into the growing uncertainty in the U.S. legal immigration system, exploring policy shifts, backlogs, and how procedural instability is reshaping the promise of lawful immigration.

Getty Images, Halfpoint Images

When Immigration Rules Keep Changing, the System Stops Working

For generations, the United States has framed legal immigration as a kind of social contract. Since 1965, when the Immigration and Nationality Act ended the national-origin quota system, the U.S. has formally opened legal immigration to people from around the world without racial or national-origin preferences. If people from across the globe sought to reunite with family or bring needed skills to the American economy, they were told they would be welcomed. If they sought U.S. citizenship, the country would provide a clear route to reach it.

Follow the procedures, submit the forms, pay the fees, pass the background checks, and your time will come. Legal immigration has never been easy or quick. But the promise has always been that the path exists.

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Norm of DHS Shutdown & Long Airport Lines

Travelers wait in a TSA Pre security line at Miami International Airport on March 17, 2026, in Miami, Florida. Travelers across the country are enduring long airport security lines as a partial federal government shutdown affects the Transportation Security Administration officers working the security lines.

(Joe Raedle/Getty Images/TCA)

A New Norm of DHS Shutdown & Long Airport Lines

If you’ve ever traveled to France, chances are you’ve come up against this all-too-common phenomenon. You get to the train station and, without warning, your train is out of service. Or a restaurant is oddly closed during regular business hours.

“C’est la grève,” you may hear from a local, accompanied by a shrug. It’s the strike.

Keep ReadingShow less
Constitutional Barriers to Nationalizing Elections
US Capitol
US Capitol

Constitutional Barriers to Nationalizing Elections

In the run-up to the midterms, President Trump continues to call for nationalizing congressional elections. He has sought to initiate the process through executive orders, such as one proposing to set “a ballot receipt deadline of Election Day for all methods of voting.” The words and spirit of the United States Constitution—the bedrock textualism and originalism of conservative constitutional interpretation—say he can’t nationalize elections.

Unlike some consequential constitutional questions, it’s not a close call.

Keep ReadingShow less