Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump's FEC member says this election is a 'spiritual war'

Trey Trainor

FEC Chairman Trey Trainor said the separation of church and state is a "fallacy."

Caroline Brehman/Getty Images

The nation's newest campaign finance regulator is inserting himself into the never-ending debate about separating church and state, and causing a stir by accusing Roman Catholic bishops of hiding behind their church's nonprofit status to avoid endorsing candidates.

Trey Trainor, a Catholic who was confirmed for a long-vacant seat on the Federal Election Commission in May, also said in an interview with the conservative website Church Militant released on Wednesday (and a followup interview with the Religion News Service) that separation of church and state is a "fallacy" and that this year's election amounts to a "spiritual war."

None of these comments would appear to have any bearing on Trainor's role overseeing the federal rules that govern the flow of money into politics, but they quickly attracted criticism.


All nonprofits are prohibited by federal law from taking part in political campaigns, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops states in its "Political Activity Guidelines" that this precludes supporting or opposing specific candidates.

Trainor said he believes church officials are motivated by a fear of losing their tax status and the tax dollars that go to Catholic social service agencies.

"The bishops are using their nonprofit status as a shield to hide behind from having to make a decision about who to support," said Trainor, a longtime Republican campaign lawyer in Texas who is the only person President Trump has put on the FEC.

He said the bishops have nothing to fear about their tax status because Trump issued an executive order in 2017 directing the Treasury not to pursue legal action against religious organizations that speak out about politics. The actual impact of that order has been heavily debated but even Trainor agreed that it does not change the law on the books.

Fellow FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub is among those who disputed Trainor's views about limits on religious groups' political activity.

"My colleague is not correct," Weintraub, a Democrat who recently turned over the rotating job of FEC chairman to Trainor, said in a statement to RNS. She said the "statute remains the law of the land and cannot be undone with an executive order."

John Gehring, Catholic program director with the progressive group Faith in Public Life, tweeted that Trainor's comments were a "brazen use of federal power to encourage Catholic leaders to endorse Trump."

While their clergy have avoided endorsing candidates, some Catholics argue that followers of the faith should not vote for Democrats because of their support for abortion rights — most prominently Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, who is Catholic.

A Lacrosse, Wis., priest sparked controversy when he posted a video last month saying: "You cannot be a Catholic and a Democrat. Period." His bishop promised last week to "correct" the priest but a bishop in Texas stated his support for what the Wisconsin priest said.

Trainor's comment about the separation of church and state was based on the conservative legal view that the prohibition against government-sponsored religion in the Constitution is not meant to preclude people from expressing and acting on their faith in the public square.

And in his interview with RNS, he expanded on his comment that the election is a spiritual war.

"What we see going on around the country is complete anarchy in places where the rule of law has been completely abrogated," Trainor said. "So it is a spiritual war in that it is striking at the underlying foundations of our constitutional republic. It's getting rid of the Christian moral principles that are the basis of the foundation of the country."

The dustup comes at a time when Trainor is somewhat underemployed. Just a month after he joined the FEC one of his new colleagues resigned, leaving just three commissioners on the job — one short of a quorum, meaning the regulators have not been able to take any enforcement actions during the height of campaign season.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less