The Gospel According To Trump: The Dangers of State-Sanctioned Christian Supremacy

This week, the Trump administration announced the creation of the Religious Liberty Commission, a new body tasked with promoting what it calls America’s “founding principle” of religious freedom. Framed as pluralistic, the Commission is said to advise the White House Faith Office and the Domestic Policy Council on areas such as school choice, conscience protections, and the rights of religious institutions.

But the language and timing tell a different story. Citing “anti-Christian bias” as a central concern, the White House accuses the previous administration’s Department of Justice of targeting peaceful Christians while ignoring violent offenses against them. The order reaffirms earlier actions — like the DOJ task force on “anti-Christian bias” and the redirection of federal resources to fight anti-Semitism following October 7 — but frames these efforts in contrast to supposed past neglect, despite DOJ data showing that the vast majority of religious hate crimes in the U.S. target Jewish, Muslim, and Sikh communities, not Christians.

The Commission’s emphasis on “parental rights” and school choice echoes familiar tactics used to oppose 2SLGBTQIA+ inclusive curricula, suppress honest conversations about race and colonialism, and funnel public money into private religious schools. Conscience protections and institutional autonomy are also likely to be wielded as tools for expanding religious exemptions from civil rights laws — something we’ve already seen in cases where businesses, schools, and healthcare providers refused to serve 2SLGBTQIA+ people or provide reproductive care.

This is not simply a commission. It is a roadmap for embedding a culture war agenda into national policy- using faith as a shield for exclusion, deregulation, and control- while claiming to defend the very liberties it selectively protects. The Commission is structurally embedded within the Department of Justice, supported by taxpayer funding, and empowered to shape both domestic and international policy. Its three advisory boards, composed of religious leaders, lay leaders, and legal experts, are all handpicked by the President, raising serious concerns about ideological uniformity and lack of accountability.

What’s more, the focus areas listed- vaccine mandates, government displays of religious imagery, and the so-called “debanking” of religious entities- make the real goal unmistakable: to institutionalize a particular culture war worldview. This is not the defense of religious liberty for all. It is the elevation of one religious-political identity above all others, and the slow erosion of hard-won civil rights beneath the guise of freedom.

So where does this leave us? We need to be vigilant, not just in our analysis but in our organizing. This isn’t only about what’s been announced; it’s about what’s coming next. Here are key warning signs we must be watching for:

1. Selective representation — A disproportionate presence of one religious perspective, especially when it aligns explicitly with the ruling ideology. This is already underway, but watch for it to escalate further.
2. Expansion of “conscience” laws — Increased capacity for individuals, businesses, and institutions to deny rights, care, or services under the banner of “religious freedom.” This includes both new policies and court rulings.
3. Faith-based funding with ideological strings — Public funds being funneled to organizations that promote conservative theological or political agendas, while others are excluded.
4. Targeting dissenting voices — Pastors, imams, rabbis, and other faith leaders who critique state power from a justice-rooted perspective may be vilified, surveilled, or even arrested. (Note the recent arrest of Rev. William Barber.)
5. Education and curriculum control — Enforcement of narrow political and religious worldviews, particularly through public education, to the exclusion of pluralistic or justice-centered content.
6. Religious symbolism in state action — The use of religious language or imagery to justify state power, especially when linked to violence, nationalism, or exclusion.
7. Redefining church-state separation — Any effort to weaken or reinterpret constitutional protections in favour of the dominant state-approved religious worldview.
8. Framing of difference as threat — Increasing portrayals of minority groups — religious, 2SLGBTQIA+, BIPOC — as un-American, dangerous, or destabilizing.

None of these signs are hypothetical. They are already present. What we must watch for now is their amplification, especially through the work of this Commission and other policy instruments aligned with the administration’s goals.

Every one of these eight dynamics has appeared before in history, part of a calculated shift toward authoritarian leadership. Let us not doom ourselves to repeat what comes next.