Does Trump’s anti-Christian bias executive order favor one religion? What experts say

President Trump announced plans to rid the U.S. of “anti-Christian bias” and establish a White House Faith Office. Screengrab from The White House's Facebook video.

Originally published April 29, 2025 for the Miami Herald

President Donald Trump’s executive order promising to “end the anti-Christian weaponization of government” raised questions for some about what it means for the First Amendment right of religious freedom.

The order, issued Thursday, Feb. 6, puts in place a task force — led by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi — to investigate policies that the administration said target Christians. The next day, Trump signed another order establishing a White House Faith Office to “protect religious liberty.”

In the first few weeks of his second term, Trump and his administration’s polices have prompted legal challenges, and some have called into question if the administration’s actions are on par with the rule of law. For some Americans, some new executive orders amplify tensions over the constitutional separation of church and state.

“The government’s job is to protect everyone’s rights, not give special treatment to one religion. Will this office defend non-Christians and the nonreligious, or just push a Christian nationalist agenda?” The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a nonprofit working for the separation of church and state, said in a Feb. 7 statement on X, formerly known as Twitter.

What do experts say?

Rick Garnett, director of Notre Dame’s program on Church, State & Society, told McClatchy News he thinks the executive order to eradicate anti-Christian bias is “appropriate” as a response to reports of the FBI targeting some conservative Catholic groups.

The order cites a retracted 2023 FBI memorandum that suggested infiltrating Catholic churches as “threat mitigation,” among other examples of what the Trump administration sees as anti-Christian bias.

“It is not unconstitutional for an agency or administration to identify a particular problem, and to respond to that particular problem. For example, it was common, after 9/11, for agencies to take particular steps to safeguard against anti-Muslim bias,” Garnett said in an email.

Caroline Corbin, professor at the University of Miami School of Law, agreed that narrowing in on one religion is not necessarily considered favoring one over another. However, she said bigger context surrounding this executive order makes it a little more complex.

“Christians are not, in fact, discriminated against and persecuted in the United States,” Corbin told McClatchy News. “So there doesn’t really seem to be a need to focus on discrimination against Christians.”

As this directive is set forth, other actions targeting groups for erasure are also happening, Corbin said, adding that she thinks the Trump administration wants to deny discrimination against non-Christian groups.

The Trump administration has signed executive orders restricting transgender rights and ending diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in the federal workforce.

Corbin said the preference for Christianity seen in this context does raise constitutional problems about favoring one religion over another.

Charles Haynes, founder of the Freedom Forum’s Religious Freedom Center, told McClatchy News that it seems like a range of issues surrounding abortion, LGBTQ rights and religious liberty are seen by the Trump administration as anti-Christian bias.

“It’s little ironic to think that the people who are in the majority — and many places in the country, many states who have great political power — are claiming to be under attack, but from their perspective, the government went off the rails ... and disfavored them because they don’t like their views on the social issues,” Haynes said.

He said that in choosing to focus on anti-Christian bias rather than another religion or non-religion, Trump is fulfilling his campaign promises to a constituency made up of mostly conservative Christians.

Haynes said that while he thinks it’s clear Trump is favoring one religion over another, it doesn’t go as far as to become unconstitutional.

“It would have to be more — have to be government action that somehow favors conservative Christian groups over other religious groups,” Haynes said. “This could be seen more as an effort to fight a societal problem, so the government can do that.”

What do some evangelical Christians think?

According to data from the Survey Center on American Life, a growing number of white evangelical Christians do think Christianity is under attack.

In 2009, a majority of white evangelicals disagreed that evangelical Christians faced a lot of discrimination in the U.S. In 2023, however, the numbers flipped, and this notion became generally accepted, with 60% of white evangelicals believing evangelical Christians are regularly discriminated against.

“Anti-Christian bias is very real in the U.S. Hostility towards Bible believing followers of Jesus is growing,” Jack Graham, pastor at Prestonwood Baptist Church in Texas, said in a Feb. 7 statement on X. “I am grateful for President Trumps order for protection under the law.”

Trump immigration order ‘invades our sacred space,’ Quaker groups say in lawsuit

Originally published January 28, 2025 for the Miami Herald

Nearly 400 years after members of the Religious Society of Friends, also known as Quakers, arrived in America in pursuit of religious freedom, a new immigration policy threatens the ability of the religious group to freely practice their beliefs, according to a lawsuit.

Five Quaker groups — including the first formal association of Quakers in the world — filed a lawsuit Jan. 27 against the Department of Homeland Security over a new Trump administration policy rescinding a previous guideline in which immigration officials could not enforce actions in “sensitive” locations, such as schools and places of worship.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement made 956 arrests Jan. 26, according to a Facebook post by the agency.

“A week ago today, President Trump swore an oath to defend the Constitution and yet today religious institutions that have existed since the 1600s in our country are having to go to court to challenge what is a violation of every individual’s Constitutional right to worship,” Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, the organization representing the Quaker groups, said in a Jan. 27 news release.

Several religious leaders have spoken out against the new policy, and while other nonprofit organizations — some stemming from religious groups — have filed similar lawsuits on account of the new policy, this is the first lawsuit filed directly from a faith-based organization.

A DHS spokesperson told McClatchy News in a Jan. 27 email the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit

The 40-page lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, argues that the new immigration order violates fundamentals of the Quaker religious experience, including communal worship.

“For (Quaker congregations) communal worship is not just important, it is the very process of worship itself,” prosecutors said.

In Quaker worship, people sit together in silence and wait to hear from God. Then, anyone attending worship is encouraged to stand and share that message, according to the complaint.

“Quakers believe that those with varied life experiences — including immigrants — can provide unique messages from God. Being able to receive those messages is fundamental to the Quaker religious exercise,” prosecutors said.

The new policy has instilled fear in migrant-friendly congregations and led to the cancellation of some worship services, according to the complaint.

“Our faith requires us to do justice, oppose war and violence, love our neighbors (with no exceptions) and to make decisions with everyone in the room,” the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, one of the Quaker groups represented in the lawsuit, said in the release. “ ... The DHS policy impedes all of these things and invades our sacred space and ability to worship freely.”

The Quaker groups want any policy permitting immigration-enforcement at or near houses of worship to be declared unconstitutional, according to the lawsuit.

Quakers and social justice

Quakers have a long history of involvement in human rights and social justice causes.

They have been involved in advocating for the protection of Native Americans’ rights, were early abolitionists and had many leaders involved in the women’s suffrage movement, according to History.com

The Catholic voting gap was the largest in decades, polls show. Whom did they choose?

Originally published November 6, 2024 for the Miami Herald

As ballots were counted late into the evening on Tuesday, Nov. 5, U.S. Catholics — a group experts see as “sharply divided by party” — broke for former President Donald Trump by a historically large margin nationwide, exit polls revealed.

Fifty-eight percent of U.S. Catholics favored Trump, compared to 40% who supported Vice President Kamala Harris, according to exit polls from NBC News, The Washington Post and CNN. The 18-point margin represents the largest voting gap among the group in decades.

According to the NBC News poll of key states, the divide was even more pronounced among white Catholics, who favored Trump 60% compared to 37% for Harris. In the 2020 election, 57% supported President Joe Biden, compared to 42% for Trump, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center study.

However, a majority of Catholic voters overall voted for Biden in the 2020 election, according to Gallup.

Margaret Thompson, associate professor of history and political science at Syracuse University, told McClatchy News although the religious group still tends to mirror the general public, it has changed a lot over the past two decades, growing smaller and more ethnically diverse.

She said what shocked her was that the gap among Catholics was so much bigger than the general public.

“One thing we do know is that the Latino vote broke for Trump to a much greater extent than it has for any Republican,” she said. “So the question is, does that add significantly to the Catholic margin?”

Cristina Traina, professor of Christian theology and ethics at Fordham University, told McClatchy News in a phone interview that experts used to be able to assume how the majority of Catholics would vote.

“You could pretty much assume that 80% to 90% of Catholics were going to vote a particular way because of their Catholic identity and the priorities that the Catholic church and they as Catholics had,” Traina said. “That’s no longer true. Catholics are across the spectrum.”

According to the exit polls, Trump outperformed earlier predictions of how the religious group would vote. A Pew Research Center study published two months before Election Day found Trump leading Harris by just five percentage points among the group.

“It is surprising to me, especially given that apparently 61% of Catholics would like abortion to be legal in many, if not all cases,” Traina said. “Clearly there’s not an abortion motivation to vote for Trump this year.”

What issues were most important to US Catholics?

Traina said she thinks several people who were on the fence about their vote broke for Trump because of greater confidence in him on issues such as immigration and the economy — mirroring top issues for voters nationally, according to an AP VoteCast survey.

“Catholics are pretty reflective of society at large and of their demographic groups,” Traina said.

The survey also found that Catholics picked Trump as a better fit to handle all issues except abortion and climate change.

How did other religious groups vote?

The NBC News exit poll found that 72% of Protestants — the largest of the religious groups — voted for Trump, compared to 26% for Harris.

However, a majority of Jewish voters, “nones” — people who identify as atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular” — and others all voted for Harris, according to the poll.