In May 2025, as part of the lead up to America’s 250th anniversary, President Trump issued an executive order establishing a commission that will “offer diverse perspectives on how the Federal Government can defend religious liberty for all Americans.” That’s a noble mission I fully support. But having been involved in religious freedom work for over two decades, I’m skeptical the commission will succeed. Here I will offer two reasons for concern—and one reason for cautious optimism.
My first reason for skepticism is this executive order’s air-brushed portrait of American history. We shouldn’t expect a great deal of historical complexity and nuance in a brief executive order, but this EO has none. Section 1 summarizes “America’s unique and beautiful tradition of religious liberty” this way:
The Founders envisioned a Nation in which religious voices and views are integral to a vibrant public square and human flourishing and in which religious people and institutions are free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or hostility from the Government. Indeed, the roots of religious liberty stretch back to the early settlers who fled religious persecution in Europe, seeking a new world where they could choose, follow, and practice their faith without interference from the Government. The principle of religious liberty was enshrined in American law with the First Amendment to the Constitution in 1791. Since that time, the Constitution has protected the fundamental right to religious liberty as Americans’ first freedom.
All Americans can be rightfully proud of their nation’s trailblazing tradition of religious liberty, but it’s not quite as spotlessly beautiful as this summary suggests. Just ask the Quakers, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, nonbelievers, as well as Black and Native American faith communities and others who have suffered at various times in this country.
Yes, many early settlers, like my Puritan ancestors, fled persecution in Europe. But too often they became the persecutors in the British colonies. All 13 colonies—even Rhode Island and Pennsylvania—violated freedom of conscience and religion in ways that would be (thankfully) unacceptable today. The First Amendment was a crucial step forward for the federal government—and proved to be of world historical importance for the global cause of religious liberty—but it left state-level religious establishments and discriminatory policies intact for decades. The centuries hence have witnessed episodes of intense hostility toward certain minority religious groups.
We can celebrate our ideals and achievements while also grappling with our shortcomings. Doing so is not unpatriotic. It’s essential to forming a more perfect union.
Trump’s comments at the signing of the executive order compounded my concern. Trump said, “They say separation between church and state … I said, ‘All right, let’s forget about that for one time.’” He continued: “They said, really there’s separation. I don’t know. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I’m not sure.” The wall of separation is a metaphor Jefferson used for our constitutionally guaranteed, mutually beneficial independence of religion and the state. It’s a really good thing. Trump’s ambivalence is worrisome.
My second concern is the lack of diversity and representation on the commission and its affiliated advisory boards. The commission’s 13 members include 12 Christians and one Orthodox Jew. The advisory board of religious leaders consists of seven Christian leaders and four Orthodox rabbis. The inclusion of Jewish faith leaders is laudable, but only 10% of American Jews—and 0.2% of all Americans—are Orthodox. This overrepresentation raises questions about whose perspectives are being elevated. It is commendable that the advisory board of lay leaders includes three Muslims. I’m not sure whether there are any nonbelievers among the 39 commissioners and advisors, even as more than a quarter of Americans are religiously unaffiliated. Religious freedom is for everyone—not just the religious.
It probably didn’t help that the commission chose to hold its first hearing at the Museum of the Bible. As a Christian I love that museum, but it’s not necessarily a venue a government commission would choose if trying to disavow a sectarian bias.
Reviewing the names associated with the commission, I’m struck by how they contrast with two commissions I engaged during my years of service at the State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom. In 2009, Barack Obama established the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. There’s always going to be a political dimension to such initiatives, but scrolling through the council’s 164-page final report one can see the religious, ethnic, institutional, and ideological diversity of the council and its numerous topical taskforces. They featured several conservative evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox Jews. Similarly, the Religion and Foreign Policy Working Group established by Secretary Hillary Clinton in 2011 included many outspoken conservatives and plenty of folks with no particular public connection to the Democratic Party. The civil society co-chair was a Republican.
As a result of their ideological and theological diversity, neither advisory body could be dismissed as partisan or sectarian. Both had a lasting impact.
The lack of diversity in Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission means its work will likely speak to only one corner of America’s religio-political tapestry and might soon be forgotten. That’s tragic because religious liberty is vital for a flourishing society and faces contemporary threats from the left and the right.
But I do want to hold out some hope. A decade ago, I was apprehensive about what a Trump presidency would mean for the United States’ promotion of religious freedom abroad. He had never previously shown interest in the issue and as a candidate he said several demeaning things about religious minorities, especially Muslims. As President his “Muslim ban” and his evisceration of refugee resettlement programs badly damaged America’s international reputation for welcoming religious minorities. But, the administration actually ended up heaping unprecedented resources on the cause of religious freedom—both domestically and internationally.
Those resources were then used to good effect by officials at the State Department, USAID, and elsewhere to pursue religious freedom efforts that were principled, inclusive, and policy-relevant. For example, American diplomats took the directive for a high-level Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom and shaped it into a successful event that featured diverse voices and advanced America’s interests. As a result, the event attracted significant international buy-in and led to the creation of a robust global religious freedom alliance—currently chaired by the Czech Republic—that has grown to include 38 member countries.
Given how actively so many countries protect religious freedom at home and advance it abroad, it was disconcerting to hear commission chairman Dan Patrick suggest at the Museum of the Bible event that the commission’s final report in 2026 should be titled: “We are the last Western country in the world protecting religious freedom.” I would suggest a title grounded in reality—and humility. In the Pew Research Center’s most recent global survey of government restrictions on religion, 85 countries, including many in the West, score better than the United States.
Religious freedom promotion is undermined when it is misinformed or perceived as a partisan or sectarian cudgel. If the Religious Liberty Commission aspires to have an enduring impact, it needs to face our complex history, represent our full diversity, and genuinely advance religious liberty for all.
