I’m wrapping up my service on the Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty and I want to lay out what happened, why I took the call, and why the reaction from some corners missed the point. This piece reflects on the commission’s work defending faith in public life, the pushback I faced for accepting the invitation, and why advising government is not the same as joining an administration. My aim here is to be plain and direct about religious liberty and the value of having church leaders at the table.
A year ago the White House phoned and asked me to join a new commission focused on religious liberty, and I accepted without hesitation. I had no idea who recommended my name, but it mattered that a Catholic bishop be present when these issues were on the menu. Declining would have felt like surrendering our voice at a moment when religious freedom is being tested across the country.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops had already made religious liberty central, and the commission moved quickly to expose real problems. We documented violations in health care, education, and the military, and we revisited the Founding era roots of our freedoms. We also drew attention to the rising antisemitism plaguing communities today and sharpened the conversation on church-state relations.
BISHOP ROBERT BARRON: THE WAR ON CHRISTIANS IS REAL AND THE WORLD CAN NO LONGER STAY SILENT I raised the alarm where it was needed and listened carefully to victims of restriction and discrimination. The testimonies were sobering and showed how far some institutions will go to silence religious expression.
For roughly the last 75 years Jefferson’s image of a wall separating church and state has dominated court decisions, but that metaphor is not found in the Declaration, the Federalist Papers, or the Constitution. Too many have used Jefferson’s phrase to squeeze religion out of public life when the First Amendment never demanded that. The amendment bars Congress from establishing a religion, but it also protects the free exercise of faith.
The First Amendment insists that nothing should prevent the free exercise of religion, and many witnesses explained how Jefferson’s wall had been weaponized against them. We heard stories ranging from students barred from singing Christian songs at a talent show to the absurd case of students forbidden from wearing COVID masks that said “Jesus loves me.” Those examples show how the rhetoric of separation can become the reality of exclusion.
JONATHAN TURLEY: ELITES CALL THE CONSTITUTION ‘BROKEN’ BUT AMERICANS KNOW IT’S OUR GREATEST GIFT That line sums up a frustration many of us feel: elites often rewrite the rules to silence competing ideas. Ordinary Americans still trust the Constitution to protect both conscience and faith.
A theme I kept returning to is the threat posed by what I call “the culture of self-invention.” This alternate religion pretends moral values are entirely subjective and identity is purely a choice, with no stable human nature to anchor public life. When that view takes hold, leaders who prefer a secular public square push religion out of schools, hospitals, and the military so their agenda faces fewer challenges.
The testimonies and debates we held repeatedly circled back to that reality: those who run our cultural institutions recognize that traditional religion is a powerful opponent. Removing religious expression from public institutions is a tactic to neutralize that opposition, not a neutral defense of liberty. Our commission tried to expose that strategy and recommend practical safeguards.
My colleagues on the commission, notably Texas Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, were collegial and serious about the mission. They welcomed my Catholic perspective and never tried to muzzle what I had to say. I was free to interview witnesses, press difficult questions, and engage commissioners in honest debate.
Some people dismissed my participation simply because the president who invited me was Donald Trump, as if serving on a single commission made me a partisan operative for every policy. That strikes me as silly. In fact, I would have accepted the same invitation from President Joe Biden despite strong disagreements on many issues.
Serving on a commission to advise a president is not the same as joining his administration and carrying out its policies. Churchmen have a long tradition of advising public leaders without exchanging their independence for political office. Father Theodore Hesburgh served on many presidential commissions under presidents of both parties, and his example shows why we must be present where policy is shaped.
Some critics even claimed my role made me part of the Trump administration and invoked Pope John Paul II as if churchmen must entirely withdraw from public advising. That misunderstands the difference between advising and implementing policy. Secretaries and cabinet members execute a president’s program; commissioners like us submit recommendations meant to inform action, not carry it out.
Our task was practical: recommend measures the president could take by legislation or executive order to bolster religious liberty. Offering counsel and shaping policy are different from enforcing it, and that distinction matters for anyone worried about undue political entanglement. I left the commission proud of the work we did and confident that our recommendations will help protect conscience and faith in public life.
Participating in the Religious Liberty Commission was a rewarding experience, and I am glad I accepted the invitation. The criticisms were, I believe, largely spiteful and driven more by pique than by principle. I remain convinced that the church must speak up in the halls of power or else forfeit its voice where it matters most.
