A Commission With a Troubling Mission
On May 1, 2025, President Donald Trump launched the Religious Liberty Commission, a bold move that has alarmed advocates for equality and diversity. Led by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Dr. Ben Carson, the commission, now expanded with advisory boards of religious leaders, legal scholars, and lay advocates, aims to reshape public policy by prioritizing religious exercise. Its goal is to craft regulations that expand faith-based exemptions, from school prayer to federal funding for religious organizations. This agenda threatens to tilt the balance away from America’s pluralistic values toward a narrow, exclusionary vision of faith.
The advisory boards, unveiled on May 16, 2025, feature prominent figures like Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, Pastor Jentezen Franklin, and Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom. These individuals have long championed policies that place religious beliefs above civil rights, particularly for LGBTQ+ communities and marginalized groups. Their influence suggests the commission is less about protecting all faiths and more about advancing a specific ideological agenda. How can a nation built on diversity allow such a one-sided approach to guide its laws?
For those who cherish America’s commitment to inclusion, this commission feels like a step backward. The First Amendment’s promise of religious liberty was designed to ensure freedom for every belief system, not to elevate one group’s convictions above others. Yet, the commission’s roster leans heavily toward conservative Christian and allied Jewish voices, marginalizing progressive faiths, secular perspectives, and minority religions. This imbalance raises a critical question: whose freedom is truly being protected?
A Decade of Eroding Protections
The commission builds on a troubling legal trend. Over the past ten years, conservative advocates have redefined religious liberty as a tool to bypass anti-discrimination laws. Supreme Court decisions like Hobby Lobby in 2014 and Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2018 granted businesses and individuals exemptions from federal mandates based on faith, often at the expense of marginalized communities. Backed by organizations like the Federalist Society, these rulings have created a legal framework where religious objections can override protections for equality.
The Trump administration has amplified this shift. From the 2017 Faith and Opportunity Initiative to the 2025 Religious Liberty Commission, executive actions have consistently favored religious entities over secular fairness. The commission’s legal advisory board, including scholars like Gerald Bradley and Josh Blackman, is likely to push for policies that weaken safeguards in education, health care, and workplaces. For instance, their support for school choice could divert public funds to religious schools that discriminate, undermining the inclusive mission of public education.
A better path exists. The 2015 Utah Compromise paired strong religious exemptions for nonprofits with robust anti-discrimination protections in housing and employment, earning support from over 80 percent of both religious and LGBTQ+ communities. This balanced approach shows that faith and fairness can coexist. Why does the commission seem determined to reject such inclusive models in favor of division?
The Human Cost of Exclusion
The commission’s recommendations, expected by July 4, 2026, could transform everyday life in harmful ways. Picture a public school where mandatory prayer alienates non-Christian students or a workplace where protections against discrimination based on identity vanish. These scenarios are not far-fetched; they reflect the likely outcomes of policies that prioritize religious exemptions over equal treatment.
LGBTQ+ Americans face the greatest risk. Organizations like the ACLU and Lambda Legal have shown how religious exemptions have been used to deny services, from adoption agencies to small businesses. If the commission’s proposals take effect, federal funds could support organizations that exclude based on faith or identity, effectively endorsing discrimination with public money. This betrayal of fairness would hit hardest for those already fighting state-level restrictions.
Children are also at stake. Ongoing Supreme Court cases over charter schools and LGBTQ+ literature highlight the push to infuse public education with religious doctrine. Lay advisor Sameerah Munshi’s testimony against inclusive curriculums signals the commission’s probable direction. For families who value diversity, this approach threatens to erode the inclusive foundation of public schools, replacing it with exclusionary policies.
Healing a Divided Nation
America is more polarized than ever. Pew Research reveals that 70 percent of white evangelicals believe Christians face systemic discrimination, while 65 percent of religiously unaffiliated Americans support barring religious exemptions in public spaces. This divide fuels a culture war where faith is used to exclude rather than unite. The commission, far from fostering dialogue, appears set to widen this gap.
Advocates for equality seek balance, not the silencing of faith. The Equality Act, backed by civil rights organizations, offers a solution by protecting sexual orientation and gender identity while respecting religious practice. Yet, the commission’s composition suggests little appetite for such compromise. Instead, it risks entrenching a vision where one group’s beliefs dominate public policy.
America’s strength lies in its diversity. Religious liberty should protect the right to believe, not the power to impose. As the commission’s work progresses, those who value inclusion must demand policies that unite, not divide. The fight is for a nation where every person, regardless of faith or identity, can thrive. Will we rise to meet that challenge?