United States of America

The United States of America (U.S.) is a large country of around 340 million people, bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. It comprises 50 states that operate somewhat autonomously under the authority of the nation’s federal government.

Before European colonization, it is thought that roughly 1.5 million Native American people inhabited what is now the continental United States. In 1565, the first permanent European settlement was founded. During the 17th and 18th centuries hundreds of thousands of Africans were brought across and sold into slavery to work on cotton and tobacco plantations. British rule was eventually defeated in 1783, and in 1787 the Founding Fathers drew up a new Constitution for the nation. The 19th century brought mass immigration from Europe with settlers moving westwards, crushing the resistance of the indigenous peoples. The 1861-1865 Civil War saw Federal forces defeat the Confederate pro-slavery states in the south bringing about the abolishment of slavery.¹

Since the end of World War II, the U.S. has been widely considered the most powerful nation on earth and remains the most influential player in global economic, cultural, and political affairs.

The U.S. Census does not cover religious affiliation, however the Pew Research Center, which conducts regular surveys, estimates that Christians currently account for between 60-64% of the population, while the non-religious represent between 28-31%. Other religions consistently account for 6-7% of the overall population.²

Constitution and government

The U.S. has historically received a relatively good rating in the Freedom of Thought report as a consequence of the nation’s strong constitutional protections in favor of freedom of thought, religion or belief, and freedom of expression, which have usually been upheld in practice. There is also a deep-rooted cultural emphasis on individual freedom.

The nation’s foundational freedoms, including the openness to challenge and debate, are in constant tension with the religious nationalist ideals of some citizens and government officials. Consequently, secular, humanist, and civil liberties organizations are engaged in a perpetual struggle to defend the Constitution’s inherent secularism. This conflict often arises when state authorities or individuals invoke “religious freedom” to bypass the separation of church and state, or to establish a particular religious belief in the public sphere.

The Constitution: “Establishment” and “Free Exercise”

The U.S. Constitution is often considered one of the world’s first secular political documents. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”³

This amendment has two clauses directly relating to the relationship between state and religion. The “Establishment Clause” forbids the establishment of a state church and prevents the government, both state and federal, from favoring any one religious doctrine. This is often called the “Separation Clause”, referring to Thomas Jefferson’s description of “a wall of separation between church and state.” The “Free Exercise Clause” protects the right to hold whatever religious beliefs an individual wants and to exercise those beliefs.⁴

Together, these clauses historically established a largely open society in which all people retain the same legal rights to practice religion or not; to convert from one religion to another; to express beliefs regarding religion; and to participate in all areas of public life. However, recent legal precedent at both the state and federal levels increasingly interprets the “Free Exercise” clause as superseding the “Establishment Clause.”⁵ A growing number of government officials extend their understanding of religious freedom to include a right to shape laws or social norms according to their religious doctrines, even at the cost of others’ dignity and autonomy, leading to discrimination against those of different beliefs. This trend is illustrated by a series of pivotal court cases focusing on the concept of a “religious license to discriminate.”⁶

Since 2020, several Supreme Court case decisions have made it increasingly difficult for individuals to challenge religious discrimination through the courts. In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021), the Court ruled that the city violated the “Free Exercise Clause” by refusing to engage in a contract with the Catholic Social Services (CSS) unless it agreed to certify same-sex couples as foster parents.⁷ In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a web designer had a First Amendment right to refuse to create websites for same-sex weddings, citing religious objections. This ruling established a precedent that businesses engaged in “expressive conduct” are exempt from generally applicable public accommodation laws if they claim that compliance would violate their beliefs.⁸ And in Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), the Court ruled that denying parents opt-outs from LGBTI-inclusive curricula violated the “Free Exercise Clause.”⁹ The decision granted parents a legal basis to remove or block specific classroom content due to their personal religious objections.

The Court’s decisions have created a legal paradox where attempts to maintain the separation of church and state through the “Establishment Clause” are now sometimes viewed as an attack on individuals’ rights to freely exercise their religion. This dynamic highlights how the “Free Exercise Clause,” intended to protect religious freedom, can hinder religious freedom for those who do not share particular dominant beliefs.

Trump’s Second Presidency

In his second term, U.S. President Donald Trump has further deepened his alliance with conservative Christian leaders. He has elevated influential, non-denominational evangelical Christian leaders whose beliefs were previously on the fringes, but are now accepted as mainstream. This partnership is visible in policy-making and appointments, reflecting an agenda to reshape the role of religion in American public life.

Since President Trump’s return to office, the U.S. has taken steps to withdraw from multilateral forums. In February 2025, an order was given to disengage from the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council and review, or cut, funding to UN entities. The Trump administration officially boycotted the UN Universal Periodic Review of the United States in November 2025, marking the first time in the history of the UPR process that a member state declined to participate in its own evaluation. It has also been announced that the U.S. will leave the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2026.

Project 2025

Project 2025, a comprehensive blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation and a coalition of other far-right conservative organizations, serves as a roadmap for the current administration. The document aims to reshape the U.S. government by aligning federal policy with “biblical principles” and prioritizing faith-based social programs while reducing secular oversight. It also recommends allowing religious convictions to override civil rights protections in health care, employment, and housing.¹⁰ Project 2025’s efforts to dismantle the separation of church and state align with the goals of a Christian theocracy. Project 2025 Tracker showed that, as of August 12, 2025, 47% of its proposals had been enacted within only the first several months of the administration, a testament to its influence in advancing a far-right Christian nationalist agenda.¹¹

Department of Justice and Related Initiatives

The Department of Justice under Trump’s second term is playing a key role in advancing the administration’s “religious freedom” agenda. In February 2025, President Trump established the “Anti-Christian Bias Task Force,” led by Attorney General Pamela Bondi. The task force is charged with investigating and eradicating “anti-Christian targeting and discrimination” within federal government agencies, with a stated aim to “fully prosecute anti-Christian violence and vandalism.”¹²

Furthermore, in May 2025, President Trump established the “Religious Liberty Commission.” The commission, composed of religious and political figures, is tasked with safeguarding and promoting religious freedom, advising the White House Faith Office, and recommending executive or legislative actions.¹³ While purporting to protect religious liberty for all, concerns persist among civil liberties groups that it will create a “hierarchy of rights” that devalues or ignores certain human rights, particularly those pertaining to women and LGBTI+ individuals, under the guise of religious freedom.¹⁴

Cabinet and Public Discourse

The current U.S. administration’s daily practices signal their overt alignment with religious ideology. President Trump’s cabinet opens meetings with Christian prayers.¹⁵ This public display of religious observance, coupled with rhetoric from figures like the Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, promotes a Christian nationalist perspective, implying that non-believers are a threat to traditional moral order.¹⁶

Legislative and Regulatory Efforts

A broader effort is underway to reshape legal and regulatory frameworks. One key target is the Johnson Amendment, a provision in the U.S. tax code restricting religious bodies from engaging in partisan political activities. The administration aims to allow tax-exempt religious organizations, including mega-churches, to engage in partisan activity without risking their tax status.¹⁷ The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently stated this position in federal court.¹⁸ While proponents argue this protects religious leaders’ free speech, there are concerns this would flood American politics with unchecked religious money and influence, fundamentally altering church-state separation.¹⁹ At the time of writing, this case is unresolved.

Symbolic Actions and Broader Implications

President Trump’s continued use of religious imagery in political contexts, reminiscent of his holding up a Bible during anti-racism protests in his first term, further illustrates his administration’s consistent embrace of Christian nationalist messaging. His declarations, such as those made at the UN Global Call to Protect Religious Freedom event, often emphasize protection for ‘people of all faiths,’ but conspicuously omit humanists or the non-religious, signaling religious favoritism that alarms U.S. secular and civil liberties groups.²⁰

Religious Displays on Government Property

The U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from endorsing one religion over another, but efforts to promote religion, and particularly Christianity, often appear through religious displays and monuments on public property.

The phrase “In God We Trust” originated in the mid-1800s, but gained political prominence a century later during the Cold War. In 1956, Congress passed a joint resolution declaring “In God We Trust” to be the national motto to differentiate the U.S. from “godless Communists,” implying that non-religious Americans were untrustworthy and aligned with the enemy.²¹

The current administration champions phrases like “One Nation Under God” and “In God We Trust,” defending their inclusion in official contexts and advocating for their wider use as an acknowledgement of “history” and “tradition” while ignoring their more recent origins. These efforts serve as a symbolic representation of the administration’s broader agenda. While legal challenges from secular and religious minority groups persist, the administration’s vocal support elevates religious messaging as integral to national identity, further blurring the lines between church and state.

Although being non-religious is less stigmatized than it was in the past, there is still a widespread assumption that to be American is to be Christian.²² This religiopolitical conflation has been used by Christian nationalists to marginalize non-religious and non-Christian Americans by promoting religious displays and monuments both on public land and in government buildings.²³

The U.S. is not, however, a Christian nation. The First Amendment requires strict separation of religion and government, reflecting the founders’ understanding of America’s pluralism even in the 18th century.²⁴ Religious displays on government property stigmatize non-Christians and otherize the non-religious.²⁵ Additionally, such displays embolden adherents who view these displays as a government license to harass and isolate others, without fear of recourse.²⁶

The holiday season often produces “Establishment Clause” violations regarding religious displays by local governments placing stand-alone nativity scenes (creches) on public grounds. However, local governments have found a way around the law by allowing other religious holiday displays along with the nativity scenes, such as menorahs.²⁷ A number of local secular organizations have requested permission to erect displays representing humanists, atheists, and freethinkers with varying levels of success.

Religious Oaths for Office

Although the U.S. Constitution states “no religious Tests shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,”²⁸ the provision has not always applied to state-level offices.²⁹ Consequently, several state constitutions still include provisions requiring public office holders to swear a religious oath or practice a certain religion or denomination. Others explicitly prohibit atheists and non-religious people from holding public office.³⁰ After the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) struck down Maryland’s requirement that officials profess a belief in God, such provisions became unenforceable.³¹ However, many state constitutions still contain this unconstitutional language, perpetuating stigma against atheists, agnostics, humanists, and other non-religious people.³² Should the Supreme Court ever overturn Torcaso, these provisions could once again bar atheists from elected office.

State Level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs)

Congress passed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993,³³ and 30 states have since created their own version of this law through legislation or court decisions.³⁴ RFRAs require the government to meet a rigid legal test called “strict scrutiny” when any action burdens religious expression. Under this test, any law that affects a fundamental right, such as religious freedom, is presumed to be invalid unless the government can prove there was no other option but to impose the burden to achieve a compelling state interest.

Although strict scrutiny theoretically allows regulation under narrow conditions, RFRAs operate in practice as broad religious exemptions that can be used to evade enforcement of nearly any law that burdens religious practice, no matter how remote the burden.³⁵ Over the past several decades, RFRAs have enabled challenges to non-discrimination laws, child labor and protection laws, and employment laws.³⁶ They have also served as a foundation for employers to refuse to provide basic health care coverage to employees and force the government to provide taxpayer funds to discriminatory organizations who would otherwise not be eligible for funding.

“Yes in God’s Backyard”

The U.S. faces a severe shortage of affordable housing. One of the ways states have responded is by reforming local zoning laws to expand affordable housing and reduce the housing burden for low- and middle-income families. One type of zoning law that is gaining popularity is known as “Yes In God’s Backyard” (YIGBY). This law allows religious organizations to build and operate low-income housing developments.³⁷ The religious organizations eligible under YIGBY are often exempt from state and federal housing non-discrimination laws.³⁸ Consequently, state governments that enact YIGBY laws transfer their responsibilities regarding the welfare of citizens to private organizations that are legally permitted to discriminate against prospective tenants based on religious belief.

Religious Resolutions

Resolutions are declarations issued by lawmakers which, while lacking legal force, express the legislature’s opinion regarding a particular issue.³⁹ Religious resolutions, such as Oklahoma’s “Christ is King”⁴⁰ and Indiana’s “Recognizing the Importance of Repentance,”⁴¹ endorse one religious perspective over all other forms of religious and non-religious belief. Although such resolutions rarely pass, they undermine foundational principles of religious freedom and constitute an abuse of public office, relegating the vast majority of a state’s citizens to second-class status because their beliefs are considered disfavored.⁴²

Education and children’s rights

The role of religion in U.S. public schools continues to be a source of heated debate, a tension that has escalated over decades. Following his re-election, President Trump appointed Linda McMahon as Secretary of Education,⁴³ signaling continued support for school privatization and other policies criticized for undermining public education.

The change is not just a bureaucratic shift; it represents a fundamental reshaping of U.S. education that directly impacts freedom of thought. By systematically dismantling secular, federal services, the government creates space for religious organizations to step in and replace them. Religious entities are now positioned to receive significant public funding to provide education and social services while being shielded from government oversight.

School vouchers, education savings accounts, and tax credit scholarship programs pose a growing threat by diverting public funds from public, locally funded schools to private, mostly religious schools. These institutions, which are not held to the same accountability standards as public schools, often discriminate against staff, students, and families.

Several states have enacted universal private school voucher programs, providing significant taxpayer funds for private school tuition. At the federal level, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” created the nation’s first federally funded voucher program by offering billions in federal tax credits for private school scholarships. The Secretary of Education strongly supports school voucher programs and policies that divert taxpayer funds from public schools to private institutions, 77% of which are religious schools.⁴⁴

Some recently enacted laws allow the state to directly provide millions of taxpayer dollars to religious schools, undermining the longstanding U.S. principle that religion and government must remain separate.

Religious nationalist groups have increasingly targeted public education, seeking to reshape instruction to align with religious dogma. In recent years, far-right religious groups have sought to influence social studies, health education, and history instruction. Several states have enacted legislation requiring educators to incorporate religious doctrine into otherwise secular lessons. Religious lobbying groups have also advocated for “Released Time for Religious Instruction” policies, which permit students to receive faith-based instruction from religious organizations off-campus during the school day.

School prayer has remained a contested issue, with increasing legislative efforts to introduce religious observance into public school settings. Students generally retain the right to pray individually or in groups, independent of formal school proceedings, as long as it is not disruptive, and expressions of religion are protected under the “Free Exercise Clause.” But recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings and laws have pushed beyond prior prohibitions on official school prayer.

Supreme Court Rulings on Religion in Public Schools

The current conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court has signaled an openness to overturning legal precedents to favor religious belief over secular governance. Since the Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) decision, in which the Court ruled that prayer in a public school environment can be protected speech under the First Amendment under certain circumstances, 25 states have introduced or passed legislation requiring public schools to display the Ten Commandments, “In God We Trust,” or to designate times for prayer. In 2025, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas passed laws mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.

In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020), the Supreme Court expanded the “ministerial exception” to antidiscrimination laws. It held that courts cannot intervene in employment disputes at religious schools when employees perform “vital religious duties,” such as leading students in prayer or religious instruction.⁴⁵ By defining a wider range of school workers, like teachers, as “ministers,” the Court has created a broad and dangerous loophole that allows religious employers to discriminate against employees with no judicial recourse. Religious schools can easily exploit this loophole by labeling any of their employees “religious leaders.”⁴⁶

Government funding of religious schools has also expanded. In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled states cannot exclude religious schools from generally available scholarship programs. Similarly, in Carson v. Makin (2022), the Supreme Court ruled that a Maine tuition assistance program – that excluded religious schools because they provided religious instruction – violated the “Free Exercise Clause.”⁴⁷

Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) is a landmark case for children’s rights and secular education. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether public schools violated parents’ “Free Exercise” rights by not allowing opt-outs from curriculum involving LGBTI-themed materials. The Court sided with the parents, finding that mandatory exposure to inclusive content without an opt-out option burdened the parent’s rights to direct their children’s upbringing.⁴⁸ The decision effectively granted religious parents veto power over inclusive curricula, signaling that LGBTI+ students and families are unworthy of recognition, and allowing a small minority of parents with extreme viewpoints to dictate what all students may learn, regardless of other families’ beliefs.⁴⁹ More than half the states have passed laws allowing parents to censor instructional materials or topics, with 75% of these laws being enacted within just the past decade.

Together, these court decisions reveal a consistent pattern of the U.S. judicial branch expanding religious rights in educational settings while weakening protections for freedom of thought. These rulings weaken the wall of separation between church and state, undermine civil rights protections, and create a legal environment where religious institutions and individuals have increasing influence over public and private education.

Child Marriage

Marriage age in the U.S. is set by state. 16 out of 50 states have recently set the minimum age at 18 without exceptions, but the majority of states provide exceptions that allow young people to marry with parental consent or judicial approval at 16 or 17 (15 in Hawaii and Mississippi). Four states – California, Mississippi, New Mexico and Oklahoma – do not specify any minimum age at all.⁵⁰

Religious and cultural factors constitute the primary obstacles to enacting permanent and comprehensive bans on child marriage. When young people experience teenage pregnancy, parents are often pressured by religious teachings that emphasize marriage as the only “acceptable” response to pregnancy outside wedlock, leading them to coerce their children into unwanted marriages.⁵¹ Economic pressures also contribute to early marriage. Families experiencing economic hardship may pressure minors into marriage under traditional religious or cultural beliefs about family structure and gender roles.⁵²

Family, community and society

Shifting Demographics vs. Persistent Prejudice

The U.S. is undergoing a significant shift in religious demographics, marked by a rise in the number of religiously unaffiliated individuals, often referred to as “Nones.” This group now constitutes roughly 28% of the U.S. population. ⁵³ Despite this growth, non-religious Americans still face stigma, with surveys historically indicating that many view atheists as a threat to traditional morality. However, data from the Center for Freethought Equality (CFE) suggests this sentiment may be waning in the political sphere and that identifying as an atheist will no longer definitively cause a candidate to lose an electoral campaign.⁵⁴ In institutional settings like prisons, the military, and government-funded social services, the free exercise rights of non-religious individuals face significant challenges. These environments often prioritize or assume religious practice, which can marginalize or directly infringe upon the rights of those who are not religious.

Religious Interference with Health Care and Family

The U.S. health care landscape is being reshaped by legal and political actions that expand the role of religious exemptions in medical care for medical practitioners, patients, employers, and insurers. The precedent for this shift was established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014), which allowed for-profit corporations to claim religious exemptions from the “Affordable Care Act’s” mandate to cover contraception.⁵⁵ This ruling set the stage for a broader push by religious organizations and businesses to claim similar exemptions, increasingly limiting patients’ access to a wide range of services, including reproductive and gender-affirming care.⁵⁶

The 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, galvanizing religious arguments to restrict abortion access. States quickly implemented bans that strengthened the connection between religious conviction and health care policy.⁵⁷ New abortion restrictions use broad statutory language and now extend beyond pregnancy termination to contraception and in vitro fertilization. Legislation in states such as Alabama, Missouri, South Carolina, and West Virginia targets “abortifacients,” a term so broad it could include any medication that may impact pregnancy, regardless of other therapeutic uses.

At the same time, “conscience clauses” have become a legislative priority for those seeking to limit health care access based on religious objections. These clauses allow individual health care workers or institutions to refuse to provide services—such as abortions, contraception, or gender-affirming treatments—or even refusing to treat unmarried pregnant people based on religious or moral objections.⁵⁸ While proponents argue these clauses protect the rights of providers, civil liberties groups and medical professionals warn they disproportionately harm vulnerable patients, forcing them to choose between essential medical services and their fundamental rights.⁵⁹ Another tactic to restrict abortion access is the enactment of “Fetal Personhood” laws, which grant embryos and fetuses full legal rights from conception, while subjecting pregnant people to surveillance and liability for adverse medical outcomes.⁶⁰

Public Funding of Religious Pregnancy Centers & Maternity Homes

In the U.S., crisis pregnancy centers and maternity homes are predominantly religious and largely unregulated organizations that present themselves as neutral, unbiased resources for people facing unplanned pregnancies.⁶¹ In reality, their primary purpose is to discourage people from accessing the full spectrum of reproductive health care by disseminating misleading or false medical information, delaying medical decisions until there is no alternative but to carry a pregnancy to term, and pressuring economically vulnerable people to carry to term in exchange for housing and other services.⁶²

After federal reproductive health protections were overturned in the Dobbs⁶³ decision, maternity homes and crisis pregnancy centers reemerged en masse. Many states that have restricted or banned abortion actively support these centers.⁶⁴ As of 2023, more than USD 429 million in taxpayer funding has been redirected to them, and some states have passed laws prohibiting any regulation of these centers despite their predatory practices.⁶⁵

Denial of Care vs. Health Care Transparency

Health care services are being undermined by state laws that allow health care providers, institutions, and insurers to discriminate against patients based on religious beliefs. Proponents of these “Denial of Care” laws argue health care workers are regularly forced to provide services that violate their “conscience” when, in fact, hospitals and other institutions regularly accommodate the desire of workers to avoid certain procedures which do not align with their religious beliefs.⁶⁶ In states where these measures have passed, a broad spectrum of health care providers and institutions can deny procedures, based solely on their religious or moral objections.⁶⁷ After the Tennessee state legislature enacted a denial of care law in 2025, at least one woman was forced to cross state lines for prenatal care after her doctor refused treatment based on religious belief.⁶⁸

To shield citizens against denial of care, several states have introduced “Health Care Transparency” bills, which require providers to disclose non-medical restrictions on health care services. Even without a denial of care law, medical providers and institutions may still deny care based on religious beliefs and fail to disclose those restrictions.

Religious Exemptions to Vaccine Requirements

In 1998, a study linked childhood vaccinations with Autism Spectrum Disorder.⁶⁹ While it has been retracted and thoroughly disproven, it provided the foundation for disinformation campaigns and conspiracy theories about the safety and efficacy of vaccinations. Mass resistance towards vaccination in the U.S. has since grown steadily,⁷⁰ resulting in resistance to vaccine mandates across the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Vaccine opponents have frequently created non-medical exemptions under the guise of religious accommodation. Some religious sects in the U.S. discourage vaccination based on the false claim that vaccines contain fetal stem cells obtained from abortions, arguing that vaccination is incompatible with their theological beliefs.⁷¹ However, these non-medical exemptions endanger the general public while accommodating the religious beliefs of a few, as successful population immunity to disease depends upon the vast majority receiving timely vaccinations.⁷²

Anti-LGBTI+ Discrimination

The erosion of LGBTI+ protections has shifted focus beyond marriage equality to a broader effort targeting antidiscrimination measures in employment, public accommodations, and social services. While the U.S. Supreme Court had previously affirmed antidiscrimination protections for LGBTI+ employees in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), subsequent legal challenges and legislative actions have rolled back legal protections for LGBTI+ individuals and increasingly prioritized religious expression.⁷³

A more recent and aggressive anti-LGBTI+ development is the targeting of transgender people – and particularly minors. Since 2020, dozens of state laws banning or severely restricting gender-affirming care have been enacted.⁷⁴ Arguments supporting restrictions are often underpinned by religious justifications that frame gender-affirming care as harmful or as “mutilation,” thereby using state and federal power to enforce a specific religious viewpoint on health care.

Enacting gender-affirming care restrictions has become a significant aim for state legislatures dominated by religious extremists and nationalists. Arkansas became the first state to prohibit gender-affirming care for minors in 2021, characterizing the services as “experimental” despite support from every major U.S. medical association. Since then, 26 states have enacted laws restricting access to medical care for transgender youth.

“Conversion therapy”, which aims to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, also remains a key legislative battleground.

Recent legislation in states like Arkansas, Kansas, Montana, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Oklahoma have restricted pronoun use, the legal recognition of gender, and protected discriminatory practices by adoption agencies. They have targeted LGBTI+ youth under the guise of protecting religious freedom and freedom of speech, weaponizing these rights to allow discriminatory practices against vulnerable populations without fear of recourse. Foster care and adoption laws have been a primary target for anti-LGBTI+ lawmakers who use “religious freedom” to justify discriminatory policies. These laws limit placement options for LGBTI+ children in the foster care system despite the overwhelming number of children needing permanent homes.

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values

The Trump Administration continues to make a concerted effort to redefine the scope of free expression and constitutional rights, advancing a political and religious agenda that critics argue challenges longstanding democratic norms. Across multiple fronts, the executive branch has undermined established legal precedents, implemented policies controlling information and language, and weaponized government agencies to target dissent. These actions have involved renewed calls to criminalize flag burning, sweeping censorship plans, and the targeting of immigrants for exercising their freedom of speech and belief. This is part of a systematic strategy to subordinate individual freedoms to a specific ideology and these efforts are not isolated incidents, but part of a broader campaign to consolidate power and reshape the foundation of a free society.

Censorship in Media and Government Publications

President Trump’s sustained criticism of media outlets and individual journalists is a form of political pressure designed to discredit the free press and restrict freedom of thought. The administration’s January 2025 executive order, framed as “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship,”⁷⁵ is a clear example of the current executive branch’s strategy to undermine, discredit, and censor opinions that do not align with its agenda. Critics contend this executive order is not about protecting diverse viewpoints, but is aimed at controlling content moderation efforts of media companies. Subsequently, it creates a pretext for the federal government to intervene in the business of private companies. This approach falsely equates a private company’s decision to remove misinformation or hate speech with “federal censorship,” thereby creating a path to control the flow of information in accordance with Project 2025.

Since the beginning of Trump’s second presidency, many of Project 2025’s proposals for government-sanctioned censorship are under implementation. These include efforts to exclude specific viewpoints and marginalized communities from public life – by banning terms like “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in federal documents and limiting federally-funded scientific research.⁷⁶ These actions are a clear attempt to control language and thought. Project 2025 additionally threatens social media companies that have tried to curb misinformation and disinformation, such as “election falsehoods,” or other content deemed “political viewpoints.”

In August 2025, President Trump signed an executive order granting political appointees increased authority over the allocation of billions of dollars in federal grants. The order has already resulted in the termination of thousands of grants, including projects on transgender health and vaccinations.⁷⁷

President Trump also signed executive orders terminating all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs across the federal government and ordering federal agencies to cease issuing policies or communications that promote “gender ideology.”⁷⁸ As a direct result, the Department of Education removed over 200 web pages and archived documents with DEI-related content, while other agencies began to eliminate gender identity from official forms and documents. Civil liberties and interfaith groups view this effort to control language and thought within the government as a deliberate attempt to dismantle the separation of church and state and to impose a singular religious worldview on U.S. society.

State Sponsored Censorship and Protections

Throughout the country, states have enacted restrictive censorship laws that prohibit Americans’ access to library books and resources.⁷⁹ These laws force libraries to satisfy the religious, ideological, or partisan preferences of a vocal minority. Some states have enacted harsh restrictions requiring the removal of thousands of books deemed “objectionable” by a single complainant. The subjective “objectionable” standard is most often used to prevent libraries from carrying materials related to the LGBTI+ community, sexuality, race, and religion.⁸⁰

In response, other states have introduced “Freedom to Read” bills, which affirm the right to be exposed to new information and diverse perspectives. It is considered to be an essential part of a pluralistic democracy that must not be infringed upon.⁸¹

Retaliatory Detention of Immigrants for Political Speech

The weaponization of immigration policies to punish individuals for their political speech and religious beliefs is a serious violation of human and constitutional rights. In the past year, Trump Administration officials have targeted immigrant communities for expressing critical views or for their religious practices. For instance, reports have surfaced of visa holders who have been detained – or had their visa applications denied or revoked – after engaging in political protests, posting dissenting opinions on social media, or because of their non-Christian religious beliefs. This trend is powerfully highlighted by the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. and a pro-Palestinian activist who was arrested and detained by immigration officials for his advocacy. The administration justified the move by claiming his protected speech was a “threat to national security.”⁸²

Such actions violate due process by failing to provide fair hearings or clear legal standards in accordance with U.S. constitutional law. This has created a chilling effect on immigrants and international students, sending the message that one could risk losing legal status by exercising one’s right to free expression or religious practice. It constitutes a clear abuse of power and a direct threat to the rights of all individuals within U.S. borders, regardless of their immigration status or religious affiliation.

These collective actions and proposals represent a concerted effort to undermine the principles of free expression and are part of a broader strategy to silence critics, control information, and consolidate power among far-right religious nationalists.

The Non-religious in Congress and Public Service

The role of the non-religious in U.S. public service exists within a political environment increasingly dominated by far-right Christian nationalism, championed by the Trump Administration. This movement advances a social narrative that links being American with being religious and, specifically, Christian.

In such an environment, criticism of conservative Christian movements and their political agendas is conflated with being “anti-American.” This narrative, reinforced by the rhetoric and policies of the Trump Administration, is a powerful tool used to delegitimize dissent and consolidate political power around a specific religious worldview.⁸³

Amid this cultural and political landscape, the Congressional Freethought Caucus, founded in 2018, remains a vital voice for non-religious Americans in the federal government. The caucus’s mission is to promote science and reason-based policy solutions, defend the secular character of government, and oppose discrimination against atheists, agnostics, humanists, and others. The caucus has been particularly active in opposition to the rise of religious nationalism, hosting briefings and releasing white papers on the subject.

As of writing, the caucus has grown to 32 members, who champion freedom of religion and belief (including the non-religious) and actively oppose policies perceived as undermining church-state separation.⁸⁴ While most caucus members are affiliated with a religious tradition, their coalition represents a significant step forward for the non-religious voice in the U.S. government and creates a formal platform for their concerns. Even so, many politicians remain reluctant to publicly identify as non-religious due to societal stigma and perceived political repercussions.

Polling data suggests that while acceptance of non-religious political candidates is growing, a significant portion of the U.S. electorate still expresses reluctance to vote for an atheist, limiting the number of openly non-religious individuals in Congress. A 2020 Gallup poll found that approximately two-thirds of Americans would be willing to vote for a presidential candidate who is an atheist, a lower percentage than for candidates who are Catholic, Jewish, or a woman. A 2024 study further confirmed this disadvantage, finding the strongest bias among Republicans, Independents, and religious voters.⁸⁵ These findings highlight a persistent stigma that contributes to the underrepresentation of openly non-religious individuals in Congress.⁸⁶

1. “United States Country Profile”, BBC, accessed September 2025 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-16761057;
   “United States, Britannica, accessed September 2025 https://www.britannica.com/place/United-States [↩]
2. “Religious identity in the United States”, Pew Research Center, last updated 26 February 2025 https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/religious-landscape-study-religious-identity/ [↩]
3. U.S. Const. amend. I. https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm[↩]
4. McCreary Cnty. v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 884 (2005).[↩]
5. ”A Law unto Himself”: Free Exercise, (Un)equal Value, and the Future of Public Accommodations, Harvard Law Review, 137 (2024): 1447, https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/a-law-unto-himselfemp-div-v-smith-494-u-s-872-879-1990-quoting-reynolds-v-united-states-98-u-s-145-167-1879-free-exercise-unequal-value-and-the-future-of-public/#footnote-ref-27 [↩]
6. “Fulton v. City of Philadelphia: The Supreme Court Considers the Religious License to Discriminate, Again”, Lambda Legal, November 5, 2020, https://lambdalegal.org/blogs/20201105_fulton-supreme-court-license-to-discriminate[↩]
7. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522 (2021). [↩]
8. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023). [↩]
9. Mahmoud v. Taylor, (2025); see also Mahmoud v. Taylor, U.S. June 27, 2025, judgment reversed and remanded, 6–3, opinion by Justice Alito.[↩]
10. Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, (2024), 73-77 https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf[↩]
11. Project 2025 Watch, “Project 2025 Tracker”, last modified August 12, 2025, https://www.project2025watch.org/tracker[↩]
12. The White House, “Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias”, Presidential Order, February 6, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/eradicating-anti-christian-bias/[↩]
13. The White House, “Establishment of the Religious Liberty Commission”, Executive Order, May 1, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/establishment-of-the-religious-liberty-commission/[↩]
14. “Trump Accountability Tracker”, GLAAD, last modified August 8, 2025, https://glaad.org/trump-accountability-tracker/[↩]
15. Maggie Haberman and Michael D. Shear, “Pete Hegseth’s Prayer Meetings at Pentagon Stir Controversy,” New York Times, May 21, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/21/us/politics/pete-hegseth-prayer-pentagon.html[↩]
16. ”What Christian Nationalism Looks Like in the Trump Cabinet”, The Nation, August 11, 2025, https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/christian-nationalism-trump-cabinet/[↩]
17. “What is Happening with the Johnson Amendment?”, Interfaith Alliance, July 31, 2025, https://www.interfaithalliance.org/post/what-is-happening-with-the-johnson-amendment[↩]
18. David R Brockman, “How Trump’s IRS May Unshackle Churches from Their Political Restraints”, The Texas Observer, August 6, 2025, https://www.texasobserver.org/trump-irs-texas-churches-johnson-amendment/[↩]
19. Brendan Fischer, Destroying the Johnson Amendment: How Allowing Charities to Spend on Politics Would Flood the Swamp That President Trump Promised to Drain, (Campaign Legal Center, 2017), https://campaignlegal.org/sites/default/files/Johnson%20Amendment%20White%20Paper_0.pdf[↩]
20. “Trump’s naked use of religion as a political tool draws rebukes from some faith leaders”, The Washington Post, June 4, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-naked-use-of-religion-as-a-political-tool-draws-rebukes-from-some-faith-leaders/2020/06/02/df281b82-a4e7-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html[↩]
21. David Masci, “A Half Century After It First Appeared on the Dollar Bill, “In God We Trust” Still Stirs Opposition”, Pew Research Center. September. 12, 2007, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2007/09/12/a-half-century-after-it-first-appeared-on-the-dollar-bill-in-god-we-trust-still-stirs-opposition[↩]
22. Kathryn Casteel, “A Third of the U.S. Says Being Christian Is A Key Part of Being American”, FiveThirtyEight, February 1, 2017, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-third-of-the-u-s-says-being-christian-is-a-key-part-of-being-american[↩]
23. Micah McCoy, “U.S. Supreme Court Hands Final Victory to ACLU-NM In Ten Commandments Case”, Am. Civil Liberties Union of N.M., January 2, 2018), https://www.aclu-nm.org/en/news/us-supreme-court-hands-final-victory-aclu-nm-ten-commandments-case [↩]
24. “Is America a Christian Nation?”, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (accessed August 26, 2025), https://www.au.org/about-au/history/is-america-a-christian-nation[↩]
25. “Supreme Court Could Make the Protestant Flag a Common Sight at Government Buildings Across the Country”, American Atheists, December 21, 2021, https://www.atheists.org/2021/12/supreme-court-shurtleff-v-boston [↩]
26. Richard C. Schragger, Of Crosses and Confederate Monuments: A Theory of Unconstitutional Government Speech, 63 Ariz. L. Rev. 45, 53-57 (2021).[↩]
27. “The First Amendment and Christmas Displays,” First Amendment Museum, December 19, 2022, https://firstamendmentmuseum.org/the-first-amendment-and-christmas-displays/[↩]
28. U.S.C.S. Const. Art. VI, C13. https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm[↩]
29. Alan E. Brownstein & Jud Campbell, “The No Religious Test Clause,” National Constitution Center, accessed August 26, 2025, https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-vi/clauses/32[↩]
30. Isaac Kramnick & R. Laurence Moore, “A Constitution Day Reminder: Seven States Say Atheists Need Not Apply,” Cornell Chronicle, September 12, 2008, https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2008/09/seven-states-say-atheists-need-not-apply[↩]
31. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961).[↩]
32. Andrew S. Franks & Kyle C. Scherr, “A Sociofunctional Approach to Prejudice at the Polls: Are Atheists More Politically Disadvantaged Than Gays and Blacks?”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 44(10) 681 https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12259[↩]
33. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-104, 107 Stat. 1488 (Nov. 16, 1993). [↩]
34. State of the Secular States National Issue Summary, Religious Freedom Restoration Statutes and Legal Precedent, American Atheists, accessed August 26, 2025), https://states.atheists.org/issue-map/religious-freedom-restoration-statutes-and-legal-precedent; Ga. S.B. 36 (2025); Wyo. H.B. 207 (2025). [↩]
35. Louise Melling, “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Is Used to Discriminate. Let’s Fix It”, American Civil Liberties Union, May 19, 2016, https://www.aclu.org/news/religious-liberty/religious-freedom-restoration-act-used; Emily London & Maggie Siddiqi, “Religious Liberty Should Do No Harm,” Center for American Progress, April 11, 2019, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/religious-liberty-no-harm [↩]
36. Robert C. Scott, “Fact Sheet: Do No Harm Act,” House Committee on Education & Workforce, (February 27, 2025), https://democrats-edworkforce.house.gov/imo/media/doc/fact_sheet_-_do_no_harm_act1.pdf [↩]
37. Frances Nguyen, “The YIGBY Movement — Unlocking Church-Owned Land for Affordable Housing” Shelterforce, February 28, 2025, https://shelterforce.org/2025/02/28/the-yigby-movement-unlocking-church-owned-land-for-affordable-housing[↩]
38. 42 U.S.C.S. § 3607(a); State Fair Housing Protections, Law Atlas (last updated August 1, 2019), https://lawatlas.org/datasets/state-fair-housing-protections-1498143743[↩]
39. “Resolution of Congress”, Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute (last updated April 2021), https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/resolution_of_congress[↩]
40. Okla. S.C.R. 2 (2025).[↩]
41. Ind. H.R. 53 (2025).[↩]
42. Erwin Chemerinsky, “No, It Is Not a Christian Nation, and It Never Has Been and Should Not Be One”, Roger Williams University Law Review, Vol. 26, Iss. 2 (2021) 404, https://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR/vol26/iss2/5 [↩]
43. “U.S. Senate Confirms Linda McMahon as 13th Secretary of Education”, U.S. Department of Education, March 3, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-senate-confirms-linda-mcmahon-13th-secretary-of-education-0 [↩]
44. Katherine Schaeffer, “U.S. public, private and charter schools in 5 charts” Pew Research Center, June 6, 2024, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/06/06/us-public-private-and-charter-schools-in-5-charts/[↩]
45. Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. 320 (2020)[↩]
46. ”Supreme Court Permits Religious Schools to Discriminate After Forcing Taxpayers to Fund Them”, American Atheists, July 8, 2020, https://www.atheists.org/2020/07/our-lady-of-guadalupe-school/ [↩]
47. Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 110 (2022)[↩]
48. Mahmoud v. Taylor, (2025)[↩]
49. Lambda Legal, “Civil Rights Organizations React to Supreme Court Ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor,” Lambda Legal, June 27, 2025, https://lambdalegal.org/newsroom/us_20250627_civil-rights-organizations-react-to-supreme-court-ruling-in-mahmoud-v-taylor/[↩]
50. “United States’ Child Marriage Problem: Study Findings 2000-2021”, Unchained At Last, last updated September 22, 2025 https://www.unchainedatlast.org/united-states-child-marriage-problem-study-findings-through-2021/;
    “State-by-State Marriage Age of Consent Laws”, FindLaw, last updated June 29, 2023 https://www.findlaw.com/family/marriage/state-by-state-marriage-age-of-consent-laws.html [↩]
51. Sundari Anitha & Manjusha Gupte, “Conceptualising Coercion in Child/Forced Marriage Through an Intersectional Lens: Narratives of Survivors and Practitioners in the U.S.”, Social & Legal Studies (April 16, 2025), https://doi.org/10.1177/09646639251325493[↩]
52. Annie Bunting, “Stages of Development: Marriage of Girls and Teens as an International Human Rights Issue”, Social & Legal Studies 14(1) 17 (2005), https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663905049524[↩]
53. ”American Values Atlas,” PRRI, last modified 2024, https://ava.prri.org/#religion/2024/state/reltrad_m/16[↩]
54. Ron Millar, “Atheism is No Longer A Political Taboo,” Center for Freethought Equality, 2024. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51dc51bde4b080b57c21977d/t/660c3902a9198b717bde7616/1712077064820/2024_PoliticalTaboo.pdf[↩]
55. ”Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Birth Control”, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/birth-control/burwell-v-hobby-lobby[↩]
56. “Religious Exemptions”, Movement Advancement Project, last modified July 1, 2025, https://www.lgbtmap.org/policy-and-issue-analysis/religious-exemptions[↩]
57. ”The Religious Exception to Abortion Bans: A Litigation Guide to State RFRAs”, Stanford Law Review, May 20, 2024, https://review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/06/Berman-76-Stan.-L.-Rev.-1129.pdf[↩]
58. “State Religious Exemption Laws”, Movement Advancement Project, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.mapresearch.org/equality-maps/religious_exemptions[↩]
59. Nancy Berlinger, , “Conscience Clauses, Health Care Providers, and Parents”, The Hastings Center for Bioethics,June 30, 2023, https://www.thehastingscenter.org/briefingbook/conscience-clauses-health-care-providers-and-parents/ [↩]
60. Johanna Hussain, “The Legal Consequences of the Fetal Personhood Movement”, Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy, March 4, 2025), https://jlpp.org/legal-consequences-of-the-fetal-personhood-movement[↩]
61. Melissa N. Montoya, Colleen Judge-Golden, & Jonas J. Swartz, “The Problems with Crisis Pregnancy Centers: Reviewing the Literature and Identifying New Directions for Future Research”, International Journal of Women’s Health 14 (2022): 757, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9189146 [↩]
62. Tiffany Stanley, “What Are Maternity Homes? Their Legacy is Checkered”, Associated Press, (last updated August 2, 2024), https://apnews.com/article/abortion-maternity-homes-catholic-christian-roe-cbc70b49618c2541838085456eb1c162; Amy G. Bryant & Jonas J. Swartz, “Why Crisis Pregnancy Centers Are Legal But Unethical”, American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, March, 2018), https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/why-crisis-pregnancy-centers-are-legal-unethical/2018-03 [↩]
63. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022).[↩]
64. Anna Claire Vollers, “Abortion-Ban States Pour Millions Into Pregnancy Centers with Little Medical Care”, The 19th, August 29, 2023), https://19thnews.org/2023/08/abortion-ban-states-pregnancy-centers-medical-care[↩]
65. Julie Rabinovitz, Diana Rodin, Hannah Savage, & Rebecca Kellenberg, An Analysis of Federal Funding for Crisis Pregnancy Centers, (Health Management Associates,2023), https://www.healthmanagement.com/wp-content/uploads/CPC-Federal-Funding-Report_20240614_hma.pdf[↩]
66. “HHS Acts to Protect Health Care Workers’ Conscience Rights”, Department of Health & Human Services, May 12, 2025, https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-protects-workers-conscience-rights.html [↩]
67. Ark. S.B. 444 (2025); Idaho H. 59 (2025); Tenn. H.B. 1044 (2025); Tenn. S.B. 955 (2025)[↩]
68. Rachel Wells, “Pregnant Mother in Tennessee Denied Care for Being Unmarried”, Nashville Banner, July 20, 2025, https://nashvillebanner.com/2025/07/20/doctor-denies-pregnant-woman-care[↩]
69. Talea Miller, “Journal Retracts Study Backing Vaccine-Autism Link”, PBS News, February 4, 2010), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/europe-jan-june10-lancet_0204 [↩]
70. Helen L. Murphey, “The Origins of the Anti-Vaccination Movement”, Time Magazine, January 29, 2025), https://time.com/7205900/anti-vaccination-movement-history [↩]
71. Hanne Amanda Trangerud, ““What Is The Problem With Vaccines?” A Typology of Religious Vaccine Skepticism”, Vaccine: X, Vol. 14: 100349 ( 2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvacx.2023.100349[↩]
72. “Vaccines and Immunization”, World Health Organization (accessed August 26, 2025), https://www.who.int/health-topics/vaccines-and-immunization#tab=tab_1[↩]
73. “ Human Rights Campaign on DeSantis’s “Don’t Say Gay or Trans” Law Going into Effect, Targeting LGBTQ+ Youth and Turning Back the Clock on Equality”, Human Rights Campaign, 30 June 2022, https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/human-rights-campaign-on-desantiss-dont-say-gay-or-trans-law-going-into-effect-targeting-lgbtq-youth-and-turning-back-the-clock-on-equality [↩]
74. Movement Advancement Project, “Equality Maps: Ban on Best Practice Medical Care for Transgender Youth,” https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/healthcare_youth_medical_care_bans [↩]
75. “Executive Order on Restoring Freedom of Speech,” The White House, January 20, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-freedom-of-speech-and-ending-federal-censorship/[↩]
76. ”What Project 2025 Is and Why It Matters,” The Washington Post, April 2, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/02/what-is-project-2025/[↩]
77. ”Project 2025, Explained.” American Civil Liberties Union https://www.aclu.org/project-2025-explained [↩]
78. ”Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing,” The White House, January 20, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing[↩]
79. Elizabeth Harris, “New State Laws Are Fueling a Surge in Book Bans”, The New York Times, September 23, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/23/books/book-bans-laws.html [↩]
80. Akilah Alleyne, “Book Banning, Curriculum Restrictions, and the Politicization of U.S. Schools”, The Center for American Progress, September 19, 2022, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/book-banning-curriculum-restrictions-and-the-politicization-of-u-s-schools [↩]
81. Jeremy Gantz, “Banning the Book Bans”, American Libraries, June 2, 2025, https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2025/06/02/banning-the-book-bans [↩]
82. Anna Betts, “Trump calls arrest of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil ‘first of many to come’,” The Guardian, March 10, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/10/trump-arrest-palestinian-activist-mahmoud-khalil ; Jake Offenhartz, “Immigration agents arrest Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia University protests,” Associated Press, March 9, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/columbia-university-mahmoud-khalil-ice-15014bcbb921f21a9f704d5acdcae7a8 [↩]
83. Chris Herrmann, “Trump’s quest to transform the West,” European Council on Foreign Relations, August 11, 2025, https://ecfr.eu/article/trumps-quest-to-transform-the-west/[↩]
84. “Congressional Freethought Caucus,” U.S. Congressman Jared Huffman, https://huffman.house.gov/policy-issues/congressional-freethought-caucus[↩]
85. Lydia Saad, “Socialism and Atheism Still U.S. Political Liabilities,” Gallup News, February 11, 2020, https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx[↩]
86. Ewa Golebiowska, “Membership in a stigmatized religious minority and political support: nonreligious individuals running for office in the United States,” Politics and Religion, Vol.17, no. 1 (2024): 33–55, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-religion/article/membership-in-a-stigmatized-religious-minority-and-political-support-nonreligious-individuals-running-for-office-in-the-united-states/B0687467956699A0625406F10E64181D [↩]