WHY WHITE CHRISTIAN NATIONALISTS HIJACKED TRUMP’S BUREAUCRACY

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): СокальINFO

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/14

Steven Emmert is an experienced nonprofit executive dedicated to policy reform, advocacy, and healthcare equity. As the Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America, he champions expanding secular voices in public policy. He fights against the rise of Christian nationalism. With a background in health access advocacy, Steven has worked with Planned Parenthood affiliates across the U.S., influencing legislation in eight states and on Capitol Hill. He is deeply committed to maintaining the separation of church and state as a foundation for democracy.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s focus on two officials in President Trump’s administration who, regardless of personal practice, align with a politics commonly labeled Christian nationalism. Whether or not they actively observe the faith is less important than the agenda they champion.

By most measures, Americans opposed these nominations; nevertheless, they now shape policy from within. From your vantage point at the Secular Coalition for America—an umbrella network representing prominent humanist, atheist, and other secular organizations across the United States—why did the SCA formally oppose Russell Vought’s nomination to serve as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and what risks did you see for pluralism and effective governance?

Steven Emmert: The short answer is that we are familiar with his work.

Russell Vought is a vocal Christian nationalist who does not recognize the separation of church and state as a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution. As long as the religion in question aligns with his version of Christianity, he believes it is acceptable for church and state to intermingle.

From a legal perspective, as we have recently seen, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires Congress to determine federal spending. Congress holds the power of the purse, meaning it decides how and where money is allocated, while the executive branch is responsible for faithfully executing those orders. Russell Vought has supported executive overreach in budget matters, advocating for the executive branch to exert more control over spending decisions, which is not how the system is designed. Such actions raise serious constitutional concerns.

(White House)

Jacobsen: Is this related to the clause about the separation of powers for those who may not be aware?

Emmert: Yes. The issue was clarified in 1974 when President Richard Nixon attempted to withhold congressionally approved funds, leading to the passage of the Impoundment Control Act.

Jacobsen: And how did that end?

Emmert: Not well for Nixon. But he faced a Congress that was willing to stand up to him. They recognized that the three branches of government are coequal, and no single branch has unchecked authority over the others. This system was specifically designed to prevent what we are now witnessing with the Trump administration.

Jacobsen: And how does Russell Vought factor into this?

Emmert: He is not only supportive of this power shift but also played a significant role in shaping these policies at OMB.

Jacobsen: In practical terms, how does the U.S. Constitution create a secular state? Many of our readers will know the answer, but it’s always helpful to revisit first principles for those who don’t yet have them front of mind.

Emmert: The first line of the Bill of Rights declares, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That clause continues throughout the document, reinforcing the separation of church and state.

Religion and God are mentioned only twice in the U.S. Constitution—once to affirm that there will be no religious test for any elected official. The principle of separation of church and state was established by the Founding Fathers from the very beginning.

Jacobsen: In Canada, recent data suggest that religious minorities—including the unaffiliated—may now form a numerical majority. In effect, everyone is a minority. If that tipping point occurred in the past year, how does the United States compare today? In your view, what do the current demographics reveal?

Emmert: One of the key reasons we are seeing Christian nationalists become so defensive in their posturing and so aggressive in their political maneuvering is that Christian identification in the U.S. is in decline. Not that long ago, over 80% of Americans identified as Christian. That number has now dropped to 63%, while those reporting no religious affiliation have climbed to 30%.

Christian nationalists recognize that demographics are not in their favour, and they are doing everything they can to maintain the power they still hold and to expand it.

Jacobsen: What was Russell Vought’s role in Project 2025?

Emmert: He played a significant role in shaping it. He wrote much of the White House section, focusing on the structure and function of the executive branch. Beyond that, he was also one of the project’s co-creators, coordinating the various authors and organizations that contributed to its 900-page blueprint for a second Trump administration.

What is particularly alarming is how much of that plan has already been implemented.

Jacobsen: What is the scope of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)?

Emmert: OMB is generally a bureaucratic agency that does not get much media attention. Its primary function is budgetary oversight—analyzing numbers and ensuring federal agencies follow financial guidelines. Historically, OMB would only make the news when the president released a budget proposal to Congress since the office is responsible for drafting the financial blueprint that reflects the administration’s priorities.

However, OMB plays a far more aggressive and politicized role in the current administration. Instead of just managing budgets, they now decide who gets paid and who does not, which is illegal. It will directly impact anyone with a government contract, those who rely on federal assistance, and any business or institution that deals with the federal government.

Every day could bring a new financial or legal disruption, depending on their discretionary actions.

Pete Hegseth hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Pentagon.

Jacobsen: What do we see regarding Christian nationalism being used as both a bulwark and an attack on the principles of a pluralistic society?

Emmert: Christian nationalism could reshape daily life in countless ways. One of the most immediate concerns is how they intend to redefine immigration policies. Russell Vought has already openly advocated for changes that would limit eligibility for immigration and citizenship based on religious and cultural criteria.

This is just one example of how Christian nationalism could be weaponized to erode pluralism and exclude those who do not align with their ideological vision. The broader consequences extend into education, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ protections, and voting laws—all areas where they seek to entrench their worldview at the expense of constitutional secularism.

And he said that immigration eligibility should depend on whether or not a person has accepted Israel’s God, biblical laws, and a specific understanding of history—essentially confirming that, under this framework, one could only immigrate to the United States if they were Christian.

That goes against every principle upon which the United States was founded. Yet, it is just one example of how their vision for the nation completely diverges from reality. The U.S. is a melting pot of cultures, traditions, and customs. Still, their policies seek to privilege Christians over all other faith traditions—and particularly over those with no religious affiliation.

One of the other major initiatives they advocate for is Schedule F, which would dramatically alter the federal civil service system. In the United States, federal employees are protected from political interference, allowing them to serve across multiple administrations based on expertise rather than political loyalty.

These individuals—many with decades of experience, specialized training, and high-level qualifications—are responsible for administering laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. Schedule F would eliminate these protections and reclassify up to 40,000 federal employees as political appointees, meaning their job security would depend entirely on whether they align with the ideology of the current administration.

This is already beginning to take effect. What we are losing in the federal workforce is experience and competence. In their place, we see positions filled based on political loyalty alone. The only qualification necessary seems to be fealty to the narrative that the 2020 election was stolen—or whatever new ideological litmus test they impose. Government positions are increasingly reserved for those willing to pledge loyalty to a specific ideological agenda.

Jacobsen: What about Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense? The principle of meritocracy—hiring based on ability and qualifications—is a laudable value in and of itself. However, what we are witnessing is not meritocracy.

Emmert: From my perspective, every day is a national embarrassment.

With Hegseth’s nomination, concerns were raised about his history of alcohol abuse, his treatment of his ex-wives, and his inability to manage small nonprofit organizations. But even if none of that were true, the fact remains: he is the least qualified person ever nominated for Secretary of Defense in U.S. history. And yet, the Senate confirmed him.

It is terrifying on many levels, particularly from a national security perspective. The Secretary of Defense is responsible for leading the Pentagon, managing the armed forces, and shaping U.S. military policy worldwide—and this role has been handed to someone with no experience in military strategy, governance, or defence leadership.

Then, we saw Tulsi Gabbard confirmed to lead U.S. intelligence agencies. Clearly, competence is not a priority in these appointments.

Jacobsen: Can you touch on Hegseth’s rhetoric about historical religious conflicts, such as the Crusades?

Emmert: His language is deeply alarming. He has openly framed Western civilization in terms of religious warfare, even stating, “If you believe in Western civilization, think like a crusader.”

You have to chuckle so you do not cry because this is the mindset we are dealing with—Christian nationalism is framed as the key to national success. But in reality, it is simply a strategy to consolidate power among those who already hold it.

Jacobsen: I’m struck by how many Americans are mobilizing against these developments—people from varied backgrounds, ages, and perspectives joining in protest and activism—which is heartening. From your vantage point, what response are you observing to figures like Pete Hegseth, Russell Vought, and others, on the ground and online? Please answer broadly, capturing the wider mood.

Emmert: We are well aware that one of the major consequences of these appointments will be increased discrimination against nonreligious service members. This has been a persistent issue—whether in the fight to establish humanist chaplains on military bases or to protect non-Christian soldiers from religious discrimination. With Hegseth leading the Pentagon, we are likely to see multiple setbacks in our progress.

Jacobsen: What about women in the service? We have already seen anti-trans policies affecting enlisted personnel.

Emmert: Hegseth has made his position very clear. He may have said whatever was necessary during his Senate confirmation hearings, but his views are well known.

This is not just a moral issue but a national security concern. When internal ideological battles become the priority over actual defence strategy, it weakens military readiness and morale. Instead of focusing on external threats, there is a growing effort to purge the ranks based on ideological purity—whether regarding religion, gender identity, or political alignment. That should alarm everyone.

Jacobsen: What percentage of the military identifies as non-Christian?

Emmert: I do not know that exact number off the top of my head. I should look into it.

However, we do know that among the 30% of Americans who identify as nonreligious, the percentage is much higher among younger generations—well over 60%. Given that the armed forces are predominantly composed of younger recruits, it is reasonable to assume that the percentage of nonreligious service members is significantly higher than 30%.

Jacobsen: So, are the military’s demographic shifts likely even more pronounced?

Emmert: Correct. The younger generation of enlisted personnel is quite different from the older military leadership that currently sets policy.

Jacobsen: What else should I be asking?

Emmert: Well, one important question is how Christian nationalist rhetoric is shaping policy decisions, particularly how historical religious conflicts—such as the Crusades—are being invoked as a comparison to modern-day struggles.

Jacobsen: That gets to the heart of it. How widespread is this historical framing among people who openly identify as Christian nationalists—and among those who share the movement’s beliefs while avoiding the label, even if they won’t say so?

Emmert: Among the rank and file of people who identify as Christian nationalists, I do not think historical comparisons are very common. Most do not invoke the Crusades or other historical religious conflicts in their rhetoric.

However, we do see these references frequently among movement leaders and influencers—especially among figures like Hegseth, who has explicitly framed Western civilization as a modern crusade. This type of historical revisionism serves to justify aggressive political and military actions under the guise of religious and cultural preservation.

There seems to be a near-religious devotion to certain figures in leadership—perhaps worship is too strong a word. Still, there is a blind allegiance where whatever they say is accepted as absolute truth. Their followers will buy into whatever is being sold.

Jacobsen: Do you believe that Hegseth, during his time leading the Pentagon, will lead a nonpartisan, inclusive military overall?

Emmert: No.

His priority will be to target transgender soldiers. But once he succeeds, why would anyone assume it stops there?

Russell Vought seen here at the White House.

Jacobsen: Are you receiving messages of fear and concern from secular service members?

Emmert: We had already heard about these issues before Hegseth took over the Pentagon. One of our member organizations is the Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers (MAAF), and they see firsthand the challenges nonreligious soldiers face.

A soldier’s experience with religious discrimination depends largely on which base they are assigned to. If they are stationed at one base, they have relative freedom. But if they are reassigned, they could end up under leadership that actively promotes Christianity, refuses to allow non-Christian groups to gather, and pressures soldiers to conform to Christian ideals.

This has been happening for years, but under Hegseth, such behaviour is being encouraged rather than checked.

Jacobsen: Has Hegseth or Vought ever genuinely stood for anything that aligns with the broader goals of the Secular Coalition for America?

Emmert: That aligns with our goals. Not at all. One of the major things Vought did as Director of the Office of Management and Budget was to effectively shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

The CFPB was created after the Great Recession to protect consumers from predatory financial practices by banks and other financial institutions. Since its inception, the bureau has recovered over $80 billion for consumers who were victims of fraudulent banking practices.

Vought claimed that the CFPB was being “weaponized” against the financial industry and labelled it a “woke” agency. His solution? Dismantle it.

Rather than protecting victims of financial abuse, he framed predatory businesses as the victims. These very institutions exploited people for profit. This was just another example of how the administration shifted power away from ordinary Americans and toward corporate interests.

So now Vought has set up a tip line where people can call in and report alleged examples of politicization within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The sheer number of lies they are willing to spread is staggering.

Jacobsen: Is America being gaslit?

Emmert: Yes.

Jacobsen: Robert Reich—the former Labor Secretary and academic—argues that since 1980, roughly $50 trillion in wealth has shifted from the bottom 90 percent of Americans to the top 10. He traces the turn to Ronald Reagan’s supply-side revolution. Seen that way, it’s understandable why many voters feel the system is rigged; the impulse is to torch the status quo and try something new. That, I think, is what they heard from President Trump: the establishment failed you, and only radical change will do.

Yet voters did not intend a mandate to ease predatory banking, weaken worker-safety rules, or otherwise tilt policy toward corporate power. Those, however, are the initiatives moving forward, and the result is a government growing friendlier to big business while ordinary people lag.

Setting that observation aside, a concrete question: within the military and the federal machinery, what were the earliest direct moves against secular governance? Since this administration took office in late January, have there been specific actions—inside the services, executive agencies, or across the federal government—that illustrate that shift?

Emmert: One of the first significant policy shifts within the military was their targeting of transgender service members. Now, that issue concerns many secular people, but it is not explicitly a secular issue. However, one of the policies that directly impacts the secular community was the creation of a commission last week to investigate “anti-Christian bias” in federal agencies.

The problem is that their definition of “discrimination and bias” is not what normal people would consider discrimination or bias.

Jacobsen: Have they provided any definitions of what they mean?

Emmert: I have not seen any formal definitions yet. Honestly, the details don’t matter to them.

This is about headlines—about getting people to believe, “Oh my gosh, the federal government has an anti-Christian bias and has been discriminating against Christians!” It is the same old “War on Christmas” narrative.

This rhetoric feeds into that resentment and redirects frustration away from corporate greed and economic policies toward an imaginary culture war.

Jacobsen: Much of the foundational rhetoric that got them into power centered on taking legitimate economic grievances and redirecting anger and disillusionment toward already vulnerable populations. Legitimate concerns but directed at illegitimate targets.

Emmert: Yes. This is a silly anecdotal story, but it happened yesterday or the day before. There was a minor incident on my bus ride home—nothing that escalated too far, but I witnessed it.

The man sitting behind me—wearing a hard hat—apologized as I got off the bus and asked if I was okay. I assured him that I was fine. But as I stepped off, I half-jokingly said to him, “As with everything else, Sal, I blame Trump.”

I chuckled. But he responded, “Oh, no. No. No. Trump’s looking out for the little guy.” And he meant it. It was eye-opening. Here is someone who truly believes that even though the ultra-rich have amassed $250 billion since the last election alone.

Jacobsen: That is a failure of the Democrats’ messaging and policy.

Emmert: Yep.

Jacobsen: It is about being out of touch with working people. And yes, it is also about real, decades-long neoliberal economic policies that have hollowed out the working class.

Emmert: It is.

Jacobsen: Because I have worked in those jobs before. They are hard jobs. Some areas of specialized construction are all-consuming. People drink and smoke on job sites for a reason—because the work is grueling.

Emmert: No doubt. It is physically demanding and mentally exhausting. And those workers deserve a break. They also deserve a government that does not ignore them when financial services organizations scam them or when loan sharks are given free rein to set up shop in a strip mall.

Instead, the system is rigged against them, and they are told the real enemy is a trans person enlisting in the military or a highly educated woman getting a promotion instead of them. That is not the actual issue.

The real issue is that they are being screwed over by a government that prioritizes corporate profits over workers—and the pandemic only made that worse. But misdirection is the goal.

It is like a magician’s trick—they tell you to look over here while they steal from you.

“I am protecting your daughters from a trans swimmer in a high school meet.”

Meanwhile, they are robbing you blind and taking away your economic power. And it is working—wildly successfully.

Jacobsen: How are mobilization efforts going at the Secular Coalition for America?

Emmert: We are holding our annual Lobby Day on March 11, and we would love to have as many participants as possible join us here in Washington, D.C.

If you cannot attend in person, it would still be incredibly helpful if you could call or email your member of Congress—whether through their D.C. office or their local office—as well as both of your senators’ offices on that day to let them know that you support the separation of church and state.

It is more critical now than ever.

Jacobsen: Steven, thank you, as always.

Emmert: I appreciate it.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.