Rob Boston, Secularism for the Second Trump Term

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/05/06

Photo by Jorge Alcala on Unsplash

Rob Boston is a Senior Adviser at Americans United for Separation of Church and State and former Editor of Church & State, AU’s monthly membership magazine. He is also the chief writer for AU’s “Wall of Separation” blog. Rob, who has worked at Americans United since 1987, is the author of four books: Close Encounters with the Religious Right: Journeys into the Twilight Zone of Religion and Politics (Prometheus Books, 2000); The Most Dangerous Man in America? Pat Robertson and the Rise of the Christian Coalition (Prometheus Books, 1996); Why the Religious Right Is Wrong About Separation of Church and State (Prometheus Books, 1993; second edition, 2003) and, most recently, Taking Liberties: Why Religious Freedom Doesn’t Give You The Right To Tell Other People What To Do (Prometheus Books, 2014). Rob has appeared in three documentaries: “We Believe in Dinosaurs” (2019), “American Heretics” (2019) and “God & Country” (2024).

Following a previous discussion during Trump’s term, Boston shares insights on challenges facing the secular movement as we prepare for a second Trump term. He highlights the erosion of church-state precedents, potential political hostility, and issues like executive orders impacting reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights. He emphasizes Christian nationalism’s political influence and its alignment with far-right politics, undermining secular values. Concerns include censorship, religious arguments affecting policy, and Christian nationalists’ discriminatory practices. Boston stresses coalition work, resilience, and strategic planning as crucial for advocacy, urging individuals to prioritize mental health and partner across secular and religious communities for effective action.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Rob Boston after a few years of pause. Ironically, this conversation occurred during the Biden-Harris administration, whereas our last meeting was during Trump’s first term. To start with an overview, what is the current state of the secular movement?

Rob Boston: Many people are angry, disappointed, and discouraged. However, there is a general recognition that we must continue this fight. Much of what we value is at stake. We understand that the work ahead will be challenging. The Supreme Court and lower federal courts have already eroded some church-state precedents, and now we face a potentially hostile political environment. It will take much work, but these values are worth fighting for, and everyone is determined to keep up the effort.

Jacobsen: Outside of the immediate personality and leadership of President Trump, what do you see as the significant institutional challenges coming in the next four years?

Boston: We will have to deal with several issues. One major challenge will be executive orders and policies that a president can change without congressional approval. During Trump’s previous term, we saw many actions of this nature, with measures that undermined the separation of church and state implemented via executive orders or regulatory changes. These can be difficult to challenge. Sometimes, legal action is possible, but only sometimes.

A good example from his first term is when Trump unilaterally announced via tweet that transgender individuals could no longer serve in the military. President Biden reversed that policy, but Trump could reinstate it. Other similar executive orders could affect access to birth control and allow faith-based organizations to receive public funding while discriminating based on religion. The president can enact such changes without legislative approval, so we will face significant challenges at the outset.

Jacobsen: What is the current state of Christian nationalism in the United States? The phrase “Christian nationalism” is often used and may blur into a simple slogan for some. However, it has a much more specific and concerning meaning regarding the intent of those who identify as or are identified as Christian nationalists.

Boston: Christian nationalism involves both political and religious activity. It is the belief that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation and should be governed predominantly by white Christian men of fundamentalist leanings. This is significant because the type of Christianity promoted by Christian nationalists excludes most Christians in America. Millions of Christians would find the fundamentalist Christianity embraced by Christian nationalists incompatible with their beliefs.

Christian nationalism is a political movement aligned with far-right politics and seeks to dismantle the separation between church and state. Unfortunately, it is currently experiencing a period of influence. Although Donald Trump may not seem religious to most of us, he has garnered the support of Christian nationalists, who, remarkably, often view him as a champion.

Jacobsen: Do you not see involvement in church-state separation? What will be the impacts of this movement, either directly or as a derivative of eroding church-state separation, on issues like women’s reproductive rights or LGBTQ+ rights?

Boston: Lately, we’ve examined the connections between the separation of church and state and many other issues. Take, for example, the question of reproductive freedom. Nearly all attempts to deny women reproductive freedom in the United States are based on religious arguments. Some people might point to the Bible or cite statements from religious figures. They are making explicitly religious arguments, and that also holds for LGBTQ+ rights. During the fight over marriage equality, opponents made explicitly religious arguments as to why two people of the same gender should not be allowed to marry without offering any compelling secular arguments. It was usually an appeal to the Bible.

Another issue affected by this is censorship, which has become a significant problem in the United States. Books are being removed from public school libraries or public libraries because some religious individuals disapprove of them. Again, this is entirely based on religion. From the perspective of Americans United, when laws are grounded in theology or someone’s religious beliefs, and the only argument they can offer is a religious one, we consider that a church-state issue.

Lately, we’ve been trying to make that connection more explicit and help people understand that if you care about reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, freedom from censorship, or the ability to make personal life choices, the wall of separation between church and state is what protects those rights and many more.

Jacobsen: What do you see as a significant challenge in the immediate future? I’m thinking about the rest of this Fall-Winter and the upcoming Spring.

Boston: The first thing we must do is gear up for the fights we know are coming. Certain actions, such as executive orders reversing those put in place by the Biden administration, can be expected almost immediately after Trump is sworn in.

We could see a revival of the Muslim ban or a complete shift in the federal government’s stance on reproductive rights and reproductive freedom. We need to be prepared to tackle these issues right away. As we move into 2025, we also need to pay attention to who Trump appoints to powerful positions. Last time, for example, he named Betsy DeVos, an advocate for private school aid, as Secretary of Education. Her main focus was funneling tax money into private religious schools.

She should have prioritized public schools, which serve about 90% of our children. Our focus should be on supporting public schools. All of these challenges can feel overwhelming. Last time, people used the analogy of trying to take a drink from a fire hose—you just get blasted.

There were days when it felt like one thing after another. You always needed to figure out what to expect next. I sometimes thought this was being done deliberately to wear us down. For those of us who advocate for a secular government in the United States, it’s not just about being prepared for any attack but also finding ways to maintain our energy levels to handle whatever might come next.

Jacobsen: That’s a subtle point—maintaining stamina in policy and activist work. What are your tips?

Boston: One important thing for people to remember is that when a lot is happening, you don’t have to fight every battle. Triage. Identify what is most important to tackle immediately and address the less urgent issues later. Also, remember your allies.

Here at Americans United, we have allies in secular and religious communities who can step in and work with us. The more we stand together, the better off we’ll be. On an individual level, people need to take care of themselves. Take a break if you’re feeling burned out, unwell, or overwhelmed.

Reenergize, recharge your batteries, and then come back into the fight. Sometimes, those of us in secular activism make the mistake of pushing ourselves to burnout, which benefits no one. Prioritizing mental health is essential.

Jacobsen: Has there been any discussion or self-congratulation among self-identified Christian nationalists regarding their recent win? What are your thoughts about projecting forward into 2025 with the aptly titled “Project 2025”?

Boston: Project 2025 is indeed a serious concern. This initiative was created by the Heritage Foundation, a highly conservative organization, and other groups. Many proposals are so extreme that many people are shocked to read them. The agenda wasn’t widely popular, so Trump and some other Republicans tried to distance themselves from it, claiming it was just something proposed by a group and didn’t reflect their administration.

However, many of us believe that elements of the Project 2025 blueprint will be enacted. We can certainly expect to see portions of it implemented. This attempt to distance themselves from such an extreme agenda is not convincing. The document is 900 pages long and covers every aspect of political life and government departments—many areas that affect our daily lives.

We must be vigilant against any efforts to implement it and do what we can to stop it. The positive aspect is that it is not popular, so if an attempt is made to enforce it, we should be able to rally people and make them aware of the potential erosion of their rights.

Jacobsen: What will be the first targeted rights and secular institutions?

Boston: Despite Trump’s rhetoric about protecting women, he will be under much pressure to act against reproductive freedom. Most people support a woman’s right to choose. We saw this on election night when seven states voted to protect abortion rights through ballot referendums. However, some voters who supported those measures also voted for Trump.

The extreme anti-abortion groups are going to look for ways to interfere with that right as much as possible. One of my concerns is seeing situations like in Texas, where nearly all abortions are illegal. Women are crossing the border into New Mexico to access abortion services. Legislators in Texas want to prevent this and even punish those who help women obtain abortions.

This is extremely concerning, and I hope that the constitutional protection of interstate travel will safeguard against such measures. But these are dangerous times, and people are proposing ideas that would have seemed unthinkable just a few years ago. Yet here they are, being put on the table.

Jacobsen: Human Rights Watch has a straightforward page—nothing fancy—that succinctly describes the state of abortion rights internationally, stating that safe and equitable access to abortion is a fundamental human right. These are attacks on human rights, and historically, we know that when abortion is made illegal, the number of unsafe abortions rises, leading to injuries and deaths. The data often shows that making abortion legal reduces the number of overall abortions by ensuring safe and equitable access. Beyond issues related to reproductive freedom, what other pillars do you think will be targeted?

Boston: We must assume that any issue related to the separation of church and state could be targeted. Secular public schools are one such area. For instance, in Oklahoma, Ryan Walters, the state superintendent of public instruction, has tried to force schools to teach the Bible. Teaching about the Bible objectively and even-handedly is one thing, but that’s not what Walters wants. He aims for a fundamentalist, Christian nationalist interpretation of the Bible to be part of the curriculum.

If someone like Walters were elevated to a national position, he might try to implement such programs on a broader scale. Louisiana passed a law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in all public schools. That measure could spread to other states and become a national issue. We need to remain vigilant about these developments. This is always a concern.

Jacobsen: Another area where we expect problems is whether religious freedom gives people the right to discriminate against others or cause them harm. What is your perspective on this?

Boston: At Americans United, we firmly believe that religious freedom does not grant the right to discriminate or cause harm to others. However, Christian nationalists see this differently. They argue that a medical professional, for example, should be able to deny treatment to anyone, even in emergencies, if something about that person offends their religious beliefs. We have seen cases where people seeking services at secular, for-profit businesses—such as bakeries or photography studios—are denied because they are same-sex couples or non-Christians. There have also been instances where adoption and foster care agencies, funded by taxpayer dollars, have turned people away for being of the “wrong” religion.

Conservatives and Christian nationalists argue that this is a legitimate expression of religious freedom, but we at Americans United say it is not. Religious freedom allows you to worship as you see fit, gather with others, pray, sing hymns, and so forth, but it does not give you the right to harm or discriminate against others. This issue is becoming more contentious, and, unfortunately, the courts are moving toward an interpretation of religious freedom as an instrument of discrimination.

Jacobsen: Over the past 10 to 15 years, there has been new research into attitudes about atheists and other similar groups in the United States and beyond. The findings often show that atheists are among the most distrusted and disliked groups, sometimes swapping places with Muslims in terms of public sentiment. How do you reconcile the Christian nationalists’ quest for power with the fact that atheists, and sometimes Muslims, are so heavily distrusted and targeted by negative sentiment?

Boston: It’s a challenge. Christian nationalists, having gained significant political power, often express hostility toward atheists, who are indeed viewed with distrust, fear, and even disgust by the general public. Muslims face similar negative perceptions. Despite these challenges, Americans United has always been a broad coalition. We have strong ties to religious communities, as well as secular ones. We work with Jewish groups and, more recently, with some Hindu, Wiccan, and pagan organizations.

Outreach to the Muslim community has been more challenging for various reasons, but we have found progressive Muslim-leaning organizations that have joined us in coalition on certain issues. If we see a return of the Muslim ban, which I would not be surprised by, that will present an opportunity to work more closely with the Muslim community. We will continue to foster those partnerships.

Jacobsen: Who would you say are your strongest allies in the secular community for those interested in joining forces with them?

Boston: In the secular community, we have connections with all the major groups in the United States, such as the American Humanist Association, the Secular Coalition, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Center for Inquiry, American Atheists, and some smaller organizations. We collaborate with them on legal efforts, lobbying, and coalition-building. An interesting fact that many might not know is that Christian clergy originally founded Americans United.

Jacobsen: I didn’t know that.

Boston: Yes, it’s an important part of our history. We were founded in 1947, and for many decades, our default mode was a Christian, mostly Protestant organization, advocating for the separation of church and state from an explicitly religious perspective. That began to change in the 1970s and onward, and the organization became nonsectarian. There was some suspicion from secular organizations that we were still a religious group. When I started working here in 1987, being from the secular community myself, I was interested in finding ways to align Americans United more closely with the leading secular organizations in America. One of the main ways I worked on that was by showing up.

I attended their conferences, spoke when they allowed it and wrote for their magazines to let them know that Americans United valued them as partners and wanted to work collaboratively. That effort paid off over the years; we have built those connections. I have served on the board of the American Humanist Association since 2009. Although my time on that board is winding down, I have remained active in it and other secular organizations.

One of the most important things we can do when building an effective coalition and reaching out to secular groups is to show up and demonstrate that we value the partnership and want it to thrive.

Jacobsen: Last question. What are the most effective strategies for pursuing the secular work you’re involved in?

Boston: That’s a challenging question because there are many different approaches. However, one of the most effective strategies is coalitional work. Coalitions are important because they showcase a broad and diverse group that can be compelling to the average person and sometimes political leaders. If someone secular is saying the same thing as someone religious, and they have come together to make their argument, that diversity can be very impactful.

We look for broad outreach when filing lawsuits or engaging in other actions to present voices that may differ in personal beliefs but are united on the issue. I advise those working on these issues to seek as many allies as possible. I understand people have different perspectives on religious matters—that’s part of living in a free society.

Discussing those differences over coffee after the meeting is fine, but when planning strategy, set those differences aside. Focus on what matters and what you’re working on.

Jacobsen: Rob, thank you again. I appreciate it.

Boston: Great, glad to help.

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.