White House Religious Liberty Commission Releases Final Report on Strengthening Faith Protections
The White House Religious Liberty Commission has officially presented its final report to President Donald Trump, offering a comprehensive set of recommendations to bolster religious freedom across the United States. Led by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the panel developed these proposals after gathering testimony from over 100 witnesses representing diverse sectors. The report calls for significant policy shifts, including new Department of Justice guidance on the Establishment Clause and streamlined religious accommodations within the military. Additionally, the commission emphasizes the need for increased protections against antisemitism and violence directed at houses of worship. While the report addresses many critical areas, it also acknowledges remaining gaps, such as the need for further clarification on clergy-penitent privilege and the protection of Indigenous sacred sites.
3 months ago
The White House Religious Liberty Commission, created by executive order in May 2025, released its final report on June 26 2026, outlining a slate of policy proposals aimed at bolstering religious freedom across the United States. 1 2
The commission was tasked with assessing threats to religious liberty, gathering testimony from more than 100 witnesses in education, health care, the military, and other sectors, and advising President Donald Trump on legislative and executive actions. 2
Both the draft and final reports call on the Department of Justice to issue guidance that explains the First Amendment’s text, emphasizing that the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” does not appear in the Constitution and originates from Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter. 1 2
The commission proposes “Know Your Rights” posters and educational materials for schools, hospitals, and other public settings, as well as the creation of hotlines and online portals where individuals can report alleged violations of religious liberty. 2 3
Recommendations include directing the Department of Defense (referred to as the “War Department”) to improve the religious accommodation process for service members and to develop a DOJ‑led religious‑liberty task force to prioritize related litigation. 1 2
The commission urges repeal of the Johnson Amendment, which bars tax‑exempt nonprofits from endorsing or opposing political candidates, and calls for the nomination of judges who demonstrate willingness to adjudicate religious‑liberty cases on their merits. 2
The reports highlight the need for stronger enforcement of civil‑rights laws to address antisemitic incidents and note ongoing concerns about protecting Indigenous sacred sites, such as Oak Flat, Arizona. 1
A new “Presidential Medal of Religious Liberty” and “First Freedom Hero Awards” are proposed to honor individuals who champion religious freedom. 2
The commission has faced criticism, including the removal of former commissioner Carrie Prejean Boller, which some alleged was due to her Catholic faith—a claim disputed by other members. 1
A multifaith coalition filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the commission reflects a “Judeo‑Christian” bias rather than true religious pluralism. 1
The draft report was presented to President Trump on June 26 2026, and the final report was formally delivered in the Oval Office on June 28 2026, with the administration indicating intent to act on the recommendations. 2
These combined recommendations aim to reshape federal policy on religious liberty, increase public understanding of constitutional protections, and address perceived gaps in accommodation and enforcement.*
Investigate Catholic doctrine on state‑religion separation
Catholic teaching does not reduce the Church’s relationship to the state to a simplistic “religion must be privatized” model. Instead, it distinguishes between (1) the limits of civil power in religious matters (no coercion of faith) and (2) any alleged principle that would exclude God and divine law from public life (which the Church has criticized).
Catholics are called to make a real distinction between the growth of God’s reign and the progress of culture and society—but not to treat that as a separation between faith and human responsibilities in history.
The Catechism states that “the Church… is not to be confused in any way with the political community.”
This means the Church is not identical with the state, nor should it be governed as though it were a merely political institution.
The Catechism also quotes Romans 13:1 on authority: “There is no authority except from God.”
So “separation” understood as removing divine reference entirely from law-making is not presented as the Catholic ideal.
A central Catholic principle taught at Vatican II is that God’s summons to faith must meet a free response: “man’s response to God in faith must be free: no one… is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will.”
Vatican II defines the right to religious freedom as immunity “from coercion… in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs” within just public order.
This right is grounded in the dignity of the human person as known by revelation and reason.
Vatican II teaches that religious acts “transcend by their very nature the order of terrestrial and temporal affairs,” so government must not overreach into commanding or inhibiting religious acts.
Specifically: “it would clearly transgress the limits … were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious.”
Even while refusing coercion, Vatican II says government “ought indeed to take account of the religious life… and show it favor,” because government’s function is the common welfare.
So Catholic doctrine supports religious liberty as immunity from coercion, not as a demand that religion be socially irrelevant.
Pope Leo XIII criticizes a proposed principle: “the principle of the separation of the State and Church, which is equivalent to the separation of human legislation from Christian and divine legislation.”
He calls this separation “absurd” and argues that a state refusing to give God what belongs to God ends up denying citizens their rights, because rights spring from the duty owed to God.
He warns Catholics not to defend such a separation as a principle.
Leo XIII also notes that some countries actually live in a “state of affairs” involving separation, and while this can have “advantages,” such advantages cannot justify the false principle.
Where the real-world situation exists, he says it can be tolerated “practically,” especially if (by inconsistency) legislators are inspired by Christian principles.
The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article “State and Church” states that such separation “for a Catholic State would be criminal,” because it would ignore sacred obligations.
It further discusses that separation in places like France/Portugal involved violations of rights and contracts and aimed at restricting religion.
(That article is not a new magisterial definition, but it reflects how Catholics often reasoned about church-state separation under Catholic social and legal principles.)
Because Vatican II says government should show religion “favor” and should not coerce religious acts, Catholic doctrine supports a form of public life where religion is not forcibly suppressed.
John Paul II, speaking to a head of state context, describes bishops and the faithful contributing through education, assistance, social advancement, and the media, to improve standards and promote stability in institutions rooted in Catholic faith and Church social teaching.
This illustrates the Catholic posture of engaged presence rather than a purely private “religion-only” model.
Putting the main magisterial strands together:
In short, Catholic doctrine rejects “separation” understood as the exclusion of God and divine law from public life, while it firmly affirms the state’s duty to protect religious freedom by excluding coercion in matters of faith.