On May 1, 2025, faith leaders, elected officials, and members of the public gathered in the White House Rose Garden for the National Day of Prayer. Hosted by President Donald Trump, the event was part prayer meeting, part worship service, and part policy announcement. While participants celebrated faith through prayer and song, President Trump made clear that the central purpose of the gathering was to sign the Executive Order (EO) establishing the Religious Liberty Commission.
With “Amazing Grace” softly trailing off behind him, the President signed the order—marking what he described as a renewed federal commitment to protect religious freedom at home and abroad. While the ceremony emphasized unity through shared prayer, it also revealed how faith, policy, and political identity are interacting in the current administration. CPJ’s Director of Faith-Based Policy and Research offers the following summary and reflections.
Overview: What Is the Religious Liberty Commission?
The President’s Religious Liberty Commission, established by Executive Order on May 1, 2025, is a new advisory body tasked with advancing “the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce the historic and robust protections for religious liberty enshrined in Federal law.” Viewing religious freedom as a core principle of U.S. governance, the Commission is charged with two outlined tasks:
- Producing “a comprehensive report on the foundations of religious liberty in America, the impact of religious liberty on American society, current threats to domestic religious liberty, strategies to preserve and enhance religious liberty protections for future generations, and programs to increase awareness of and celebrate America’s peaceful religious pluralism.”
- Advising “the White House Faith Office and the Domestic Policy Council on religious liberty policies of the United States. . . recommending steps to secure domestic religious liberty by executive or legislative actions as well as identifying opportunities for the White House Faith Office to partner with the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom to further the cause of religious liberty around the world.”
In their tasks of monitoring domestic and international threats to religious liberty and providing actionable recommendations to the President and executive agencies, we encourage the Commission to facilitate public engagement, in addition to input from the Commission’s official advisory boards of “Religious Leaders,” “Lay Leaders,” and “Legal Experts.”
Chaired by Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, with Dr. Ben Carson as Vice Chair, the Commission includes a blend of faith leaders, policy advocates, and public servants. The Executive Order affirms that “religious liberty is a foundational right,” and directs the Commission to identify ways federal policy can better safeguard individuals and institutions from discrimination or restriction based on belief.
Summary: What Took Place at the White House?
The National Day of Prayer gathering blended civic ceremony with spiritual celebration. The Rose Garden stage was filled with elected officials, clergy, and advisors. Prayers were offered from the following faith traditions:
- Christian Evangelical (Church of God, Southern Baptist, non-denomionational)
- Jewish (Chabad-Lubavitch)
- Catholic (Diocese of Winona-Rochester)
- Muslim (Muslim chaplain for the U.S Air Force)
The event featured a live worship team that led the audience in “Great Are You, Lord” and “Amazing Grace”, with the latter playing as the President signed the Executive Order.
Other moments included:
- President Trump’s remarks citing the suffering of Eden Alexander, the last known American hostage held by Hamas, now released, as an example of global religious persecution.
- Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick’s reflections on the “inheritance of religious liberty,” emphasizing individual rights of conscience.
- The participation of Senior Advisor Paula White, who described the administration’s commitment to ensuring that “the voice of faith is not only heard, but also honored at the highest levels of government”
Statements from religious leaders that affirmed the administration’s policy actions and offered blessings for national healing, unity, and justice.
Reflections: Institutional Religious Freedom and Public Justice
Religious liberty is a foundational component of a just society, but we should also recognize two important expressions of that liberty: individual and institutional religious freedom—the right of faith-based organizations to carry out their missions consistent with their sacred, theological convictions.
While much of the public commentary surrounding the National Day of Prayer event emphasized individual rights, the EO itself includes provisions that warrant attention from those committed to public justice and institutional freedom.
1. Recognizing the Role of Religious Institutions in Public Life
The EO frames its purpose by affirming that the Founders envisioned a society:
“in which religious voices and views are integral to a vibrant public square and human flourishing and in which religious people and institutions are free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or hostility from the Government.” – Section 1, Purpose and Policy
This framing recognizes religious liberty not only as a private right but also as a public, institutional practice, recognizing that religious organizations—churches, schools, hospitals, and service agencies—are vital contributors to civil society and must be protected in both identity and action.
2. Addressing Threats to Institutional Religious Liberty
The EO references policies that:
“threaten loss of funding or denial of non-profit tax status for faith-based entities, and single out religious groups and institutions for exclusion from governmental programs.” – Section 1, Purpose and Policy
The language acknowledges the structural barriers FBOs often face, especially when government conditions funding on conformity to norms incongruent with those of certain faith-based organizations. Faith-based institutions are not forced to apply for government funding and the government is not forced to fund FBOs, but FBOs should not be penalized for maintaining faith-aligned hiring practices, moral teachings, or service models, especially when they serve the public effectively.
The EO also references the need to protect religious institutions from government hostility, mentioning the debanking of religious entities and threats to tax-exempt status. (Section 2(b)(iii))
Defending institutional religious freedoms should not be confused with securing political immunity or privileges. It means that faith-based organizations are free to operate according to their convictions without the fear of political consequences or pressure to conform.
3. Commission Mandates Include Institutional Concerns
The Commission’s charge includes preparing a comprehensive report that will address:
“the First Amendment rights of pastors, religious leaders, houses of worship, faith-based institutions, and religious speakers.” – Section 2(b)(iii)
The EO tasks the Commission with considering religious liberty protections as a matter of conscience not just for the individual but also institutions who operate in accordance with their religious convictions.
4. Recognizing Religious Pluralism
Among the Commission’s responsibilities is to recommend:
“…programs to increase awareness of and celebrate America’s peaceful religious pluralism.” – (Section 2(b)(iii))
For the Commission to honor this pledge, it must engage diverse faith communities equitably and avoid aligning religious liberty rights with a narrow set of theological or political leanings. Public justice requires that the Commission elevate the freedoms of all religious institutions to live out their faith traditions—Christian and non-Christian alike.
Looking Ahead
As the Commission begins its work, we encourage its members and you to ask:
- Will it uplift freedoms for all, the religious and non-religious—including the least visible and least influential communities?
- Will it reinforce the freedom of religious institutions, not just individuals?
- Will it model civil engagement, reaching across differences—doctrinal, theological, and political?
There are many more questions we can—and should—ask about the creation and work of the Religious Liberty Commission. Yet if the answers to the above are affirmative, they offer reason for hope: that this Commission might serve not merely the interests of one administration, but contribute meaningfully to American public life and the pursuit of the common good.
Girien R. Salazar, Ph.D. is the Director of Faith-Based Policy and Research at the Center for Public Justice.
