EO PULSE: Trump Launches “Religious Liberty Commission” Playing Fast and Loose with the First Amendment

Real Law Moms dig into the latest executive order raising red flags about church-state separation.

SUMMARY:

On May 1, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order creating a new Religious Liberty Commission, a move that’s raising eyebrows, legal questions, and probably a few constitutional lawyers from their graves.

The commission—chaired by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick—will be stacked with up to 14 presidential appointees. Their mission? Craft a sweeping report on “religious liberty in America,” identify threats to it, and recommend how to strengthen protections for faith-based expression in public life.

Sounds neutral enough, right?

Not exactly.

ANALYSIS:

The Commission is tasked with producing a comprehensive report on the foundations of religious liberty in America, identifying current threats to religious freedom, and recommending strategies to preserve and enhance these protections for future generations. Key focus areas include parental rights in religious education, school choice, conscience protections, and the rights of religious institutions.

Commission priorities are expected to include:

• Parental rights and religious education

• Legal challenges to prayer in schools

• Conscience-based objections in healthcare and employment

• Protections for religious nonprofits and institutions

According to Trump and his allies, the commission is about protecting faith-based expression in public life. During the signing ceremony, Trump said, “We are going to bring religion back into our lives and back into our schools.” That line, in particular, set off alarm bells for First Amendment advocates.

The Constitutional Conversation

At the heart of the concern is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or unduly favoring one religion over another. This principle ensures that governmental actions remain neutral in religious matters, neither advancing nor inhibiting religious practice.

That’s why Trump’s talk of “bringing religion back into our schools” is raising eyebrows. If the commission pushes policies that give special treatment to certain religious views—especially in public institutions like schools or hospitals—it could cross the constitutional line from protecting religion to promoting it. President Trump’s remarks during the signing ceremony, where he suggested setting aside the separation of church and state, have intensified these concerns.

Legal scholars have cited previous Supreme Court cases—like Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation—as emphasizing the importance of government neutrality in matters of faith. The worry isn’t necessarily about protecting religion, but about whether this veers into government promotion of it.

Backers of the commission say it’s about protecting religious expression—particularly for Christians who feel their beliefs are under siege in modern public life. Critics, including several faith leaders, argue that this could actually open the door to discrimination masquerading as religious liberty.

So What Now?

This executive order is likely just the beginning. With court challenges almost inevitable, we’re probably looking at another high-profile constitutional showdown—coming soon to a Supreme Court docket near you.

Stay tuned. And maybe keep your civics textbook handy.

WHO IT IMPACTS:

While framed as a safeguard for religious liberty, the commission’s work could ripple across many aspects of American life.

• Public school families may see policy shifts around religious education, prayer in schools, or school choice tied to religious institutions. Teachers and school administrators could face new legal gray areas around religious expression and accommodation.

• Healthcare providers and patients may be affected if conscience protections for religious beliefs are expanded, potentially influencing access to reproductive care, gender-affirming treatments, and end-of-life decisions.

• Religious minorities and non-religious Americans might experience growing tension if the government is seen to favor certain religious views, especially in public programs or funding.

• And state and local governments could be drawn into new litigation or compliance issues, especially if federal guidelines or incentives emerge from the commission’s recommendations.