NY Times Frets Over Trump Admin’s Christmas Messaging, Ignores Dem Presidents
“Government officials have traditionally steered clear of such overtly religious language, as the Constitution bans an official state religion.”
One of the most frustrating tactics used by the lamestream media during Republican presidential administrations is to pretend history didn’t start until those presidents were elected.
A recent example of this, of course, has been the hyperventilating over the Trump ballroom and the demolition of the East Wing, the type of White House renovation project that presidents throughout American history on both sides of the aisle have called for and overseen. That inconvenient fact is frequently glossed over in reporting about demo and construction.
An even more recent example of that came this week, with the New York Times fretting over the emphasis on religion in Christmas messages shared by various members of the Trump administration, including Secretary of War Pete Hegseth:
The Trump administration celebrated Christmas on Thursday by posting a series of religious messages from official government accounts, using language that drew criticism from those who pointed to the country’s separation of church and state.
While many lawmakers in both parties posted universal messages of love, joy and peace on the holiday, a number of cabinet members and agencies made references to Jesus and the religious meaning of Christmas.
“Today we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote. “May His light bring peace, hope, and joy to you and your families.”
[…]
Government officials have traditionally steered clear of such overtly religious language, as the Constitution bans an official state religion. The First Amendment’s establishment clause prohibits the government from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another, while the free exercise clause protects the religious expression of all faiths.
America’s paper of record doesn’t appear to know the ‘reason for the season’…? pic.twitter.com/OOpE9j9AM1
— Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) December 26, 2025
It didn’t take long, of course, for other media outlets to join the chorus:
The legacy media is OUTRAGED that the Trump admin made Christmas about Christ. pic.twitter.com/EFVqVqBsoI
— Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) December 27, 2025
The problem, of course, is that this ignores overt Christmas messages about the reason for the season that came directly from former Democrat presidents like Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton, in addition to past GOP presidents, as noted by former NRSC senior advisor Matt Whitlock:
Biden 2024: “How silently, how silently the wondrous gift is given… And we look to the sky, to a lone star… guiding us to the birth of a child, a child Christians believe to be the Son of God, bringing hope, love and peace and joy to the world.”
Obama 2011: “More than 2,000 years ago, a child was born… Christ’s birth made the angels rejoice… He was a manifestation of God’s love for us. And He grew up to become a leader with a servant’s heart… that we should love God, and love our neighbor as ourselves.”
GWB 2003: “As families and friends gather to celebrate Christmas, we remember all the blessings that fill our lives, beginning with the great blessing that came on a holy night in Bethlehem. For Christians around the world, the birth of Jesus is a central religious event; an example of God’s profound love for humanity; and the pathway to hope and to new life.”
Clinton 2000: “..amidst all these traditions, we remember that the true message of Christmas is in the Child whose birth we celebrate—the living proof of God’s mercy and unending love. Christ’s message of renewal and reconciliation…”
HW 1991: “At Christmas, we celebrate the promise of salvation that God gave to mankind almost 2,000 years ago. The birth of Christ changed the course of history, and His life changed the soul of man.”
Reagan 1981: “The Nativity story of nearly twenty centuries ago… For Christians, it is the fulfillment of age-old prophecies and the reaffirmation of God’s great love for all of us.”
Biden 2024: “How silently, how silently the wondrous gift is given… And we look to the sky, to a lone star… guiding us to the birth of a child, a child Christians believe to be the Son of God, bringing hope, love and peace and joy to the world.”
Obama 2011: “More than 2,000…
— Matt Whitlock (@MattWhitlock) December 26, 2025
Gee, why would Trump administration officials think CHRISTmas has anything to do with the birth of Jesus CHRIST and CHRISTianity?
Total mystery. https://t.co/nFElFlC5cp
— Amy Curtis (@RantyAmyCurtis) December 27, 2025
It just boggles the mind.
– Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via X. –
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
They just hate Christians. There’s nothing else to say.
One other thing: They are also not over fond of God.
It’s never about who they want to protect/celebrate/honor.
It’s always about who they want to punish,.
I know it’s not a really Christian thing to say, or a satisfying emotion to have, but I hate them very thoroughly.
Allow the Dimocrats their opportunities to beclown themselves. And they’re lazy. If they had looked, they would have found that Christmas greetings have come from every one (AFAIK) of our presidents and other political leaders.
Keep digging that hole, Dimocrats.
.
Because the left knows that Obama, Biden and Clinton were just engaged in leftist taqiyya, and they know Trump actually means it.
I’m always amused when someone attempts to explain that there exists a “separation of church and state” as if it is a sacred part of our Constitution that must never be questioned (all the while insisting that firearms are not). Of course, if you read the comments here you almost certainly knew that already.
Anyone who was paying attention in freshman U.S. history class knows full well that “separation of church and state” comes from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. It’s just like Lazarus’s New Colossus poem at the Statue of Liberty – they think both are law. It seems to be a running thing with the left.
We attribute the “separation of church and state” to Jefferson’s letter because it was quoted in the Supreme Court decision in Everson v. Board of Education and previously in the 1889 case of Reynolds v. United States. In that the Supreme Court decides the meaning of the Constitution, their decisions are law.
But while freshman US history know of the phrase, the thought goes back much farther. Puritan Minister Roger Williams was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for his decrying the intermingling of church and state. In 1644, Williams founded Rhode Island and wrote:
“wall or hedge of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world.”
John Locke wrote of the same idea in his 1869 ““A Letter Concerning Toleration.”
At the time of the American Revolution, 9 of the 13 colonies had state sponsored religions. Those religions were supported by taxes on citizens whether they were members of the state church or not. The entanglement of religion and state was very real and often to the detriment of those with differing beliefs.
In 1784, (after independence) Patrick Henry proposed a bill in the Virginia legislature that called for a tax to support ““Teachers of the Christian Religion.” James Madison (main author of the Constitution) wrote his famous ““Memorial and Remonstrance” arguing against the law. He was joined in his opposition by Thomas Jefferson. The bill was defeated and instead the Virginia legislature passed Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786) which made sure a wall existed between the government and a person’s right to religious freedom,
In short, Jefferson’s statement to the Danbury Baptists was not a “one off, throw away” line. The concept was from an earlier declaration that was well known, debated and resolved.
As for the letter to the Danbury Baptists, they had written Jefferson to congratulate him on his winning the Presidential election and his staunch belief in legislatures staying out of religion,
Jefferson wrote back (in part:)
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
It is ironic that the phrase “separation of church and state” is used correctly to keep the government out of religious beliefs, but not allow the religious beliefs of people within the government itself – something that Jefferson believed in.
There is no text, law, or case that has ever said that a person cannot work in the government and hold religious beliefs.
The “wall” is erected when those beliefs are imposed on others through government force.
The problem with your thinking is that the Declaration, the Constitution, our society, and the air we breathe are permeated with Judeo Christian religion. There can be no “wall” without eliminating America.
The problem with your thinking is that you believe that men and their faith and beliefs should not and cannot affect their conduct and their lives.
The First Amendment codifies the idea that there is not orthodoxy of religion that can be mandated or outlawed by the government.
Indeed not, but those beliefs are his alone, and not the government’s. He should not be expressing them while speaking for the government.
The question here is what is the nature of these holiday greetings. The traditional stance has been that they are private communications from the person conveying them, even if he’s using government channels to get them out. As such it’s entirely proper for them to reflect his particular views, whatever they might be. But if they are coming from him in his official capacity then they must be neutral on the matter of religion. The government is entitled to have opinions, but not religious ones.
There is an error that all make when discussing this topic.
Read the amendment–
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is a proscription on government interfering in religion.
At no point does government attempt say that the church is not allowed to influence the state.
Why?
Because that is proscribed by the First Amendment.
Religion can do as it pleases.
And politicians can pray, and use religious references.
What they can’t do is endorse a particular faith. or prevent someone from practicing theirs.
Sadly, the law rarely follows this.
Ah yes. Thomas (Bible carver) Jefferson. One of the great miracles of history is that Jefferson wrote the excellent Declaration of Independence.
Why is it a “miracle” that a learned man, who had read, studied and debated the rights of men and the purpose of government?
Is it because his thinking, and the thinking of those before him, is on a plain that you cannot understand?
we’ve a new church near us that opened a few years ago–a ukranian christian church–for the past couple or three years they’ve come around (about 25-30 members each time) to sing christmas carols for us–simply wonderful
their sincerity, their authentic spirit, their hope for a better world for all of us is visceral and genuine–when they’re done singing they offer to pray with us–and we do–and they pray for peace, for understanding and bless us and all in our home–no politics, no messaging, no ulterior nonsense just a palpable love and concern for us all
believe these kind people deliver the real message of christmas–in person, in the flesh, in real time
how can anyone (we certainly cannot) find anything objectionable about their efforts and their message of hope ?
The holiday that dare not speak its name. The Christmas vibe is ruined. A few brave references to the actual holiday will not reverse things. Upon departing a consultation with a white, middle-aged, male, Christian specialist at a renowned hospital the other day, I wished him a Merry Christmas. He was completely nonplussed. He turned ashen and darted his eyes around the room looking for witnesses. He mumbled something hurriedly like merry holiday and hustled me out. That’s how bad things are. This distinguished doctor lives in fear of these nasty weirdos running the asylum.
What actually should “boggle the minds” of Americans is that the majority of elected officials do not acknowledge the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …” The “thereof” refers to “religion”.
There is no reference to “separation of church and state” in the US Constitution (i.e., “… Constitution and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; [All] shall be bound thereby, any Thing … to the Contrary notwithstanding.” (Article. VI., Clause. 2.))
History is clear this Country was founded on the principle of “religious freedom”, i.e., freedom from the state religions of the monarchs of Europe, and all such state religions were denominations of Christianity.
As such there is no need to debate here the etymology of the word: church; except to note that regarding this Country and the colonies which preceded it “church” from the ancient Greek referred to the followers of Christ Jesus, and the physical place where they gathered to worship together.
Also, noteworthy is the fact that there is neither in the Constitution nor in any federal statute nor any Article. III. case law alleged as sacrosanct “stare decisis” a definition of the word: religion.
Thus, considering the fundamental principle of “religious freedom”, history of (and oppression under) European “state religions” (again all Christian denominations), and the predisposition of the founders (drafters and ratifiers of the founding documents) to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God … Truths to be self-evident”, in context “establishment of religion” clearly refers to “theocracy” of one form or another. Theocracies being of man and inconsistent with man’s “Creator”.
JFK was by some considered potentially unqualified as a candidate for President given his primary allegiance was to Rome [whether a Christian or pagan theocracy is not germane to this comment] and its Monarch, the Pope.
Nevertheless, as a Country our political elites have rationalized seeking audiences with the Pope, some kissing his Ring, the “special relationship” with England (a Monarchy encompassing 58 sovereign possessions via its Commonwealth), bowing to Kings, Crown Princes and Emirs of Arabian and Islamic lands, etc.
Yet despite the article documenting a sampling of his predecessors’ statement, it is wrong for President DJ Trump and Secretary of War Hegseth to speak of the Holiday (i.e., Holy Day) of Christmas and the birth of Christ (the Prince of Peace) ???
I hereby declare that the Oaths of All Offices of the United States of America should be modified to include an acknowledgement that the Country was conceived and is predicated on Judeo-Christian values (basic ethical and moral principles), and certain, time tested, man-made principles fundamental to England and Roman laws known and practiced in the Colonies at the time of the “founding”.
“Also, noteworthy is the fact that there is neither in the Constitution nor in any federal statute nor any Article. III. case law alleged as sacrosanct “stare decisis” a definition of the word: religion.”
True! This has caused great confusion for the US Supreme Court.
Here is a workable definition of “religion”:
https://blogs.cornell.edu/envirobaer/publications/why-a-functional-definition-of-religion-is-necessary-if-justice-is-to-be-achieved-in-public-education/
Thank you. And, here is a link to, a paper which you may find interesting (if you have not previously reviewed it) –
W. B. Hand, A Different Drummer, 3 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol’y 569 (1988).
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp/vol3/iss4/3/?utm_source=scholarship.law.nd.edu%2Fndjlepp%2Fvol3%2Fiss4%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Thanks! This is a good article!
My only comment is that the baleful influence of Noninterpretivist’s View of the Constitution is most dangerous when applied to our system of education by government bureaucracy.
Education requires rank indoctrination, beginning with the very young, and tapering off at the high school level. The ability to think well must be based on certain fundamentals. If those fundamentals are supplied by a government bureaucracy, it is inevitable that whoever controls the government will determine the indoctrination. This is why the system devised by “John Dewey and his progeny” has been a disaster for religious freedom. The Supreme Court’s efforts to navigate this disaster have necessarily been a spectacular failure.
Here is an article which addresses this:
https://blogs.cornell.edu/envirobaer/publications/the-supreme-courts-discriminatory-use-of-the-term-sectarian/
‘The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …” The “thereof” refers to “religion”.’
The fact that the word “respecting”, rather than “implementing”, is used creates an ambiguity which has been studiously ignored.
Back in those days, we still had a federal — not a national — government, and the Bill of Rights was not yet considered binding on state governments. Implementing an establishment of religion was not even on the radar of the fedguv, but many states were enamored of the concept and maintained official state religions years beyond the ratification of the Constitution.
The phrase used refers to any federal lawmaking that would have had the effect of bolstering (“respecting”) such a religious law existing in any state,
Funny how people create an “argument” based on their lack of understanding.
“Respecting” in this context means “in regards to.”
The phraseology is still in use today in statements such as “in respect to this ordinance,” or “in respect to the program….”
Your lack of knowledge does not invalidate the meaning and sentiment of the First Amendment,
“Respecting” in the first amendment means the same thing as “concerning”. “About”, in modern terms. “An establishment of religion” didn’t need defining to anyone in the 18th century. They all knew the Church of England’s legal position in the UK, and the southern states didn’t want that. The northern states did want it, so the deal was that they could have it for themselves at the state or local level, but that there was to be no federal established church.
Milhouse, both you and gitar miss my point.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …”
“Respecting”, or “concerning”, or “about” what aspect of “an establishment of religion”. For? Against? Both?
Sloppy language at best.
It means “establishing a religion”. Not as in founding a new religion, but as in making an existing one the established church of the united states of America, as the Church of England was in England. States could and did have established churches; the northern states wanted them, while the southern states were dead set against them. But there was not be no federal one.
Please re-read my comment carefully. You are still missing my point.
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh,
Obama hosted annual Ramadan Iftar dinners for Muslims at the White House and his remarks referenced the core Islamic belief that the month of Ramadan is when the Holy Quran was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. He emphasized the religious significance of the practice of fasting in the day and pigging out at night.
Well, Islam is an ideology and not a religion, so Bronco was on safe ground there.
Carefree Idleness,
Islam is a form of tyranny aka a “theocracy”. Initially, it was modeled on the “ancient religions” which Muhammad knew; in particular he admired Judaism; before Mecca, all of his followers faced Jerusalem.
Further Islam, while first introduced as an ideology, meaningfully offered a form of theocracy; which was consistent with then practices in the “known world”: “any political solution tended to be of a religious nature.” [Karen Armstrong (p.132) https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B000AQ72VE/about?ccs_id=9cf30035-9f81-4f11-9d5c-9ba8da78b238%5D
Why has no one ever told Islam that changing the time when you eat from day to night isn’t fasting?
Leave a Comment