John W. Whitehead, founder of The Rutherford Institute and an early architect of the modern Christian legal movement, says the cause he helped build has "gone astray," arguing that some religious-liberty organizations have become too closely intertwined with conservative politics and President Donald Trump's administration.
Whitehead, who founded the nonprofit civil-liberties group in 1982, told The Washington Post that the movement has increasingly treated religious freedom as a political project rather than a constitutional protection that should extend across faiths and ideologies. His criticism is especially notable because he once argued that the U.S. should be explicitly Christian before later distancing himself from that position.
"We started out trying to protect the little people," Whitehead told the Post. He said some leaders in the movement are now "sitting in the White House with Trump. They're now part of the nationalist movement. Religious liberty is a constitutional principle, not a political program."
Whitehead pointed to state laws requiring displays of the Ten Commandments in public schools and disputes over facilities used by Muslim travelers as examples of what he sees as selective advocacy. His broader argument is that religious liberty loses legitimacy when it is defended primarily for politically aligned Christians while minority faiths receive less attention.
That critique has put Whitehead at odds with some of the organizations that followed the model Rutherford helped establish. Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, told the Post that Christian legal groups haven't abandoned their original mission.
"We haven't changed," Staver said. "They have."
Whitehead's criticism extends beyond litigation to the use of religious language by government officials. In a March 31 commentary written with his wife, Nisha Whitehead, executive director of The Rutherford Institute, the pair attacked the blending of Christian imagery with U.S. military power.
"This is not faith. This is blasphemy baptized in nationalism," they wrote while criticizing rhetoric surrounding U.S. military action and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's religious language.
The position reflects a substantial shift in Whitehead's own career. The Post reported that he once wrote a book advocating an explicitly Christian America and in the 1980s regarded expanding gay rights as a threat to Christians.
By the mid-1990s, however, Whitehead was criticizing Colorado's Amendment 2, which barred state and local governments from creating protections based on homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships. The U.S. Supreme Court struck the measure down in Romer v. Evans in 1996, holding that it violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Whitehead has said that shift grew from reconsidering what Christianity required of believers and from a broader commitment to civil liberties. Rutherford subsequently expanded its involvement beyond traditional conservative religious causes, including cases concerning surveillance, immigration, free speech and government treatment of political protesters.
The institute has recently backed legal challenges involving foreign nationals facing immigration consequences over political protests and universities targeted by federal actions involving campus demonstrations and diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Rutherford also joined litigation challenging immigration enforcement at houses of worship.
In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction requiring the Department of Homeland Security to follow previous safeguards when conducting immigration enforcement at or near the houses of worship belonging to the plaintiffs in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. DHS. The ruling was explicitly limited to those plaintiffs rather than all religious institutions nationwide.
Whitehead hasn't rejected every religious-liberty proposal associated with the Trump administration. He told the Post that he sees merit in some recommendations from the administration's religious-liberty commission, including expanded "Know Your Rights" materials in schools and healthcare settings.
His objection is instead aimed at what he sees as the fusion of religious advocacy with partisan government power.
"If the government is acting as a Christian nationalist organization as opposed to one representing the Constitution and all Americans, there is a problem," Whitehead told the Post.
He said the same principle applies to organizations that once defined themselves primarily through constitutional litigation but now identify more visibly with political leaders.
"Religious liberty is a constitutional principle, not a political program," Whitehead said. "The moment religious freedom organizations begin aligning themselves with those in power, or framing their work in partisan or ideological terms, they risk weakening the very principle they are trying to defend."
