‘We Want God Writing the Laws of the Land'
Feucht has recently become a MAGA superstar. He tours the country holding rallies that blend upbeat Christian-rock songs with sermons that tie in his right-wing political views. Between praising President Donald Trump as God's chosen one and suggesting that abortion supporters are 'demons,' Feucht has repeatedly advocated for the fusion of Church and state. During a performance in front of the Wisconsin statehouse in 2023, Feucht paused after a song to make a proclamation: 'Yeah, we want God in control of government,' he said. 'We want God writing the laws of the land.' He has held rallies at all 50 state capitols, spreading similar theocratic messages.
Feucht did not respond to multiple requests for comment. At times, he has denied being a Christian nationalist, but it can be hard to take that perspective seriously. Last year, he overtly embraced the term at a church in Tulsa, Oklahoma. 'That's why we get called, Well, you're Christian nationalists. You want the kingdom to be the government? Yes! You want God to come and overtake the government? Yes! You want Christians to be the only ones? Yes, we do,' Feucht said. 'We want God to be in control of everything,' he continued. 'We want believers to be the ones writing the laws.'
Feucht has the ear of many top Republicans. After he held a prayer gathering on the National Mall a week before the 2024 presidential election, Trump personally congratulated him for 'the incredible job' he was doing defending 'religious liberty.' Feucht then attended Trump's inauguration prayer service at the National Cathedral in January, where he embraced Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The very next week, he posted that House Speaker Mike Johnson had invited him to hold a worship event in the Capitol. Then, in April, Feucht performed at the White House.
Given his rallies and political connections, Feucht is 'maybe the most effective evangelical figure on the far right,' Matthew D. Taylor, the senior Christian scholar at the Institute for Islamic, Christian, and Jewish Studies, told me. He is a big reason Christian nationalism has more purchase now than at any other point in recent history. According to a February poll from the Public Religion Research Institute, a majority of Republicans support or sympathize with Christian nationalism. They agreed with a variety of statements provided by PRRI, such as 'If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore.' Last month, the Appeal to Heaven flag —a symbol popular among Christian nationalists—was spotted flying above a D.C. government building. Feucht is pushing to bring religion and government into even closer alignment.
Feucht comes from a subset of evangelical Christianity known as the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR. As my colleague Stephanie McCrummen has written, 'The movement has never been about policies or changes to the law; it's always been about the larger goal of dismantling the institutions of secular government to clear the way for the Kingdom. It is about God's total victory.' Many NAR adherents believe in the 'seven-mountain mandate,' a framework that seeks to go beyond ending the separation between Church and state. The goal is to eventually control the 'seven mountains' of contemporary culture: family, religion, education, media, arts and entertainment, business, and government. Feucht has endorsed the fundamental concept. 'Why shouldn't we be the ones leading the way in all spheres of society?' he said in a 2022 sermon. In a conversation that same year, Feucht referenced his desire for Christian representation in 'the seven spheres of society.'
NAR has several high-profile leaders, but Feucht has been especially adept at drawing outside attention to the movement's goals. After rising to prominence during the early days of the pandemic by throwing Christian-rock concerts in violation of lockdown orders, Feucht has built a massive audience of devotees. His constant stream of worship events across the country makes Christian nationalism more accessible for the religious masses, as does his prolific social-media presence (he has half a million followers between Instagram and X). Feucht is connected to just about every faction of the modern right, even the grassroots fringe: On one occasion, he enlisted a member o f the Proud Bo ys, the sometimes-violent far-right group, as part of his security detail. (Feucht later claimed that he wasn't familiar with the group.)
With Feucht's help, a version of the seven-mountain mandate is coming true. The Trump administration is cracking down on 'anti-Christian bias' in the federal government, and the president has hired a number of advisers who are linked to Christian nationalism. Under pressure from parents and lawmakers, schools have banned lesson plans and library books related to LGBTQ themes. Feucht is not single-handedly responsible for these wins for Christian nationalists, but his influence is undeniable. Feucht and Hegseth discussed holding a prayer service inside the Pentagon months before the secretary of defense actually did it. Or consider Charlie Kirk, the MAGA power broker who helped run the Trump campaign's youth-vote operation, and then vetted potential White House hires. In 2020, Feucht unsuccessfully ran for Congress and was endorsed by Kirk. Within a week of the endorsement, Kirk invoked the seven-mountain mandate at CPAC, the conservative conference. With Trump, he said, 'finally we have a president that understands the seven mountains of cultural influence.'
But not everything has been going well for Feucht. In June, six staffers and volunteers who worked for Feucht's published a long and detailed report accusing him of engaging in financial malfeasance. Feucht's former employees claim that he withheld promised expense reimbursements from ministry volunteers, engaged in donor and payroll fraud, and embezzled nonprofit funds for personal use. The allegations track with earlier reporting by Rolling Stone and Ministry Watch, the nonprofit Christian watchdog. Both have reported on opaque financial dealings involving his nonprofits. Citing a lack of transparency and efficiency, Ministry Watch currently gives Sean Feuch Ministries a 'Donor Confidence Score' of 19 out of 100, and encourages potential donors to 'withhold giving' to the organization.
Feucht hasn't been charged with any crimes stemming from the allegations, and has denied wrongdoing. 'None of those allegations are true,' Feucht said in a video he recently posted to YouTube. 'We're in great standing with the IRS. We're in great standing with our accountants.' He later added, 'We are taking ground for Jesus and we are not apologizing for that.' It's possible Feucht's audience will take him at his word. The NAR movement is insular and unwavering in its worldview: Allegations are evidence of persecution for success. Still, a large part of Feucht's power is derived from his donors. At some point, some people might get fed up with giving him money. 'He could lose traction at the follower level,' Taylor said.
So far, that seems unlikely. Scandals can take down people, but ideas are more resilient. Kirk has continued to advocate for Christian-nationalist positions; last year, he argued that 'the separation of Church and state is nowhere in the Constitution.' (It is, in fact, in the Constitution—right there in the First Amendment.) Even the formerly staunchly secular world of tech is becoming more open to Christian nationalism. In October, Elon Musk held a town hall at Feucht's former church in Pennsylvania, and has called himself a ' cultural Christian.' Marc Andreessen and other investors have backed a tech enclav e in rural Kentucky closely affiliated with Ch ristian nationalists. Regardless of what happens to Feucht, many of the world's most powerful people seem to be inching closer to what he wants.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fox News Joins MAGA Hissy Fit Over Zelensky's ‘Suit'
Volodymyr Zelensky's wardrobe continues to generate MAGA theatrics. Ukraine's wartime president has shunned suits since Russia invaded his country in 2022, opting instead for military-style fatigues as a symbol of solidarity with his troops. That seemed to irritate President Donald Trump enough that he made a comment about it when his Ukrainian counterpart visited the Oval Office in February. At the NATO summit on Tuesday, Zelensky was spotted in a slightly more formal getup, but stopped short of wearing a traditional suit. His all-black outfit included a button-up shirt, a jacket with a subtle military cut, trousers, and utilitarian sneaker-style shoes. He dressed the same way when meeting with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Monday. He also dressed similarly at last month's G7 summit. According to Fox News' Peter Doocy, who reported live from the Netherlands in the early hours of Wednesday local time, Zelensky's outfit qualified as a suit this time. 'If President Trump winds up seeing Zelensky tonight at the leader's dinner, he might not recognize him, because the Ukrainian leader has ditched the sweatshirt that he wore for that infamous Oval Office meeting earlier this year,' Doocy said. 'Mr. Zelensky has been spotted here in the Netherlands... wearing a suit,' he added Doocy wasn't alone in noticing Zelensky's new threads. 'LOL! Zelensky actually wore a SUIT this time,' right-wing podcaster Nick Sortor wrote on X. 'He wasn't about to make that mistake again after the Oval Office visit,' he added. 'Especially now that he's running low on cash.' Other right-wing social media figures piled on, making crude remarks and suggesting it was an attempt to impress Trump and obtain more foreign aid. 'Zelensky seeks $40bn a year in aid. He sure learned his lesson from the last time he begged for money,' conservative pundit Steve Gruber posted. Zelensky was wearing a black sweater when he met with Trump earlier this year in a meeting that devolved into a shouting match. 'Oh, you're all dressed up today,' Trump said to Zelensky when he first greeted him. Zelensky's attire has long triggered pearl-clutching in MAGA world, where the Ukrainian president is viewed with suspicion. Many on the far right resent the billions in U.S. aid sent to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia. During the fraught Oval Office meeting, conservative reporter Brian Glenn, who also happens to be the boyfriend of Marjorie Taylor Greene, scolded Zelensky. 'You're at the highest level in this country's office and you refuse to wear a suit,' said Glenn. 'Just want to see, do you own a suit? A lot of Americans have problems with you disrespecting this office.' 'I will wear a costume after this war will finish,' Zelensky replied. 'Maybe something like yours, maybe something better, we will see, maybe something cheaper.' Glenn wrote on X Tuesday: 'As the unofficial Director of Wardrobe at the White House, I personally approve President Zelenskyy's attire at the NATO summit.'
New York Times
26 minutes ago
- New York Times
With Trump's Policy Bill Teetering, Johnson Is in a Familiar Pickle
Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday found himself in a familiar pickle: teetering on the edge of failure as he worked to win over the regular holdouts in his party — and ultimately relying on President Trump himself to push legislation over the finish line to deliver his agenda. In the past, this formula has worked for Mr. Johnson. He has used it to clear multiple steep hurdles despite his inexperience and the lack of trust he inspires in some rank-and-file Republicans who privately believe he is in over his head. In Mr. Johnson's deeply divided Republican Conference, the margins are always too slim, the bill is always teetering on the brink of death, there is always more trouble looming for the next step of the process and mini-rebellions are always flaring up. Quashing them often involves sessions at the White House, where Mr. Trump plays the magnanimous host, sometimes offering photographs in the Oval Office or signing merch, to seal the deal. That was the case on Wednesday, as Mr. Johnson worked to put down multiple revolts in his party and bring the G.O.P.'s marquee legislation slashing taxes and social safety net programs to the floor for a final vote. 'This whole process has relied on a sense of inevitability that this will get done, no matter how steep the hill,' said Brendan Buck, a former top adviser to two Republican House speakers, John A. Boehner and Paul D. Ryan. 'And this will get done, someway, somehow. And when it does, Mike Johnson will deserve all the credit in the world for keeping an even keel, and Donald Trump will deserve all the credit for being the muscle standing over the speaker's shoulder.' Mr. Trump has been the muscle, but also the flatterer. That method has yielded favorable results. 'It's cool that the president knows my first name, I dig that,' Representative Tim Burchett, a hard-line Republican from Tennessee, said in March, just before he caved and voted for Mr. Trump's budget plan that he had originally opposed. On Wednesday, Mr. Burchett, one of many ultraconservatives raising concerns about giving final approval to the domestic policy bill, seemed giddy in a video he posted on social media after leaving yet another meeting with Mr. Trump. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The ‘big beautiful bill' would supercharge Trump's immigration crackdown. Here's how, in 6 charts.
Republicans are on the brink of handing President Trump an enormous injection of money to fund his hard-line immigration agenda. The 'big beautiful bill,' which is facing what could be its final legislative hurdle in the House of Representatives, includes roughly $170 billion in additional funding to supercharge Trump's mass deportation efforts and ramp up border security. While there are ongoing debates within the GOP over what should go in the final package, none of those disagreements have centered around immigration funding, which was virtually unchanged between the Senate and House versions of the bill. The mega-bill would empower the Trump administration to build new immigration detention facilities, hire thousands more immigration officers, construct new sections of Trump's long-promised border wall and pour billions of dollars into other aspects of immigration enforcement. Here are the details of what the bill would mean for the American immigration system. One of the signature promises of Trump's first presidential term was his pledge to build an 'impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful southern border wall' across the full length of the U.S.-Mexico border. Legal challenges, logistical snags and funding shortfalls prevented him from delivering on that promise. During his first term, his administration replaced more than 400 miles worth of existing barriers, but only built 47 miles of new wall where none had existed before — at an estimated cost of $15 billion. The new bill provides more than three times that amount for an 'integrated border barrier system' that includes a plan to build 700 miles of new walls, 900 miles of barriers along the Rio Grande River, more than 600 miles of secondary barriers and an array of cutting-edge technologies to bolster the physical barriers, according to estimates from the GOP-led House Committee on Homeland Security. Since returning to the White House, Trump has mounted an unprecedented and highly controversial campaign to sweep up and deport millions of immigrants living in the U.S. So far, though, the scope of his ambitions has outstretched the logistical capacity of the agencies tasked with carrying out those orders, particularly Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE is on pace so far this year to more than double the number of arrests that it made in 2024, but is still trending well short of the targets his administration has set. Deportations are up, too, but only slightly above where they were during former President Joe Biden's last year in office. One of the biggest bottlenecks slowing ICE's deportation progress is a lack of space to house all of the people they want to detain. Officially, ICE has enough money for 41,000 beds in detention centers across the country, but the agency reported it was detaining more than 59,000 people as of late last month. The bill includes $45 billion to dramatically increase ICE's detention capacity. According to estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the agency's current $3.4 billion detention budget would more than double next year and gradually increase until it reaches nearly $15 billion by 2029. The bill doesn't call for ICE to build a specific number of beds, but Trump's border czar Tom Homan has said the agency will need a minimum of 100,000 beds to carry out its mass deportation plans. Some experts believe the true total could ultimately prove to be as high as 200,000. With this huge influx of funding, immigration detention would rival the federal prison system, both in terms of capacity and funding. There are currently more than 155,000 people being held in federal prisons nationwide, well above ICE's stated goal but below where some estimates fall. Thanks to a modest funding boost in the bill, the Bureau of Prisons would have an average annual budget of about $9.5 billion over the next 10 years. That would be roughly equivalent to ICE's average yearly detention funding of $9.7 billion, but dwarfed by the $14.9 billion the CBO anticipates ICE to receive in 2029. On top of the extra funding for the wall and detention facilities, the bill would also give ICE an additional $31 billion, with the bulk of that money intended to help the agency hire new enforcement officers. Right now, the agency has 6,000 people on staff dedicated to its Enforcement and Removal Operations. The bill would give ICE the resources it needs to hire 10,000 more. Another $12 billion in the bill would go to U.S. Customs and Border Protection to hire 5,000 new customs officers and 3,000 new Border Patrol agents. The bill allocates $12.5 billion to support immigration enforcement efforts by state and local authorities. It would also provide $6.2 billion for border screening and surveillance technology, 'including artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other innovative technologies.' The legislation would also impose new costs on immigrants hoping to be granted a legal right to stay in the U.S. Applying for asylum, which has historically been free, would now come with a $100 charge. The fee to apply for Temporary Protected Status would increase from $50 to $500, and the price of appealing a judge's immigration order would jump from $110 to $900.
