It began with a line from Psalm 23, long used to soothe the weary. The August memo, addressed to five senior aides, wired the message: “Who a man a persecuting? For the LORD’s word is our shield.” In plain terms, the team tried to paint raids as divine justice, not tedious bureaucracy.
Not content to limit this tactic to border law, the same group turned to the story of the Israelites in 2018. When the military pushed into Syria, an aide referenced Deuteronomy’s call to “fight the yoke of oppression.” The memo framed the U.S. strike as a moral imperative, discreetly dodge‑coding the decision as a biblical mandate rather than a mere political choice.
Meanwhile, at the southern border, crews swept into detention centers, the sound of barking dogs echoing across a dusty yard. Those crews were sometimes reminded of the Exodus passage that says, “the LORD will, like the eyes of a man.” Later, an official swore the line was a reminder of the leader role the U.S. ought to play in protecting the vulnerable – a statement that critics say courts will later call “religious rhetoric.”
But here’s the real twist. Each of these memos—though stamped with religious language—still had to sit under the nation’s legal framework. The judiciary has tried to dissect when faith can justify force or detain. And yet, the administration’s leaders kept dipping into scripture, hoping to shape public opinion and give a moral sheen that boots law into conflict with the plain text of senate‑approved legislation.
In courtrooms, civil‑rights lawyers went after the phrasing of the memos in separate suits. They argued that invoking the Bible sidestepped the usual chain of command reviews, throwing executive power into the wild. They claimed that even if the snapshot seemed harmless, belated acknowledgment could erode decades of rule‑of‑law cultures. Some judge’s orders have held the line that faith‑based grounds cannot override statutory checks.
Political analysts note that this approach, more than a tactic, signals an appetite for sourcing policy in theology. Will Congress someday check the bible‑blitzing of military orders, or will Washington keep turning to scripture to blanket its drills? The answer hangs, uncertainly, in the white spaces between religion and policy.
