proposal

Religious Resurgence and Trump 2.0: Kirk's Legacy, University Control, and Immigration Management

Introduction

On January 18, 2026, Sunday service proceeded as normal at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Suddenly, a group of protesters stormed into the edifice. The service was temporarily suspended amid the confusion. The protesters demanded the withdrawal of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, calling for justice in the case of Renee Good, who was shot dead by ICE officers in Minneapolis earlier that month. Behind the protest was the fact that one of the church's pastors, David Easterwood, had been involved in ICE activities in the area. Cities Church is a member of the evangelical Southern Baptist Convention; it has been noted for its affinity with the MAGA movement.

The Department of Justice immediately responded to the incident, launching a federal investigation into, among other things, possible disruption of worship services. Among the protesters were clergy men from non-evangelical Christian churches, suggesting that the conflict over immigration is not limited to society as a whole but is also spreading in the American Christian community. Given the current administration's religious policy favoring conservative Christianity, this case may be seen emblematic of the social tensions becoming visible around the intertwining of religion and immigration enforcement.

This paper examines how the religious policy of the second Trump administration is intertwined with these tensions and social divides, and what implications it has for domestic governance and the security environment. Specifically, it focuses threefold on the administration's religious policy politicizing the Charlie Kirk incident, friction with university education, and immigration issues.

1. Religious Revival and Political Mobilization

The assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, helped radicalize the Trump administration's religious policy. Kirk was a devout evangelical and co-founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), a political organization with over 3,000 chapters in high schools, colleges, and universities across the United States. The organization's mission is to train and organize young people around conservative values. Founded in 2012, TPUSA has successfully turned many young people into Trump supporters since 2016. In the 2024 election, it was reported that Trump's approval rating was relatively high among white male Gen Z voters; it is undeniable that Kirk and this organization's activities may have had some influence on their voting. Kirk was invited to speak at the 2020 and 2024 Republican National Conventions; he is said to have had close ties to MAGA leadership.1

Kirk was a follower of the charismatic movement within evangelicalism. The movement followers believe that divine miracles occur in contemporary times and engage in religious practices such as supernatural physical healing and the gift of tongues, or "glossolalia"―a peculiar form of parlance distinct from ordinary natural language. Their worship mode emphasizes spectacularity; the atmosphere of worship is designed to heighten emotions.

In recent years, Kirk had reportedly built relationships with leaders of a branch of the charismatic movement known as the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR).2 NAR is a network of charismatic evangelicals that emphasizes the restoration of authority similar to that of the New Testament apostles and the practice of supernatural powers in contemporary times. Some of its leaders seek to expand their influence in major social realms, including education, family, religion, government, media, business, and entertainment, through spreading a theological philosophy known as the "Seven Mountains Mandate." Paula White-Cain, who had served as Trump's longtime religious advisor and was appointed senior advisor to the White House Faith Office under the second Trump administration, is also a leader of this movement.3

The influence of Christianity, including evangelicals and conservative Catholics, is very strong on the second Trump administration. With this support base as background, in February 2025, the administration established a cross-bureaucratic task force to deal with anti-Christian bias. It has also established in succession the White House Faith Office and the Religious Liberty Commission, thereby seeking to dismiss cultural liberalism, such as the Woke movement and the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) movement, and to permeate society with conservative Christian values.4

Kirk's death further accelerated this trend. On September 16, 2025, shortly after the incident, Vice President Vance hosted Kirk's podcast, "The Charlie Kirk Show." On the 21st, a large memorial service was held at a stadium in Glendale, Arizona, featuring President Trump, Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Rubio, and Secretary of Defense Hegseth. The first half of the memorial service featured evangelical clergy and TPUSA members, meticulously imitating the style of worship at evangelical megachurches (with over 2,000 members). According to reports, over 90,000 people attended the service. Furthermore, President Trump designated Kirk's birthday, October 14, as the "National Day of Remembrance for Charlie Kirk," calling him a "Christian martyr." On October 14, with the attendance of Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio, the Presidential Medal of Freedom was posthumously awarded to the late Kirk. At the end of December, TPUSA held its annual conference, where Vice President Vance took the platform as one of the keynote speakers. He declared, "The only thing that has truly served as an anchor of the United States of America is that we have been, and by the grace of God we always will be, a Christian nation", which was greeted with thunderous applause from the young audience.5

The extraordinary praise and honor dedicated to Kirk by key politicians in the current administration, including President Trump, are but one remove from politicizing his memory. In his speech at the TPUSA annual conference, Vance stressed the need for young people to inherit Kirk's political and moral missions; he criticized cultural liberalism permeating universities, the media, and the bureaucracy as the greatest crisis facing contemporary America, arguing that these systems have for long suppressed traditional values and religious beliefs. In the same speech, Vance also criticized university education, pointing out that today's universities promote anti-Israel movements, gender policy, and the DEI movement, and function as places for ideological reeducation. He called for conservatives to recover the American university system. Regarding immigration issues, he argued that relaxing border control threatens public safety and social solidarity, and stressed the legitimacy of governance with coercion.

The Trump administration's politicization of Kirk's death, coupled with the growing religious interest among Gen Z-ers, often referred to as a "religious revival," may have some influence on young people. Historian Daniel K. Williams, known for his research on the religious right, points out that interest in conservative Christianity is on the rise among a portion of Gen Z-ers.6 He says that this interest does not simply represent a return to Christian faith but a desire to link politics and religion closely, which is conspicuous particularly among white males. The administration's religious discourse also tends to leverage white males' sense of victimhood to attack the "elites" who promote cultural liberalism, adopting the apocalyptic vocabulary to heighten the urgency of the issue and draw people to a grandiose narrative of defending Western civilization at all costs. In this respect, MAGA and Kirk supporters are alike and overlapping.

The combination of religious discourse and political mobilization expands the current administration's support base and leads to criticism of existing institutions and intellectual authority. As Vance's lecture demonstrated, contemporary American universities are one of the most targeted institutions.

2. Government Control of Universities and Knowledge Infrastructure

In resonance with Vance's appeal to conservatives for the recovery of the university system, the second Trump administration has intensified its attacks on universities.7 An executive order issued in January 2025 articulated the termination of federal DEI programs, which significantly affected federal subsidies for universities. As of April 2025, Harvard University reported that $2.22 billion in federal subsidies and about $60 million in contract amounts had been frozen. This measure was taken due allegedly to the university's failure to comply with the administration's proposals to abolish its DEI programs and to implement structural reforms. The university has filed a lawsuit in federal court, demanding a review of the administration's response. Similar measures have been taken against Ivy League universities, including Princeton and Columbia, as well as against Northwestern University.

As is well known, many of America's most prestigious universities are not run by government subsidies; the majority of their revenue comes from investment income of grant-based funds. The Trump administration has also increased the tax on investment income from the previous 1.4% to a maximum 8%.8 The administration has also begun restricting the enrollment of international students, revoking Harvard University's authorization to enroll international students on May 22.9 In the future, as some reports go, the ratio of international undergraduate students will be limited to 15%, and that of students from a single country will be limited to 5%, in the context of federal subsidies. This will be a major blow to prestigious universities, which rely heavily financially on tuition from, for example, Chinese students capable of paying high fees. Some media reports and commentaries link these government measures to anti-Israel demonstrations by Middle Eastern students.

Behind the administration's crackdown on universities is a long-standing hostility against universities fostered among the religious right and conservatives. In American history since the late 19th century, Harvard and other leading universities have been bastions of cultural liberalism predicated on progressivism. The development of textual scholarship, which undermined the authority of the Bible as holy scripture, and the introduction of the theory of evolution are all derived from universities. In recent years, universities have become places to discuss such topics that arouse the animosity of conservatives, such as critical race theory, gender studies, and climate change research; conservative Christian understandings and values have been sidelined.10

TPUSA's activities on university campuses counter this trend. Shortly after Trump's election in 2016, the group created a "Professor Watchlist" and published the names of faculty members who allegedly promoted left-wing propaganda. The roster, which initially listed the names of about 200 people, has since bulged to include over 750 names, several of whom have received threatening letters.11 The group has also established chapters on university campuses, recruiting and educating students to mobilize them in campus "culture wars." It has also organized lectures by prominent conservative figures, including the late Kirk.

TPUSA's efforts to counter the liberalization of universities can be seen as a form of evangelical proselytizing of university students. Bill Bright (1921-2003), one of the original ideologues of the "Seven Mountains Mandate," founded a missionary organization, "Campus Crusade for Christ," in 1951. Since then, it has grown into a massive organization with a presence in over 190 countries, employing more than 25,000 people. The organization's missionary activities encompass the inculcation of traditional values such as family, sexual ethics, patriotism, and anti-communism. From the 1970s, Bright was also closely involved in a political formation of the Religious Right. For Bright, American university campuses were hostile lands rampant with secularism and liberal thought, and his organization's goal was to launch a "crusade" for Christ against them.12

In addition to their activities at so-called secular universities, evangelicals have founded new Christian universities and taken over the running of traditional Christian universities, replacing their boards with conservative members. Those universities provide evangelical students with an environment comprised of faculty and staff who embrace Christian faith, and create, without difficulty, a platform for thoroughly criticizing liberalism and teaching conservative ideas. Among representative examples are Liberty University, founded by Jerry Falwell, who spearheaded the Moral Majority movement in the 1980s, and Regent University, founded by Pat Robertson, who led a conservative political organization, Christian Coalition, which made notable strides in the 1990s. Hillsdale College, a traditional Christian college, has become more conservative in recent years. These institutions have had close ties with the Republican Party and Donald Trump since the 1980s. They have even held rallies on campus, particularly during presidential election seasons.

Hillsdale College President Larry P. Arnn was a friend of Kirk's and was one of the speakers at his memorial service. Arnn is a trustee of the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, and a member of the Council for National Policy and the conservative judicial organization The Federalist Society.13 During the first Trump administration, he served as chairman of the 1776 Commission, which was established to criticize the New York Times' 1619 Project of excessive emphasis on critical race theory. Under the second Trump administration, Arnn is actively involved in America 250, celebrating the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States, and is also concerned with producing a video series, "The Story of America," which portrays a conservative, Christian image of the nation.14

As described above, the Trump administration's control over universities goes beyond financial pressure. It combines with the organizational and ideological bases cultivated for a long time by the Religious Right and conservative movements. This combination constitutes an attempt to restructure the system of knowledge production itself. As symbolized by restrictions on the enrollment of international students, the current administration's control over universities extends beyond the realm of knowledge production. This control is designed to involve a broader redesign of the nation's "human infrastructure," or the state's attempt to screen talent and determine who should be incorporated into the community. In the next section, I will examine how this move is adapted to the administration's immigration policy.

3. Immigration Control and Religious Friction

Abortion has long been cited as a primary issue by evangelicals.15 However, in recent years, immigration and border issues have emerged as equally, or more, significant ones. This trend was evident in the 2024 election. According to a Public Religion Research Institute poll, regarding two "litmus test" issues―abortion and immigration―, 46% of white evangelical Protestants say that they will only vote for a candidate who shares their views on abortion, while more than half of them (53%) say that they will only vote for a candidate who shares their views on immigration.16 So-called Christian nationalists, including conservative Catholics, are reported to tend to agree with the "Great Replacement Theory," which holds that immigrants are replacing whites demographically.17

German political scientist Tobias Cremer explains this trend as a result of the Europeanization of the American right. According to Cremer, the European populist right, such as France's National Rally and Germany's Alternative for Germany (AfD), have successfully provoked anti-Islam and anti-immigration sentiment among those exhausted by globalization by utilizing Christian rhetoric and symbols. Stephen Bannon, who served as chief strategist for the Trump campaign in the 2016 presidential election, is said to have learned this tactic from the European populist right.18

Many white evangelicals and conservative Catholics who support Trump overlap with the stratum of people who became MAGA supporters after experiencing economic difficulties following the 2008 Lehman Shock. They believe that the Biden administration's immigration policy worsened security and the economy at home and further reduced the white population. Consequently, the tough immigration policy of the second Trump administration resonates well with these people.

On the other hand, the racial distribution of evangelicals has changed significantly over the past 50 years; these changes are affecting their stance on immigration issues. According to a Pew Research Center poll (2023-24), while white evangelicals remain the majority at 70%, the proportion of non-white evangelicals has increased from 19% in 2007 to 24%.19 Among non-white evangelicals, Latinos make up the largest proportion at 12%. While 74% of white evangelicals support the current administration's immigration policy, 55% of Latino evangelicals disapprove of it; this is partly because many Latinos are immigrants themselves.20 In the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia held in November 2025, Latino evangelicals swung heavily toward the Democrats. A similar situation is anticipated in the 2026 midterm elections.

As for non-evangelical American Christians, a majority, 62% of non-evangelical whites, support the Trump administration's immigration policy. Meanwhile, 43% of white mainline/non-evangelical Protestants―a higher percentage than white evangelicals―"say that the way the federal government is dealing with undocumented immigrants is going in the wrong direction."21 Some mainline/non-evangelical church members were found among the protesters at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, as well as among those who protested against ICE in Minnesota.

This trend is more pronounced among mainline church clergy, as well as among high-ranking Catholic clergy. In a sermon delivered immediately after President Trump's inauguration in January 2025, Bishop Mariann Budde of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington directly urged the president to show mercy toward immigrants. With increasingly intense ICE activity as background, in November 2025, Pope Leo XIV called for "deep reflection" in the United States about the humane treatment of migrants in detention. Before his ascension to the Catholic pope, Leo XIV criticized Vice President Vance on the social media platform X for attempting to defend the current administration's immigration policy by invoking Catholic theology. In January 2026, the United Methodist Church's Council of Bishops issued a statement condemning the immigration authorities' inhumane treatment and violence against American citizens and immigrants following escalating crackdowns in Minnesota.

Such criticism highlights the deep divide within the Christian community in the United States regarding the administration's immigration policy. Yet, this divide is not limited to immigration; it also extends to the administration's stance on inciting Christian nationalism and anti-liberalism. The Christian community in the United States is anything but monolithic.

Conclusion

This paper has discussed the second Trump administration's religious policy from the perspectives of Kirk's memory, government control of universities, and immigration issues, with a focus on American Christianity. The current administration is promoting Christian nationalism, primarily advocated by evangelicals and Catholic conservatives, consolidating its supporters, and intensifying attacks on the opposition at home. The overt politicization of religion, as seen at Kirk's memorial service, not only increases the likelihood of violating the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, but also intensifies the anti-liberal stance toward universities and immigrants. The administration's support for specific religious positions leads to increasing tensions and profound divisions within the United States. In this context, understanding American religion, particularly conservative Christianity, is vital to understanding America's domestic governance and national security environment.

(Yoshiyuki Kato, Professor, Rikkyo University)

proposal
current topics
letter