Like many of you, I have questions with the official Charlie Kirk Assassination narrative. Here’s a couple I’ve recently been investigating: what really happened on the way to Timpanogos Hospital—and what caused the strange markings on the Yukon’s rear passenger door?

Even more intriguing: why do the letters “I” and “S” allegedly appear on the side of the SUV? Buckle up—what the evidence suggests may blow you away!

Check out the video below:

YouTube:

Regards,

Ron Meinhardt

Hello Friends,

Many of you may be wondering how and why I decided to pursue a seat in the US Senate. I recently sat down with Pastor James from Advent Media Connect to answer these very questions. We also discussed concerns regarding political identity, religious liberty, and the dangers of Christian Zionism as a political movement.

Click here to watch and share!

Warm Regards,

Ron Meinhardt

Friends, Family, and Fellow Citizens,

In an age of confusion and cowardice, I believe leaders are called to speak the truth plainly and act with integrity before both God and the people they serve. The following questions were asked publicly by concerned citizens seeking clarity about where I stand on the issues that shape our nation.

Though brief, these responses reflect my broad commitment to faith and first principles: the Constitution, Biblical moral responsibility, and the conviction that government exists to serve the people—not itself. I have preserved these exchanges as they’ve occurred so readers can judge for themselves whether my words adequately address the questions asked.

I welcome feedback. Christian leadership is stewardship, and stewardship demands accountability: both to God and to you, the people of the great state of Oklahoma.

Sincerely,

Ron Meinhardt
Candidate for U.S. Senate (2026)
State of Oklahoma

FAQ by Topic (Political Issues)

1) Campaign finance & loyalty

“Will you pledge to reject all PAC/lobbyist/out-of-state special interest money (e.g., AIPAC, Big Pharma, defense contractors) and rely mainly on small-dollar donations from Oklahomans? If not, why?”

Reply:

Yes! I consider it nearly impossible to avoid a compromised political tenure if already amenable to special interests because they funded your campaign. Furthermore, for this reason, the FEC should be encouraged to eliminate PAC campaign contributions altogether.

2) Term limits

“Do you support congressional term limits? Would you commit to serving no more than two terms in the Senate if elected, to prevent career politicians?”

Reply:

It’s obvious that the longer politicians stay in DC the higher the risk of corruption. I would support a bill imposing term limits of twelve years max for any combination of legislative branch office-holding. Furthermore, it’s a pledge I am personally considering. The reason I’m being deliberative about this is that if I make the campaign promise to do so, I will keep it (unlike @SenMullin and many, many, others who’ve said “yes” to term limits and broken their promise).

3) Border security

“What specific bills or actions would you push to secure the southern border, end catch-and-release, stop benefits/welfare for illegal immigrants, and start mass deportations?”

Reply:

Good question. My views on border security can be summed up by reading an article I wrote on the subject (even before I considered running for office):

Furthermore, I consider providing welfare payments to someone who illegally entered our country a potential violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

If we know enough about an illegal immigrant to give them food stamps, why are we not deporting them instead?

4) Fiscal responsibility

“Will you oppose omnibus spending bills, CRs funding unrelated programs/foreign aid/non-citizen welfare? Do you support a balanced budget amendment to stop the $40T+ debt spiral?”

Reply:

Economists know that the budget will never be balanced without cutting pork and earmarks. I have six children. Big Gov’t needs to stop spending their money!!!

Furthermore, foreign aid creates dependency and impairs innovation/ economic growth in developing countries. Better to work with foreign governments and encourage them to shore up their property rights (which is a primary function of government BTW). Without this, there is no security for credit or protection of profit. No economic incentive for domestic business then leads to rent-seeking behavior towards Uncle Sam and increased risk of governing-regime corruption.

Constitutional measures to balance the budget are a must!

“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” – Jefferson

5) Second Amendment

“Do you support nationwide constitutional carry? Will you oppose any new federal gun restrictions, including red flag laws or ATF overreach?”

Reply:

I’m a literalist: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Constitutional carry is a federal right that should override any state laws (due to the incorporation doctrine of the 14th amendment). Also, make silencers and sbr’s legal with no red tape or tax stamp.

6) Economy & energy

“Would you fight to extend/expand Trump tax cuts, slash federal regulations on Oklahoma’s oil/gas sector, and block Green New Deal-style policies that hurt our energy jobs?”

Reply:

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes! Also, eliminate federal subsidies for wind and solar!

7) Foreign policy

“Do you support ending endless wars and nation-building? Will you vote against sending billions more to Ukraine or other overseas conflicts without clear U.S. national interest?”

Reply:

I am very decided on this. When was the last time we really benefited from a regime change/ nation-building war? Especially in the Middle East?
Stop all Ukraine funding and end Europe’s proxy war against a nuclear-armed nation.

Further elaboration:

Line in the sand: Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.

However, military intervention based upon other aspects of Iran’s domestic policy should be approached with much trepidation. I’m definitely not anti-war. But, I am very much Augustinian Just-war in that it can be morally justified only to restrain greater evil and restore peace, never for glory, revenge (including disproportionate retaliation), or expansion.

Lastly, I’ve personally visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This should be a requirement for anyone holding political office with responsibility of conflict initiation/avoidance.

Oh…. And South Carolina, please primary Lindsey Graham.

8) Constitution

“Do you view the Constitution as a strict, fixed document (originalist/strict constructionist) that must be followed exactly as written/intended, or as a “living breathing” document that can be reinterpreted for modern times?”

Reply:

The Constitution is a literal document meant to be literally interpreted. Period. And stop sneaking in new bills under a general welfare clause pretense or other vagary.

Also, let the people declare the constitutionality of legislation through redress of grievances and their vote, not the Supreme Court! Judicial Review is NOT in the Constitution. Jefferson warned that the precedent set by Marbury v. Madison would create an oligarchy. He was right!

9) Religious liberty

“Aren’t you concerned about the restrictions of religious liberty coming from the right side of the political spectrum?”

Reply:

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of conscience and limits the interference of government upon religious institutions to the protection of “certain inalienable rights” that are “endowed by our creator”. In other words, it is not government’s prerogative to make men internally good, but it must protect individuals from outside infringement of their natural rights…

Now, here’s the main issue: who decides what constitutes those rights? Marx supposed that “in the perfect society, justice would administer itself” (Strauss, 1987, p. 823). In other words, the people could set their own rules. Yet, herein then lies the fundamental flaw of Marxism (and modernism/postmodernism in general): as it says in Jeremiah 17:9, King James Version, the human heart “is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Men therefore cannot discern justice without a reference point that is outside of themselves. Reason, logic, and majority consent are therefore poor candidates for establishing a protective paradigm for which “governments are instituted among men.”

This quandary does not have to perplex us long, however. In fact, the founder’s intent is clear: these rights were “endowed by our Creator” and in His word is found their very definition. Therefore, Christianity is not a fiend that must be locked away and only resorted to in private. Instead it should be seen as the very fabric of our society because it alone is the true safeguard against religious oppression and intolerance, when rightly understood.

Two great principles that under-gird this truth are found in Matthew 22:37-39: Christ relegated “love the Lord thy God” to individual jurisdiction and “love thy neighbor as thyself” as the general command to respect other’s naturally endowed rights (not murder, steal, lie, etc).

Government set upon these principles is the highest ideal and should not be feared:

“Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” Proverbs 14:34, KJV

10) Campaign support

“What ways can I contribute to your campaign?”

Reply:

Thanks for asking! As a grassroots campaign we depend solely upon the contributions of individual donors like you. Besides directions on how to send check, online campaign contribution links are now live on our website: www.running4ok.com.

Or you can simply click here to go directly to the contribution portal:

https://secure.winred.com/meinhardt-for-us-senate/donate-today

Legal Note: FEC regulations allow a maximum of $7000 per individual for this campaign election cycle (when primary and general elections are funded in a single contribution). Double “max-out” for couples is currently $14,000, or twice the individual limit. Campaign donation restrictions apply. See disclaimer within contribution portal for more information. Campaign contributions are non tax-deductible.

Thank you for your questions! We appreciate your support and, God willing, look forward to representing the great state of Oklahoma in the US Senate!

Regards,

Ron Meinhardt & the Meinhardt for Senate Team

Hello Friends,

I wanted to share a quick personal update with you.

Over the past month, I’ve begun the formal process of seeking candidacy for the U.S. Senate here in Oklahoma. This wasn’t a sudden decision—it’s grown out of months of conversations, hard questions, and a conviction that our state and country deserve better leadership rooted in Biblical principle, courage, and accountability.

I don’t believe real change starts in Washington. It starts with families, communities, and citizens willing to stand up and speak plainly about what matters. That’s what I intend to do—openly, transparently, and without corporate PAC money or special interests shaping the message.

If you’d like to learn more about why I’m running and what I stand for, you can find out here: www.running4ok.com

More soon. For now, thank you for reading, thinking, engaging, and praying. It means more than you know.

Gratefully,

Ron Meinhardt

We are excited to announce the release of the next episode of Let’s Talk with the Meinhardt’s— the podcast that discusses current events from a Biblical perspective and a family-friendly conversational style! In this episode, What’s Really Behind the Government Shutdown, Ron and daughter Hannah Meinhardt discuss the fallout of a decades-long political divide caused by colliding worldviews and diverging conceptions of “natural rights.”

Please watch, share, and subscribe!

Official merch! https://www.etsy.com/shop/letstalkmeinhardts

Help sponsor the show! https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/C65XX9MJ54JP8

If you haven’t had a chance to watch yet, our very first episode of Let’s Talk with the Meinhardt’s is now live! I posted about it last night, but I wanted to take a moment today to personally thank you and invite you to join us in this new journey.

Let’s Talk with the Meinhardt’s is a family project born out of many heartfelt conversations around our dinner table — about faith, culture, and what it means to live with conviction in today’s world. Each week, we’ll be diving into current events and relevant topics from a Biblical and family-centered perspective, with the goal of keeping dialogue honest, grounded, and uplifting.

In our first episode, Hannah and I sit down to discuss Charlie Kirk, Christian Nationalism, and the Separation between Church and State. It’s a thoughtful look at how faith and public life intersect, and what that means for families like ours who care deeply about truth and freedom.

You can watch the full episode here:

This is just the beginning, and we’re so thankful for everyone who’s helping us get started. If you believe in what we’re doing, there are a few simple ways to support this fledgling endeavor:

• Subscribe and share the episode with friends and family.

• Check out our official merch: https://www.etsy.com/shop/letstalkmeinhardts

• Sponsor a future episode: https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/C65XX9MJ54JP8

Your encouragement and prayers mean the world to us. Thank you for being part of these first steps, and for joining the conversation as we continue to explore faith, family, and freedom together.

Regards,

The Meinhardt’s (and yes, the possessive is intentional)

CLICK HERE TO WATCH NOW

Hello Friends, Just a quick update to announce the Let’s Talk with the Meinhardt’s podcast. This exciting weekly show discusses current events and relevant topics from a Biblical and family-friendly worldview. In this episode, I and my daughter, Hannah Meinhardt, discuss Charlie Kirk, Christian Nationalism, and the Separation between Church and State.

Please subscribe, share, and come back to our YouTube Channel each week for a new episode!

In the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, the signers affirmed that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” By attributing the origin of natural rights to God, the founders acknowledged that the revealed, or divine law, should be the foundation of all human law. Apart from declaring its origin, the preamble also directs the function of temporal law: to secure, or protect, these God-given natural rights. Thus, it is evident that Augustine’s teachings on revealed law vs. temporal law are indeed echoed in the political philosophy of America’s Founding Fathers.

As a background on Augustinian thought, diverging from his classical predecessors, Augustine believed that only the revealed “law of the LORD is perfect” (King James Version, Psalms 19:7) since “God Himself, [is] the fountain of all justice” (Augustine, n.d., p. 32). Therefore, as a political philosophy, Augustine declared governments devoid of God’s justice to be nothing more than “great robberies” (Augustine, n.d., p. 140). However, Augustine also recognized the concept of original sin, or the innate depravity of man, as absolutely requiring earthly, or temporal, law (Strauss & Cropsey, 1987). These core tenets of Augustine’s political philosophy also highlight an intrinsic conflict between protecting the natural rights found in revealed law and the necessarily restrictive nature of temporal law, even as it relates to religious toleration.

In the Donatist crisis, Augustine purportedly came to view religious heresy as necessitating the constraints of temporal law (Olsen, 2024). However, it is argued that this was not primarily due to diverging religious thought but rather the ill effects of the Donatist’s tactics, including terrorism and the undermining of political stability (Strauss & Cropsey, 1987). Thus, it is evident that society built upon revealed law demands an absolute moral standard and yet a toleration of opposing views so long as they do not invade the natural rights of others: a hallmark of the traditional concept of American religious liberty (Paulsen, 2023).

Correspondingly, the same conflict between the freedom afforded by virtue and the necessity to control vice can be seen in the reflections of many of the founding fathers. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (Adams, 1798). Benjamin Franklin raised similar concerns: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters” (Franklin, 1787a).

However, because personal piety, from a Biblical standpoint, appears on the decline, some contemporary scholars believe the Christian church should now be strengthened “with laws that are friendly to it” (Waite, 2023, para. 5), and that absolute religious toleration could be seen as detrimental (DeGirolami, 2016; Olsen, 2024). However, Strauss & Cropsey argue that Augustine saw that “at best” government should only serve to keep society civil and peaceful, thereby allowing for “the minimal conditions under which the church is able to exercise its teaching and saving ministry” because temporal law “is incapable of leading to virtue” (Strauss & Cropsey, 1987, p. 184). This view appears more in line with Jefferson’s famous remonstrance: “What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites” (Jefferson, 1782).

In conclusion, while it is evident that both Augustine and the Founding Fathers agreed that the revealed law establishes human freedoms, they also warned that a morally corrupt society, or possibly even a religious element that infringes upon the natural rights of others, necessitates government intervention. Striking a more ominous tone, in 1787, Benjamin Franklin warned that the fledgling Republic would eventually meet its demise “when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other” (Franklin, 1787b). This warning should call forth prompt intervention by the only institution capable of truly reversing the moral decline and promoting virtue, while likewise admonishing the state to fulfill its duty to protect and thereby enable the Church.

References

Adams, J. (1798, October 11). Letter from John Adams to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Massachusetts Militia. Founders Online, National Archives. Retrieved September 7, 2025, from https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102

Augustine. (n.d.). The city of God. Project Gutenberg. Retrieved September 7, 2025, from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/45304/45304-h/45304-h.htm

DeGirolami, M. O. (2016). Virtue, freedom, and the First Amendment. Notre Dame Law Review, 91(4), 1465–1509. Reprinted in St. John’s Legal Studies Research Paper No. 15-0031. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/faculty_publications/140/

Franklin, B. (1787a, April 17). Autograph letter to Messrs. the Abbés Chalut and Arnaud. Retrieved September 7, 2025, from https://ponderingprinciples.com/quotes/franklin/

Franklin, B. (1787b, September 17). Closing speech at the Constitutional Convention. National Constitution Center. Retrieved September 7, 2025, from https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/benjamin-franklin-closing-speech-at-the-constitutional-convention

Jefferson, T. (1782). Notes on the State of Virginia (Query XVII, “Religion”). Jefferson Quotes & Family Letters. Monticello. Retrieved September 7, 2025, from https://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/2263

Olsen, P. (2024). Augustine and Luther on toleration and coercion. International Journal for Religious Freedom, 17(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.59484/DRWA8357

Paulsen, M. S. (2023, December 4). Freedom for religion. Yale Law Journal Forum. Retrieved from https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/freedom-for-religion

Strauss, L., & Cropsey, J. (1987). History of political philosophy (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

U.S. Continental Congress. (1776, July 4). The Declaration of Independence: A transcription. National Archives. Retrieved September 7, 2025, from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

Waite, B. (2023, December 7). Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. Hillsdale College. Retrieved September 7, 2025, from https://onlinecoursesblog.hillsdale.edu/our-constitution-was-made-only-for-a-moral-and-religious-people/

Although civil law can be independent of religion, per se, every political philosophy does have an associated moral framework in which it operates. Nations have shown themselves, time and again through their civil enactments, to be manifestations of the ideologies they profess. Though not due primarily to his originality, but to his ability to succinctly and practically consolidate the English common-law heritage and the natural-law tradition, William Blackstone set an enduring tone for how these principles would shape American political philosophy and corresponding moral underpinnings.

Firstly, perhaps one of the best insights into America’s moral framework was noted in Alexis De Tocqueville’s appraisal of the visible results of American Democracy: “whilst the law permits the Americans to do what they please, religion prevents them from conceiving, and forbids them to commit, what is rash or unjust.” (Tocqueville, 1835, Book 1., Ch. 17; Strauss, 1987). Tocqueville, a Frenchman, did not see the liberty enjoyed by the Americans leading to the anarchy and moral free-for-all that beset his native land under the atheistic maxims of Rousseau. Instead, Tocqueville saw free men “obliged to profess an ostensible respect for Christian morality and equity, which does not easily permit them to violate the laws that oppose their designs” (Tocqueville, 1835, Book 1., Ch. 17). Far from a fleeting or isolated principle, Tocqueville noted that there existed an insistence that any national expansion would also carry this moral framework along with it “in order to maintain our liberties” (Tocqueville, 1835, Book 1., Ch. 17).

In terms of how society developed into this city on a hill, one must consider the influence of the Englishman, William Blackstone. By consolidating the “hodgepodge” (Liberty, n.d.) of English law existing after the Glorious revolution, Blackstone can, by extension, be credited for much of the foundational political philosophy of the Americas. Through his Commentaries on the laws of England he lays out the following “presumptive ideas” (Liberty, 2011): that law is a universal reality; it dictates behavior; in its basic form it is immutable and is naturally discoverable (i.e. natural law); it is revealed through the Holy Scriptures; it governs relations between nations; and it governs relations between individuals.

Though giving assent to the supremacy of divine and natural law, Strauss (1987) argues that Blackstone was perhaps overly focused on civil conduct. However, this may be more related to both Blackstone’s occupation and his view that natural law was self-evident, whereas civil law must be enumerated:

“the principal view of human laws is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple: and then such rights as are relative, which, arising from a variety of connections, will be far more numerous and more complicated. These will take up a greater space in any code of laws, and hence may appear to be more attended to—though in reality they are not—than the rights of the former kind” (Blackstone, 1765/1893, p. 124-125).

Interestingly, this very criticism is also further evidence of the breadth of influence Blackstone had on the Founding Fathers. This same brevity in discourse upon natural law, is also displayed by Jefferson (1776) in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, for a country whose primary duty was to protect these “inalienable rights” only three are listed: “among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (Jefferson, 1776). Furthermore, the fact that Jefferson deviated from Locke’s third natural right of “property” is further evidence of Blackstone’s influence as Blackstone saw the “rights of things” to be “less relevant to civil society” as the “rights of persons” (Strauss, 1987, p. 624).

Of additional note, also in the Preamble, Jefferson’s use of the phrase “pursuit of happiness,” often treated with dismissal as superfluous to natural law theory, may instead be a reference to the following quote from Blackstone:

“the absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature; being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free will” (Blackstone, 1765/1893, p. 126).

Thus, Blackstone intimates that true happiness is found in obedience to revealed law, and man has a natural right to follow this directive. This perfectly aligns with Solomon’s admonition, “Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he” (King James Version, Proverbs 29:18). Jefferson likewise advised that in “the practice of the purest virtue you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life and in the moment of death” (Jefferson, 1785, para. 1).

However, far from what characterized American during the time of Tocqueville’s visit almost two centuries ago, society has, by and large, shifted into a defensive posture against religious influence in political philosophy. A recent article in the Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems insisted that “a democracy that answers to a religious order is no longer free to represent the will of the people it purports to govern; it is a democracy compromised” (Fay, 2024, p. 222). While this may be true of a pure democracy, it is potentially catastrophic to a constitutional republic­. For, as stated in the Federalist Papers, such a government “presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form” and without this virtue “nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another” (Hamilton & Madison, 1788).

In conclusion, it has been said that necessity is the mother of all invention. However, the same can be said of municipal law: while it is evident that civil conduct must be regulated, moral integrity limits, and potentially even prevents, this necessity. However, as a people lose their religious bearings and grow more depraved, the focus of government likewise must shift from protecting liberty to regulating or even prohibiting it.

References

Blackstone, W. (1765/1893). Commentaries on the laws of England in four books (G. Sharswood, Ed., Vol. 1). J. B. Lippincott Co. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/sharswood-commentaries-on-the-laws-of-england-in-four-books-vol-1

Fay, J. E. (2024). “Religious” secularism and legitimacy in American democracy. Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems, 57(2), 215-262.

Hamilton, A., & Madison, J. (1788, February 13). The Federalist No. 55. In Founders Online, National Archives. Retrieved from https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0204

Holy Bible: King James Version. (2020). Thomas Nelson. (Original work published 1611)

Jefferson, T. (1776). The Declaration of Independence. In National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

Jefferson, T. (1785, August 19). To Peter Carr. In The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Founders Online, National Archives. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-08-02-0319

Liberty University. (2011). Watch: Lost Legacy of William Blackstone. Retrieved Sept. 28, 2025, from https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/982980/modules/items/91763454

Liberty University. (n.d.). The American founding political philosophy. Retrieved Sept. 28, 2025, from https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/982980/files/116098915/download?download_frd=1

Strauss, L., & Cropsey, J. (1987). History of political philosophy (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

United States. (1787/1997). The Constitution of the United States. In National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution

Introduction

The term “Christian Nationalism” has become vogue in decrying the perceived infringement of the Christian religion upon modern American politics. However, upon closer examination of the history of the American Republic, it can be noted that the God of the Bible is oft credited with both the country’s origin and its continuing mission. Furthermore, it is apparent that the political philosophy espoused in its founding documents reflects a tradition of “the laws of nature” that cannot easily be disentangled from “Nature’s God.” Therefore, the recent trend to label Conservative political influence with the broad pejorative of Christian Nationalism is flawed both in definition, philosophical premise, and understanding of the unique role of American Exceptionalism as it defines civic responsibility.

Definitions

In order to discuss the term Christian Nationalism, it first must be defined. It has been noted that “the present conceptual understanding of Christian nationalism lacks analytical clarity as to whether all views related to religion having a role to play in public life necessarily constitute a manifestation of Christian nationalism” (Smidt, 2024, p. 2). Indeed, highlighting this broad and ambiguous term, Whitehead and Perry (2020) described Christian Nationalism as “an ideology incorporating a number of beliefs and values” (Whitehead & Perry 2020, p. 7). Smidt (2024), presents Christian Nationalism as two distinct but conjoined phenomenon. Firstly, it is defined as a belief in the providential founding of the country and an acknowledgement of the Divine hand in furtherance of its mission. Secondly, it may take the shape of varying degrees of politically active religiosity.

Demographically speaking, Christian Nationalists were found to be comprised of older protestants who attend religious services regularly and espouse a more literal interpretation of scripture (Smidt, 2024). However, Religion studies conducted by Baylor University reveal a larger heterogeneity among distinguishing ideologies. Though an overwhelming amount of respondents identified as “Christian Nationalists” agreed that “the success of the United States is part of God’s plan.” A majority of the same group of respondents, though to a lesser degree, also assented that “the federal government should enforce a strict separation of church and state” (Baylor University, 2025).

Complicating the categorizing of Christian Nationalism by these two aforementioned factors “there is a long-standing philosophical perspective known as civic republicanism that supports the institutional separation of church and state, but which nevertheless holds that religion has an important role to play in public life” (Smidt, 2024, p.3). Given that the percentages of adherents to these two defining characteristics are strikingly similar in both groups further obfuscates a clear definition.

Various theories, including self-interested separationism, are postulated as to why the majority of American Christian Nationalists seem to paradoxically support the strict separation between church and state (Smidt, 2024). While these may have merit, the apparent contradiction may also expose a widespread misuse of the politically pejorative term in that not every so-called “Christian Nationalist” desires the usage of the state to violate personal conscience.

American Exceptionalism

The premise of the current use of the term “Christian Nationalism” denies the unique and historic philosophy behind American Exceptionalism, which “permeates every period of American history and is the single most powerful agent in a series of arguments that have been fought down the centuries concerning the identity of America and Americans” (Madsen, 1998, p. 1). In his early nineteenth century work, Democracy in America, the French philosopher Alexis De Tocqueville observed the following: “whilst the law permits the Americans to do what they please, religion prevents them from conceiving, and forbids them to commit, what is rash or unjust” (Tocqueville, 1835, Book 1., Ch. 17). He also proposed that American society would come to an end if “the moral tie is not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed” (Tocqueville, 1835, Book 1., Ch. 27).

It was thus evident from De Tocqueville’s analysis that Christianity was at the foundational core of the US Constitution’s pursuit to “establish Justice [and] insure domestic Tranquility.” The belief that God had ordained the founding of the nation itself is equally apparent in Jefferson’s declaration that men were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men” (Jefferson, 1776). Therefore, the first definition of Christian Nationalism, as believing that God played a role in the establishment and mission of the United States, was historically seen as intrinsic to its founding political philosophy.

The second definition of Christian Nationalism- the majority view that that Church and state should be separate versus varyingly nuanced intermingling- is equally apparent in early American history. As De Tocqueville again notes:

“They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point” (Tocqueville, 1835, Book 1., Ch. 27).

Effects on Civic Responsibility

The use of the term “Christian Nationalism” in the vague pejorative sense, denigrates the moral civic responsibility necessary to the stability of the American Republic. From a postmodern worldview, Christianity is permitted but relegated to the private affairs of men (Calhoun, 2008). This mirrors Bentham’s model of Utilitarianism, which also placed religion out of the political sphere and controlled the population by catering to the pleasure of the majority (Bentham, J., 1829/1982).

The founding fathers realized that the purpose of government was to ensure that the “self-evident” God-given rights, of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” were secured for its citizens (US Constitution, 1787). Yet, it was the fear of tyranny that prompted a suspicious eye towards governmental excesses and established the checks and balances to these powers under the Constitution. Though a bill of rights was secured and ratified to diminish the opposition of the anti-federalists, those opposed to such measures warned:

“…a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants” (Hamilton, 1787, Federalist 1).

Also of note, Alexander Hamilton, was opposed to the formation of an actual “bill of rights” because of the potential for undue governmental regulation of these “self evident” natural rights:

“Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power” (Hamilton, 1788, Federalist 84).

According to the Federalist, the people themselves were to be the political arbiters of “self-evident” rights. However, the inclusion of the Bill of Rights as amendments to the Constitution declared that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (U.S. Constitution, 1787, amend. 10). Two dangers were brought about as a result: 1) a precedent was set for the American federal government to continue to define natural rights; and, 2) the people were only given right to define those rights not enumerated by the Federal Government.

Thus, a weakness of the Constitution became evident. As John Adams said “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (Adams, 1798). Adams refers here to the conflict between limited government and ability of citizens to define natural right. As society drifts away from its moral anchor, the body politic may claim, as rights, that not informed by a Biblically-enlightened conscience.

Furthermore, if the Federal government was so inclined, it could use its defining power to, in Benthamite Utilitarian fashion, simply seek to please the majority in order to secure election and banish religion, as irrelevant to this equation, from the public square (Strauss, 1987). Indeed, this has been the history of progressive American politics and jurisprudence for almost a century. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous speech regarding a “progressive bill of rights” enumerated many novel “rights” including employment, livable wage, agricultural subsidy, free trade, housing, medical care, social welfare, and education (Roosevelt, 1944). By enumerating these and arming them with executive agency, these become more a matter of increasing government oversight, and less a matter reserved for the judgment or moral will of the people.

In the landmark supreme court case, Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black remarked “in the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State.’” This case set a precedent that indeed effectively relegated religion to the private sphere. Like Rosseau, whose Social Compact became the Bible of the French Revolution, some would argue that the reliance upon reason alone, apart from religion, is now sufficient to maintain liberty and adequately discern natural rights (Strauss, 1987). Indeed, the basic conflict between these two divergent political worldviews are the reality of modern American politics.

Misrepresenting Christianity – The Real Issue

Some might argue that the historical misuse of the tenets of Christian Nationalism is reason enough for its rejection in the New World. Indeed, in his work Social Contract, Rosseau states that religious intolerance “must inevitably have some civil effect; and as soon as it has such an effect, the Sovereign is no longer Sovereign even in the temporal sphere: thenceforth priests are the real masters, and kings only their ministers” (Rosseau, 1767/1923, p. 133). Rosseau also attacked Christianity as making men docile, unpatriotic, and easily put into servitude (Rosseau, 1767/1923). However, these observations and Rosseau’s subsequent attack against the influence of church on the state was an over-generalization of the faults of Christianity based upon the tyranny and persecutions of the medieval Church.

Another example, John Winthrop, Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, famous for his “city upon a hill” analogy (Winthrop, 1630), believed the Church had the right levy tax for the sustenance of the clergy, command allegiance, and punish heresy. In fact, Winthrop was aghast when Roger Williams was called to be a teacher in Salem Massachusetts after Williams espoused such things as the “opinion that the magistrate might not punish a breach of the Sabbath, nor any other offence, as it was a breach of the first table” (Knowles, 1834). This conflict eventually led to the banishment of Williams from Massachusetts Bay and the establishment of the Rhode Island Colony.

Yet, while Williams rejected Puritanical control over conscience, or what he would call the infringement of the first table of the Decalogue, he believed that just social law emanated from that revealed in the last six commandments, otherwise known as the doctrine of “the two tables” (Williams, 1644, p. 124). Furthermore, it was Williams who first coined the phrase “wall of separation” that was later used by Jefferson in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists (Jefferson, 1802, para. 3) and from there the phrase found itself used in Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black’s opinion in Everson.

However, unlike Black, Williams did not suggest a complete removal of religion as a whole, but defined the “wall of separation” as “between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world” (Williams, 1644, p. 435). Williams remonstrated that “doing that which is good” (King James Version, Romans 13:3) is defined in the Decalogue. However, he also stated that rendering to magistrates “all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour” (King James Version, Romans 13:7) did not include the acts of worship, to God alone, enjoined in the first four commandments (Williams, 1644). In order to show the stark differences existing in the same moniker, it must be mentioned that, given that the definition of “Christian Nationalism” in modern society, Winthrop and Williams, though varying in their degree of separationism would still be classed among “Christian Nationalists.”

Conclusion

Respect and knowledge of Christian ethics are thus seen as important, not only for politicians in preventing the expansion of government due to progressive ideology, but, also for citizens themselves. A moral people can exercise restraint from demanding pleasure for themselves at the minority’s expense. They will also be quicker to discern the natural rights emanating from revealed law and comprehend both the biblical bounds and enjoining’s placed between Church and state. Thus, though the term “Christian Nationalist” is presented as a broad and somewhat nebulous pejorative, in verity, it is in many cases describing a political superlative: especially in the American Republic.

References

Baylor University. (2025). Baylor Surveys of Religion.

https://baylorreligionsurvey.research.baylor.edu/

Everson v. Board of Education. (1947). 330 U.S. 17

Hamilton, A. (1787). Federalist No. 1. In A. Hamilton, J. Madison, & J. Jay, The Federalist Papers.

Hamilton, A. (1788). Federalist No. 84. In A. Hamilton, J. Madison, & J. Jay, The Federalist Papers.

Knowles, J. D. (1834). Memoir of Roger Williams, the founder of the State of Rhode-Island. Lincoln, Edmands & Co. From https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/63358/pg63358-images.html

Madsen, Deborah L. 1998. American Exceptionalism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Roosevelt, F. D. (1944, January 11). State of the Union Message to Congress. American Presidency Project. Retrieved from https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/state-the-union-message-congress

Rousseau, J.J. (1767/1923). The social contract and discourses (G. D. H. Cole, Trans. & Intro.). J. M. Dent and Sons. (Original work published 1767) Retrieved from http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/638

Smidt, C. E. (2024). Christian Nationalism, Civic Republicanism, and Radical Secularism in Contemporary American Politics over Time. Religions, 15(11), 1364. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15111364

Strauss, L., & Cropsey, J. (1987). History of political philosophy (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Tocqueville, A. de. (1835). Democracy in America (Book 1). Paris: Charles Gosselin.

United States. (1787/1997). The Constitution of the United States. In National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution

Whitehead, Andrew L., and Samuel L. Perry. 2020. Taking America Back for God. New York: Oxford University Press.

Williams, R. (1644). The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for Cause of Conscience. Project Gutenberg. Retrieved from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65739/65739-h/65739-h.htm

Winthrop, J. (1630). A Modell of Christian Charity. Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/inline-pdfs/A%20Model%20of%20Christian%20Charity_Full%20Text.pdf

What I’m about to say may upset some of you. In fact, I know it will. Therefore, I’m going to instead share it as a song. Please visit one of the links below to find out how I beleive he should be remembered (please listen to the song in its etirety before forming a judgement):

Spotify:

YouTube Music:

https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_k-nRjAhQXqew2VvmJnETeOs9mnf7bVsaY&si=wDIBFubkqnZsZDx0

Apple Music:

https://music.apple.com/us/album/what-is-a-man-tribute-to-charlie-kirk-single/1840381452

Regards,

Ron Meinhardt

Subscribe now

Thought I’d share a recent policy analysis from one of my public policy assignments. If you’re not up-to-speed on pending legislation you may find the following very insightful. It is written in true analytical style– offering glimpses of opposing viewpoints. Feel free to leave your comments below.

Immigration Policy: the Current Conundrum

Ronald Meinhardt

Helms School of Government, Liberty University

Author Note

I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ronald Meinhardt.

Email: rgmeinhardt@liberty.edu

Introduction

According to the House Committee on Homeland Security, over 10.8 million known illegal border crossings have occurred since 2021 (U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, 2024). Correspondingly, according to recent Gallup polls, while largely sympathetic to the plight of immigrants, Americans report growing alarm regarding the increased levels of illegal immigration (Gallup, 2025). Though the United States of America has been populated largely through the process of immigration, the recent mass migration of undocumented persons, specifically across the US Southern Border, has emerged as one of the nation’s most contentious policy debates. This paper will seek to analyze the background, opposing viewpoints, and biblical guidelines for several policy proposals related to the immigration debate: enhanced border security, deportation initiatives, and debate over Constitutional privileges and protections afforded to illegal immigrants–specifically birthright citizenship.

Background to Current Policy Debate

Historically speaking, mass migration has often led to consternation among Americans who viewed immigration as a potential risk to national religious and social identity. In fact, in 1885, during the massive influx of eastern European migrants to America, Josiah Strong, on page 46 of “Our Country” (1885), questioned “whether this in-sweeping immigration is to foreignize us, or we are to Americanize it.” Strong further remonstrated that, while controlled immigration was beneficial to the country, an overwhelming amount of immigrants could have destabilizing effects upon the balance of power, or federalism, of the American Republic: “A strong centralized government, like that of Rome under the Caesars, can control heterogeneous populations, but local self-government implies close relations between man and man, a measure of sympathy, and, to a certain extent, community of ideas” (Strong, 1885, p.46).

Interestingly, Strong’s observations seemed to forecast the differing viewpoints on immigration policy that have become cornerstones of partisan politics. Currently, the pro-immigration platform coincides with a bent towards strong central governance found in the Democratic party. Conversely, the Republican party, with its platform of less centralized regulation and emphasis of states’ rights, shows a more nativist approach to immigration policy.

These general characteristics are indeed evident in the turning and overturning of the last two decades of American Presidential politics; yet, one caveat appears to be that some form of regulation, or control, is evident even with the most permissive immigration policy. Therefore, formulation of immigration policy that, at least to some degree, restricts or controls migration is indeed a bipartisan issue.

For example, Obama’s administration began with a precedent of increasingly using executive action to influence immigration policy (Roy, Et al., 2024). His accomplishments included Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, which provided a deferment of immigration proceedings against minors; while his Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, providing a path to citizenship for undocumented minors, was met with congressional resistance (American Immigration Council, 2024). However, it should be noted that while Obama did have a progressive stance on immigration policy, he oversaw the deportation of more illegal immigrants than the previous two administrations (Roy, Et al., 2024).

Regarding the shift from the Obama-era to the first Trump administration, a reactionary policy response begat the construction of a US southern border wall, as well as a program known as “remain in Mexico” that disallowed entry of asylum seekers into the US until their cases were processed (Roy, Et al., 2024). Eventually, unable to complete his campaign promise to “build the wall,” Trump also failed to overturn Obama’s DACA program as his efforts were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (Roy, Et al., 2024; Sagás & Román, 2020).

The immigration policies of the Trump era were quickly rescinded by the Biden Administration. However, due to record levels of migration, a number of policies were implemented to address root causes of mass migration–providing for improvements in regional stability–and attempting to slow the rate of migration beyond a given quota. With the return of President Donald J. Trump to the Oval Office, another shift in immigration policy is currently underway.

Policy Dilemma: Border Security

Analysis of Policy Proposal

A policy example highlighting enhanced border control is H.R. 816, the “Build the Wall Act of 2025,” which attempts to allocate funds to complete the border wall begun by Executive Order 13767 in 2017 (Congress, 2025b; Trump, 2017). This bill was introduced by Representative Shreve

(R-IN), cosponsored by eight other House Republicans, and is currently in the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement. The bill seeks to redesignate unused coronavirus recovery funds for the erection and maintenance of a wall along the US southern border. The bill’s Constitutional premise is said to emanate from Article 1, Section 8, which is a general reference to Congress’s enumerated powers. More specifically, those enumerated powers pertaining to this bill would logically include the allocation of funding, providing for defense, and the creation of legislation controlling naturalization.

Reasoning/Research supporting

Overall, support for the construction of a border wall between the United States and Mexico has grown since Trump’s executive order was issued in 2017, and is reportedly more likely to be favored by the following demographics: Caucasians, Republicans, individuals experiencing wage pressure through competition with undocumented immigrants, lower educational attainment, and those living in close proximity to the border (Gravelle, 2022).

However, studies reveal that the political messaging promoting the border wall has been effective at increasing bipartisan support for increased border security. One example of this is the “inundation metaphor” which in turn reinforces the need for the construction of a barrier to stop the purported “flood” of migrants pouring over the border (Jimenez et al., 2021).

Reasoning/Research opposing or neutral

Individuals less likely to support the border wall initiative include: African Americans, Hispanics, individuals with Democratic-party affiliation, those possessing higher educational attainments, and individuals residing farther from the border (Gravelle, 2022). Correspondingly, opposition to building the wall has strong partisan opposition, which is reflected in the party-line homogeneity of H.R. 816’s congressional supporters (Congress, 2025b).

Some suggest that a border wall is ineffective as a solution to illegal immigration–as it does not halt migration but makes it a more arduous and dangerous process (Wheatley & Kroll-Zeldin, 2020). Those in opposition to a border wall also argue that it must become militarized to truly be effective­– further degrading mutual respect and cooperation between countries. Proponents of this view also hold that a border wall only addresses a proximal issue and not underlying causes of mass migration, such as social unrest or economic instability in the migrant’s native country.

Policy Dilemma: Deportation of Illegal Immigrants

Analysis of Policy Proposal

H.R. 1088, “To provide for the use of funds for deportation purposes,” or the “Restoring American Sovereignty Act,” attempts to allocate resources for the deportation of illegal immigrants (Congress, 2025c). Introduced by Representative Ogles (R-TN), and cosponsored by three other Republican Representatives, this bill seeks to fund deportation through the reallocation of foreign aid recently paused by Executive Order 14169. Like the previous bill, constitutional validity for this proposed legislation is also claimed to derive from Article 1, Section 8.

Reasoning/Research supporting

Zenteno & Massey (1999) postulate that immigration is dependent upon variables which not only fluctuate, but tend to establish “self-perpetuating” cycles– often leading to compounding levels of immigration. For example, if a person has experienced a higher standard of living and increased compensation, they are more likely to stay in the United States. Furthermore, after an individual has spent time in the US, they have experience and knowledge that can assist or motivate the immigration of others within their social circle. Therefore, by introducing negative consequences, such as the threat of deportation, policy initiatives to these ends may be beneficial in actually decreasing net migration, besides simply repatriating migrants (Díaz McConnell & Martinez, 2024).

Reasoning/Research opposing or neutral

This bill could especially be viewed as partisan since it provides deportation funding by canceling the foreign aid priorities of the previous administration. In terms of the effect on the illegal aliens themselves, the threat of mass deportation can cause widespread anxiety. Some would suggest that this is especially the case among illegal immigrants with darker skin, likely due to increases in racial discrimination among Latinos of darker complexion regardless of immigration status (Díaz McConnell & Martinez, 2024). Therefore, these policies could be challenged on grounds of racial profiling, which has occurred in previous deportation events (Surana, 2018).

Policy Dilemma: Constitutional Privileges of Illegal Immigrants

Analysis of Policy Proposal

Regarding the Constitutional privileges and protections of illegal immigrants: H.R. 569, the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025,” citing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, respecting Congresses power to institute a “uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18, known as the “Necessary and Proper Clause,” seeks to disallow children born to illegal immigrants in obtaining citizenship status under the Fourteenth Amendment (Congress, 2025a). The bill was introduced by Representative Babin (R-TX) and has fifty-one Republican cosponsors.

Reasoning/Research supporting

Using originalist license, the author of the bill states that the clause “subject to the jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment grants birthright citizenship only to authorized immigrants: that those who are illegally in this country are not technically under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution (Congress, 2025a). Similarly, Byas (2021), in a recent publication entitled “Who Is a ‘Natural Born’ Citizen?: The Question of Birthright,” argues that the historical interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment was that children of non-naturalized parents did not have automatic citizenship simply because they were born in the US. He argues that the original intent of Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment was simply to allow former slaves to gain citizenship status. This view is potentially supported by the fact that the proceeding sections 3 and 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment pertain specifically to reconstruction and restitution following the Civil War.

Reasoning/Research opposing or neutral

However, those holding a progressive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment have some cause to repudiate the removal of birthright citizenship to offspring of illegal immigrants based upon constitutional grounds and judicial precedent (Ramsey, 2020). A plain reading of the text was cited in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which concluded that birthright citizenship should be applied to the US-born offspring of non-citizen parents. Nevertheless, this precedent specifically covers the offspring of legal but non-naturalized immigrants, although it had been generally applied to the offspring of illegal immigrants as well. Ultimately, even if this bill is passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, its fate will be decided by the Supreme Court, as it is foundationally a matter of constitutional interpretation.

Biblical Considerations

Some may argue that, on biblical grounds, restrictive immigration policy violates the command not to “vex a stranger, nor oppress him” (Exodus 22:21, King James Bible; Francis, 2020). However, an opposing viewpoint references the admonition to respect and abide by the laws of the land (Romans 13:1; Titus 3:1, King James Version). Further supporting this perspective, the Bible advises that “all things be done decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40, King James Version).

As a middle-ground approach, some argue that it is right to obey man in every good law, but when laws violate Biblical principles or injunction, Christians: “ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29, King James Version; Rae, 2018). Thus, each policy must be examined by how it answers specific biblical principles. For instance, building a border wall could be seen as a legitimate policy because such barriers were used to protect cities throughout Biblical antiquity. God even provided for the miraculous rebuilding of the border wall surrounding Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah, despite the opposition of enemies intent on weakening the kingdom (Nehemiah 4:1, King James Version).

Deportation of illegal immigrants could be seen as biblically justified if it correspondingly respects the basic human rights and dignities of the deportees (2 Kings 6:22, King James Version). Lastly, the debate over birthright citizenship could be enlightened by the Biblical principle of impartiality and equal justice before the law shown to the stranger and the citizen: “Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God” Leviticus 24:22, King James Version).

Findings

As discussed in each of the three policy proposals above, lawmakers are seeking to find legislative and executive avenues to both stem the tide of illegal immigration and mitigate the effects of the previous administration’s immigration policies. Since levels of illegal immigration fluctuate in a reactive manner, based on policy decisions, serious deliberation must be given to potential domestic and international effects. Some of the more strongly supported prohibitive immigration policy proposals include bolstering border security through the construction of a border wall and increased deportation efforts. This is due to the growing influence of highly effective messaging campaigns, public awareness regarding the record numbers of illegal border crossings, and a Republican majority in both houses of Congress.

While mass deportations and the construction of a border wall could be effective in halting illegal crossings and repatriating illegal immigrants, these efforts are fraught with political volatility. Opponents of mass deportation and the construction of a border wall express concerns that both of these interventions do nothing to address the underlying causes of illegal immigration. Furthermore, these interventions have the potential for untoward effects in worsening the plight of inbound migrants and hampering good relations with neighboring countries. Mass deportation and denial of birthright citizenship have the potential for concerns regarding human and Constitutional rights abuses.

However, the issue of birthright citizenship will likely have many legal challenges as it is solely based upon the issue of interpretive methods as applied to the US Constitution. Thus, regardless of the passage of legislation on this point, this controversy will ultimately be decided by the decretal of the US Supreme Court. As there is no precise legal precedent from the Supreme Court on this matter, Republicans could be disappointed and hampered for years to come if a ruling is made contrary to their wishes.

Finally, while the Bible does not fundamentally reject prohibitive immigration policy, it does demand that human compassion be fairly represented in all such policy decisions. Moreover, when the Christian principles of love, respect, and equality before the law are incorporated into these policies, many of the main objections are diminished or even negated. In order to avoid a one-sided dogma that simply justifies the reader’s premonitions, Biblical underpinnings for immigration policy must be garnered by a careful analytical approach, weighing all the available counsel “precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line” (Isaiah 28:13, King James Version).

Conclusion

As evidenced by the different perspectives relating to immigration policy, the current mandate to reverse the previous administration’s purported missteps will likely lead to greater political strife and societal unrest. Further thought must also be given to how these policies interact with religious and ethical considerations. If the will of the people, expressed through their elected officials, is judged to be in line with provisions from the Constitution, the aforementioned policy approaches to securing the border and decreasing the domestic population of undocumented migrants may prove a logistical success. However, although law and order may at times conflict with the desires of those seeking a better life and opportunities, in implementing immigration policies, care must be taken to look upon these migrants as brothers and sisters in Christ–not to demean, marginalize, or dehumanize them due to their country of origin, race, complexion, or citizenship status.

References:

American Immigration Council. (2024). The DREAM Act: An overview. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/the_dream_act_-_an_overview_2024.pdf

Byas, S. (2021, Sep 06). Who is a "natural born" citizen?: The question of birthright citizenship. The New American, 37, 35-39. https://thenewamerican.com/print/the-goodness-of-america-10/

Congress. (2025a). H.R. 569 – Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025. Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/569/text

Congress. (2025b). H.R. 816 – Build the Wall Act of 2025. Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/816/text

Congress. (2025c). H.R. 1088 – To provide for the use of funds for deportation purposes. Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1088

Díaz McConnell, E., & Martinez, L. M. (2024). Change in administration, change in deportation worry? Analyzing the reduction of U.S. Latinos’ worries about deportation from 2019 to 2021. International Migration Review, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/01979183241247010

Francis. (2020). Fratelli tutti of the Holy Father Francis on fraternity and social friendship. Vatican Press. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html

Gallup. (2025). Immigration. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx

Gravelle, T. B. (2022). Local support for the US–Mexico border wall and local immigration policy. Territory, Politics, Governance, 12(7), 948–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2022.2095009

Holy Bible, The. (1611). King James Version

Jimenez, T., Arndt, J., & Landau, M. J. (2021). Walls block waves: Using an inundation metaphor of immigration predicts support for a border wall. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 9(1), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.6383

Rae, S. (2018). What the Bible says about the current immigration crisis. Zondervan Academic. https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/bible-immigration

Ramsey, M. D. (2020). Originalism and Birthright Citizenship. Georgetown Law Journal, 109(2), 405+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A650748868/LT?u=vic_liberty&sid=summon&xid=e266ccf6

Roy, D., Klobucista, C., & Cheatham, A. (2024, August 7). The U.S. immigration debate. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-immigration-debate-0

Sagás, E., & Román, E. (2020). Build the wall and wreck the system: Immigration policy in the Trump administration. Texas Hispanic Journal of Law & Policy, 26, 21. https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications/430/

Surana, K. (2018). How racial profiling goes unchecked in immigration enforcement. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/racial-profiling-ice-immigration-enforcement-pennsylvania

Trump, D. J. (2017, January 25). Executive Order 13767: Border security and immigration enforcement improvements. National Archives. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-border-security-immigration-enforcement-improvements/​

U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security. (2024, October 24). Startling stats factsheet: Fiscal year 2024 ends with nearly 3 million inadmissible encounters, 10.8 million total encounters since FY2021. https://homeland.house.gov/2024/10/24/startling-stats-factsheet-fiscal-year-2024-ends-with-nearly-3-million-inadmissible-encounters-10-8-million-total-encounters-since-fy2021/

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/

Wheatley, A. C., & Kroll-Zeldin, O. (2020). Impermeable Borders and the Futility of Walls. Peace Review, 32(2), 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2020.1836442

Zenteno, R., & Massey, D. (1999). The dynamics of mass migration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96(9), 5328–5335. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.9.5328

Ever wonder what is takes to achieve success in life? Determined effort? Perseverance? Just plain luck? Join us as we examine the secret weapon of arguably one of the most successful men in the world: President Donald J. Trump.

WATCH HERE VIA RUMBLE

Since its introduction in 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been a source of controversy regarding constitutionality, ethics, and fiscal viability. Before becoming public law on March, 23, 2010, the ACA had a total of 208 actions taken in Congress, most of which were in the Senate due to the Democrat supermajority required to overcome a Republican filibuster (Congress, 2010; Jost, 2021). Thus, the ACA, a most important and far-reaching approach to health reform, was passed without true bipartisan support- a fact that has made this law the target of continued attack. In 2017, although a Republican-led congress was unable to repeal the ACA, it did manage to effectively disarm one of its most highly-contested attributes: the “Individual Mandate” requiring either the purchase of comprehensive healthcare insurance or payment of a fine (Congressional Budget Office, 2017). The purpose of this paper is to analyze the worldview considerations of the Affordable Care Act and specifically how they have interacted with the Individual Mandate.

Worldview Bases promoting the "Individual Mandate"

Although the US Constitution does not specifically treat upon healthcare, some would argue that the General Welfare Clause combined with the Commerce Clause provides ample justification for the federal government’s involvement (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1;U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3). Since the ACA has been, from its inception, justified by secular humanist ideology while deplored by most conservatives and libertarians, progressive and postmodern worldviews would likely promote Constitutional legitimacy under the aforementioned premises (Brodie, 2020). Furthermore, the individual mandate was found to have additional constitutional grounds for support after being ruled a “tax” by the US Supreme Court (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012).

Since secular humanism is not governed by fixed natural law but is relativistic in its approach to solving societal issues this allows for potentially limitless functions of government (Liberty, 2018). For instance, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous speech regarding a “progressive bill of rights” listed, among numerous other societal needs, medical care as a basic human right (Roosevelt, 1944).

To Progressives, government is the central nexus of virtue as it is made up of people who are by default virtuous and do good deeds (Liberty, 2021; Marx & Engels, 1848). Therefore, government must be capable of choosing for the individual, whose role it is to simply fall in line. Postmodernism likewise is amenable to governmental control over the individual for the common good, yet its differing facets selectively allocate benefit based upon the conjecture of need.

For example, elements of the ACA arguably address the Feminist worldview in that they seek to focus reformatory efforts in healthcare inordinately towards women while proponents of Critical Theory also see increased allocation of resources towards combating perceived marginalization (Liberty, 2021; Gaffney, A., & McCormick, D., 2017). Another postmodern worldview, Queer Theory, was bolstered by section 1557 of the ACA which provided protections against discrimination in healthcare settings as well as allowances for gender affirming care (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2024).

It's important to note that the Individual Mandate was the tool that provided for the incorporation of these secular humanist provisions into healthcare. It accomplished this in at least three ways: 1) due to the fact that it pooled risk from healthy, normally uninsured individuals, it made the ACA appear to be fiscally viable legislation; 2) it mainly drew mandate fines from the wealthy while providing subsidies to the poor; and, 3) it forced healthy people to place more value on signing-up for health insurance to avoid financial penalty (Fiedler, 2020).

While the political feasibility of the ACA’s passage is no longer a subject of debate since becoming law, questions remain in regards to its long-term viability, means to accomplish its objectives, and lasting results. Since the annual fine associated with the Individual Mandate was effectively reduced to zero in 2017, there is no longer an added financial stimulus for the willfully uninsured to seek coverage. Also worth considering, since those espousing progressive and postmodern worldviews are increasingly seeking for single-payer healthcare, also known as socialized medicine, the ACA does not align fully with this objective (Brodie, 2020). While questions remain, even in certain liberal-minded demographics, regarding the ethical nature of the Federal government forcing individuals to buy a product or service, as Alinsky puts it “to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word” (Brodie, 2020; Alinsky, 1971, p. 59).

So, over a decade after its passage, the question of whether or not the ACA has benefited American healthcare remains. From a fiscal point of view, even when factoring out inflation, healthcare costs have risen approximately nine-fold over the past 50 years (McGough, M., et. al., 2023, para. 2). Another example of the burgeoning crisis: in 1970, in terms of the share of total national health expenditure, individuals paid three times more out-of-pocket and had considerably less insurance coverage – in particular from public funds. However, these under-insured individuals still had less burden of chronic disease, which now effects half of all Americans while commanding a whopping eighty-six percent of all healthcare dollars (McGough, M., et. al., 2023, para. 24; Holman, 2020).

Even if the Individual Mandate for a time succeeded in decreasing the amount of willfully uninsured this likely did little in addressing the root causes of increased healthcare expense and poor health outcomes. While paying lip service for the need of healthcare reform, the Individual Mandate only dealt with the proximal issue of the cost of healthcare insurance coverage. Yet, even in this, the mandate fell short due to the fact that forcing individuals to purchase health insurance eventually leads to more waste of public monies. This phenomenon is evidenced by a projected decrease in Federal spending of $338 billion from 2018-2027 even with elimination of the fine revenue supplied by the Individual Mandate (Congressional Budget Office, 2017). Thus, the mandated acquirement of health insurance should not be considered a success in generating better healthcare for Americans. Instead, it could be considered a Machiavellian short-lived victory for the Humanist worldviews that permitted the accomplishment of secular humanist goals in the name of healthcare reform.

Worldview Bases in Opposition to the "Individual Mandate"

While both the Modern and Christian worldviews are in agreement that contributing to the common good, and helping individuals in need of medical care is a noble aspiration, the way they seek to define and accomplish this concept differs. In the Christian worldview, people, including those in power, cannot be given implicit trust due to man’s sinful nature. Therefore, the more self-governance and self-initiative a person has, the more he can govern himself without the need for bringing in an overseer of like fallen nature, who also cannot be implicitly trusted. Thus, a Biblical worldview would tend towards private initiative vs. governmental intervention. As such, the Christian worldview encourages and admonishes personal participation in the general cause of healthcare- even as a religious duty: “And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you” (Holy Bible, King James Version, Luke 10:9).

Indeed, caring for the sick in an ethical and solicitous fashion is deeply entrenched in the Judeo-Christian tradition: “The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them” (Holy Bible, King James Version, Ezekiel 34:4). In the judgment, the neglect of the sick is one of the principal sins which calls forth the everlasting condemnation “depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire” (Holy Bible, King James Version, Matthew 25:41). In the end, according to the principle of sphere sovereignty, the Church has a definite claim to providing and reforming healthcare (Fischer, 2013).

Constitutionally speaking, as interpreted through the lens of the founding fathers, or the Biblical worldview, government has limited prerogative to become involved in healthcare. Historically, governments have been called upon to protect economic viability and mitigation of transmission of risk during times of healthcare crisis, such as epidemics. However, in a more foundational sense the American government does not have the constitutional right to exert pressure on the healthcare market to such an extent that it exerts control over the doctor-patient relationship, decreases costs through central planning, and mandates participation in health insurance through the Individual Mandate. While the General Welfare and Commerce clauses could again be referenced, the vagaries of these to allowances have often been criticized as permitting government to do anything it desires. For example, in United States v. Butler (1936), the justices’ decision highlighted the need for more than ambiguous allowances in the Constitution for justification of Federal action:

"The power of taxation, which is expressly granted, may, of course, be adopted as a means to carry into operation another power also expressly granted. But resort to the taxing power to effectuate an end which is not legitimate, not within the scope of the Constitution, is obviously inadmissible."

Thus, even though the US Supreme Court at one point declared it constitutional under the premise of the taxing power (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1.), the Biblical worldview, emphasizing limits on government overreach, or that “power is not first, but justice is first in society and law” would, even so, likely disagree with the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate (Schaeffer, 1981, p. 28). Since healthcare in a general sense, and, more specifically, imposing fines related to not possessing healthcare insurance, is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, the prerogative of forming legislation such as the ACA should be seen as a state or even a personal issue under the directive of the Tenth Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. X).

In converse to that granted under other worldviews, while healthcare can be a good thing in-and-of-itself, in the Biblical worldview the role of government is not to coerce the performance of good deeds to promote the common good. What it is charged to do is to protect against the infringement of natural rights (Beckwith, 2010), in this case those enumerated in the Constitution. Then, the question of if the Individual Mandate “can” be legitimized according to the dictum of the Biblical worldview is to be answered in the negative.

From a political and philosophical point of view, the premise which commands the Individual Mandate to procure health insurance against one’s will in order to serve what partisans believe to be the common good could be extended to other factors- even unrelated to healthcare. For example, since one serving of apples per day have been found to significantly decrease heart disease risk, diabetes, and all-cause mortality (Gayer, B., et al, 2019), an individual mandate could be enacted for the consumption of apples due to the expected decrease in healthcare expenditure and benefit on health outcomes. Similarly, since certain medications can be used prophylactically, such as Statins for heart disease, an individual mandate could impose penalties if persons chose not to utilize them.

Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson, in Notes on the State of Virginia, remonstrated that "was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now” (Jefferson, 1781). Of import, Jefferson is here referencing the religious tyranny, so recently emancipated, that stirred the consternation and concern of the founding fathers. Equally, Jefferson saw such individual mandates as foreign to the principles of the newly-formed Republic- principles espoused in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Instead of mandating extra-constitutional issues, Jefferson affirmed “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education” (Jefferson, 1820).

Conclusion

While current conditions in the United States demand some measure of healthcare reform, the Individual Mandate of the Affordable Care Act has shown itself to be ineffective and, according to the Biblical Worldview, unjust. While it is imperative to seek for effective bipartisan routes of handling the exploding costs of healthcare coupled with the devastating burden of chronic disease, the Biblical Worldview stands without a peer in regards to the solution. Rather than mandate a dubiously effective proximal intervention, the Bible admonishes individual accountability and action: both in caring for health, and fiscal responsibility in healthcare choices. Since government cannot be implicitly trusted to provide for the greater good, the Constitution rightfully reserves that noble prerogative to the people themselves. Therefore, the decision to purchase health insurance should be a choice made through education, not enforced by extra-constitutional legislation.

References

Alinsky, S. D. (1971). Rules for radicals: A practical primer for realistic radicals. Vintage Books.

Bastiat, F. (2010). The law. Simon and Brown.

Beckwith, F. J. (2010). Politics for Christians: Statecraft as soulcraft. InterVarsity Press.

Brodie, M., Hamel, E. C., Kirzinger, A., & Altman, D. E. (2020). The past, present, and possible future of public opinion on the ACA. Health Affairs, 39(3). https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.01420

Congress. (2009). H.R.3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 111th Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3590

Congressional Budget Office. (2017, November). Repealing the individual health insurance mandate: An updated estimate (Publication No. 53300). https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53300-individualmandate.pdf

Constitution of the United States, Amendment X.

Fiedler, M. (2020). The ACA’s individual mandate in retrospect: What did it do, and where do we go from here? Health Affairs, 39(3). https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.01433

Fischer, K. (2013). Biblical principles of government. Faculty Publications and Presentations, 525. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/gov_fac_pubs/525

Gaffney, A., & McCormick, D. (2017). The Affordable Care Act: Implications for health-care equity. The Lancet, 389(10077), 1442-1452. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30786-9

Gayer, B. A., Avendano, E. E., Edelson, E., Nirmala, N., Johnson, E. J., & Raman, G. (2019). Effects of Intake of Apples, Pears, or Their Products on Cardiometabolic Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Current developments in nutrition, 3(10), nzz109. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzz109

Holman H. R. (2020). The Relation of the Chronic Disease Epidemic to the Health Care Crisis. ACR open rheumatology, 2(3), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr2.11114

Holy Bible: King James Version. (2020). Thomas Nelson. (Original work published 1611)

Jefferson, T. (1781). Notes on the state of Virginia. In Query XVII: Religion. Retrieved from https://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/2261

Jefferson, T. (1820, September 28). Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis. Monticello. https://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/382

Jost, T. S. (2021). A political history of the ACA. Health Affairs, 40(6). Retrieved August 29, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.00685

Liberty University. (2018). Watch: Dueling Manifestos - How Ideas Shape Public Policy. Retrieved August 27, 2024, from https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/625476/pages/watch-dueling-manifestos-how-ideas-shape-public-policy?module_item_id=71002431

Liberty University. (2020). Watch: Political Tactics. Retrieved August 11, 2024, from https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/625476/pages/watch-political-tactics?module_item_id=71002405

Liberty University. (2021). Watch: Defining worldviews part 2. Retrieved May 19, 2024, from

https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/633265/pages/watch-defining-worldviews-part-2?module_item_id=67258284

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

McGough, M., Winger, A., Rakshit, S., & Amin, K. (2023, December 15). How has U.S. spending on healthcare changed over time? KFF. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/#Total%20national%20health%20expenditures,%20US%20$%20Billions,%201970-2022

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).

Roosevelt, F. D. (1944, January 11). State of the Union Message to Congress. American Presidency Project. Retrieved from https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/state-the-union-message-congress

Schaeffer, F. A. (1981). A Christian manifesto. Crossway Books.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2024). Summary: Nondiscrimination protections under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. HHS.gov. Retrieved August 30, 2024 from https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/section-1557/summary-nondiscrimination-protections/index.html

You may not have even realized it was missing. When dissident voice is vanquished, the cry of the aggrieved has no sympathizing ear. For the body of the populous, tyranny takes time to manifest, though the injury is earlier sustained. What are the symptoms of this perilous condition? Individualism is belittled and bartered away for the common good; free thought is sent through the rigors of another’s judgement; good is pronounced evil; injustice triumphs over law, chaos over order; and those who oppose are either placated by gifts, pretended by impostures, or silenced by shame.

Is this the end of the American Experiment: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Should we now settle for less? Did we get it wrong long ago? Or, perhaps we have underestimated the malign influences of him “which didst weaken the nations?” Can we possibly be startled from the lull of our slumber and reminded of whence we have come… of the precepts that birthed thirteen downtrodden and despised colonies into a unified front against tyranny -a mighty nation who would stand, although imperfectly at times, as a bulwark against despotism- the strength of which came partly from the ingenuity of the Era of Enlightenment but more conspicuously from the sacrifice and labor of the Protestant Reformation?

Centuries ago, the golden threads of Protestantism and Republicanism cocooned themselves about us as we transformed into “a church without a pope, and a state without a king;” and, the world witnessed a miracle -one they have been at times jealous to emulate. Through the principles of righteous government: freedom of conscience, expression, the unalienable rights of man, and proper representation of these principles in its governing bodies “It was demonstrated that the principles of the Bible are the surest safeguards of national greatness.” The Great Controversy, page 296

If we have forgotten this arduous journey and the darkness from which we were so laboriously extricated, we undoubtedly are a nation in the throes of an identity crisis. Who are we; and, what have we become? Instead of “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," we have by-and-large transitioned into a society who seem to possess a theory of liberty but does little to actually sustain it. The sirens of idleness, abundance of bread, of peace, and safety have cast many a wayfarer upon Sodom's rocky shore. Come and take your ease, they sing, all your needs may be supplied, only trust implicitly, you must not disobey… And millions exchange the oar for the manacle.

Where is the indomitable spirit that appeared upon the beaches of Normandy… When the world watched in awe and followed those Yanks up the path that led to a free Europe, though many gave their all along the way? Where are the Patrick Henry’s? The Thomas Jefferson’s? The Marquis de Lafayette’s? Where are the Frederick Douglass’? The George Washington Carver’s? The Abraham Lincoln’s? Those who made this country a better place because of their acts of selflessness and untiring diligence? Perhaps we’ve grown comfortable rehearsing their exploits, but indolently refuse to hold high the torch of Liberty that these great men have laid down? “Tread cautiously” we say. “Our place is only to watch the events unfold.” Of us it may be said that circumstance is master, security is king, and the cause of Jesus Christ but a fanciful theory.

The privilege of freedom is lost, not on the battlefield, but in the mind of he who has become indifferent to her cause. As was said long ago: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” It is now apparent, that the time has come, for these few good men to come to the aid of their country.

Special Guest: Dr Zach Mazone, DO (Dayspring Integrative Wellness, Bath, ME).

Review of Literature, Author Manuscript

Introduction:

Claims of the possibility of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) improving Covid-19 outcomes have been circulating of late in health and wellness circles. When asked of my own personal opinion with NAC in supplement form, I’ve replied that I had ceased taking or recommending it’s use because of the risk for cancer initiation (1,2,3,4).

However, since very recently being challenged on this hypothesis, I have looked deeper into the voluminous amount of research surrounding this substance. The purpose of this report is to share some of my findings. If you are currently taking this as a dietary supplement I strongly encourage you, with an open mind, to read this article in its entirety.

Sourcing issues:

Here’s a little background info I found surprising…

L-cysteine, the main ingredient in N-Acetylcysteine, has been historically manufactured in foreign countries (in particular China) from human hair (a potent source of the amino acid). Other sources may include bird feathers, hog hair, or, less likely, synthetic derivation (5). FYI: I’ve often found that NAC is frequently labeled as “vegan” even though it originates from a human or animal source. Best to query the manufacturer if that is a concern.

One of the more popular processes in which L-cysteine is then “acetylated" into NAC is described as follows: “we have prepared […NAC…] using 1 equiv. of acetic anhydride [which is basically vinegar without moisture] and a variety of acid acceptors in aqueous tetrahydrofuran)” (6). Furthermore, undesired byproducts, from human or animal source (20-35%), will need to be removed although even higher purity varieties may contain some degree of contaminants (7).

Therapeutic effects:

There are many studies showing benefit in vitro (outside the body) and vivo (inside the body), of the indirect free radical scavenging effects of NAC (8). However as one researcher wrote: “NAC should not be considered to be a powerful antioxidant in its own right: it’s strength is the targeted replenishment of GSH [Glutathione] in deficient cells and it is likely to be ineffective in cells replete in GSH” (9). 

Therapeutically, NAC has been shown to possess strong mucolytic properties (by breaking the disulfide bonds in mucus) and is frequently given in cases of acetaminophen overdose to decrease liver toxicity and damage (10). However, one article, reviewing over one hundred and three research studies related to other clinical uses of this compound, found that “numerous, mainly small clinical trials with variable doses have yielded inconsistent results in a wide variety of diseases” (11). Furthermore, some of the reported benefits of NAC were shown to be due to extremely large dosages that would be difficult to achieve in the clinical setting, in particular with oral supplementation (12).

Unexpected side effects:

Besides potentially increasing the risk of cancer (1,2,3,4), NAC has been found to decrease the cancer-fighting (and potentially antiviral) effectiveness of a large class of naturally medicinal substances, such as curcumin (13), berberine (14), vitamin D (15), melatonin (16), selenium (17), and cucurbitacin (18). How is this possible? It’s likely due to the fact that these compounds utilize oxidation (aka production of free radicals) to initiate cancer cell death (apoptosis) (13,14,15,16,17,18) and the robust and persistent repletion of glutathione by NAC neutralizes this effect.

This point deserves further elaboration due to the misconception that antioxidants are usually seen as “good” and free radicals “bad.” While persistently disarming free radicals (aka reactive oxygen species or R.O.S.) is a great idea in many disease processes it can be dangerous in others. In the case of pulmonary disease: “based on this knowledge, some researchers suggested that a faster clearance of ROS could reduce lung damage and improve lung function.” (19) However, “ROS generation by […] pathogens has also been established in respiratory epithelial cells, and the modulation of ROS was reported to be important for respiratory virus–induced innate immune mechanisms” (ibid).

An example of the positive effects of NAC’s action are the studies showing significant reduction of the severity of some influenza infections (20, 21, 22). This may be due largely to the fact that the virus is spread readily through replication (multiplication inside the cell) and consequent rupture of the cell membrane (apoptosis) (23). According to one study: “apoptosis induction is an antiviral host response, however, influenza A virus (IAV) infection promotes host cell death” (ibid). This allows the virus, after sufficient intracellular replication, to exit the cell in masse. Apoptosis is triggered by the overwork of the virus-hijacked cell’s organelles (mitochondria and endoplasmic reticulum) and production of large amounts of oxidative stress.

NAC can suppress these free radicals and reverse the trend toward apoptosis and subsequent release of virons, thus slowing the spread of the Influenza virus.

While this process may be potentially beneficial in influenza infection, it may actually be dangerous in human coronavirus infection. Why? A couple reasons: 1) coronavirus can efficiently exit the host cell via the process of viral budding instead of apoptosis; and, 2) cells infected with coronavirus can even adhere and fuse with neighboring cells “..lead[ing] to the formation of giant, multinucleated cells, which allows the virus to spread within an infected organism without being detected or neutralized by virus-specific antibodies” (24).

Furthermore, during the replication of coronaviruses "massive amount[s] of structural proteins [are] synthesized to assembly progeny virions. The production, folding, and modification of these proteins undoubtedly increase the workload of the ER [endoplasmic reticulum]” (24). This dramatically increases the production of free radicals (ROS) in the cell, a process that would normally lead to programmed cell death, or apoptosis, of the infected cell.

However, coronaviruses can block a critical pathway (the integrated stress response) normally activated by overwork of the cells organelles. This happens, at least in part, by limiting the secretion of a cell’s red alert compounds known as “interferons” (Ibid). Thus, production of functional interferon after infection with SARS-CoV-1 is purported to be "essential for the control of potentially lethal coronavirus infections” (25, 26).

UPDATE 2.7.23: It is now known that SARS-CoV2 blocks the production of type 1 interferon by production of three distinct compounds: NSP6, NSP13, and ORF6 (35). Furthermore, due to the production of another protein, ORF8, which blocks the production of MHC-1, a cell membrane-bound immune signalling molecule, “it seems that SARS-CoV-2 undergoes vast replication in vivo without being effectively monitored by anti-viral immunity” (36). These findings make it even more essential for hijacked/ infected cells to be able to shut down due to elevated oxidative stress.

NAC and coronavirus replication:

Since interferon (alpha) production is reduced in Covid-19 due to direct interference, the alternate method of production, through oxidative stress generated by viral production, is essential in mounting an adequate immune response (24). Reducing the free radical generation by stressed organelles with N-acetylsysteine (a potent and persistent replenisher of intracellular glutathione) has, therefore, been shown to potentially encourage an environment supporting enhanced viral replication in human coronavirus infection (resulting in enhanced endoplasmic reticulum folding capacity) (27).

To make matters worse, NAC may alter the profile of the normal production of cytokines (chemical messengers mediating the inflammatory response) (19, 27). The latter is concerning seeing that immune dysregulation is already a hallmark of coronavirus infection. A study in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases “observed leukopenia in 47% of patients, lymphopenia in 84%, and T lymphopenia in 95%. CD4(+) T lymphocyte levels were reduced in 100% of patients, CD8(+) T lymphocyte levels were reduced in 87%, B lymphocyte levels were reduced in 76%, and natural killer cell levels were reduced in 55%” (28).

Also of interest, in HIV infection, dosages of NAC typical of oral administration, but not intravenously, caused an increase in the infection rate of monocytes (27). After viral infection these giant immune cells are themselves at increased risk for aberrant behavior, potentially letting go of their munitions in the lungs and causing a devastating condition known as cytokine storm- the single most deadly end result of Covid-19 infection (29, 30)

UPDATE 2.7.23: A newly published study revealed that deceased Covid-19 patients “unexpectedly” had the same amount of glutathione as the healthy control group yet a 16-fold decrease in the free radical Hydrogen Peroxide (H202), a sign of oxidative stress. This certainly calls into question the physiologic basis for the use of NAC in severe Covid-19 (37).

UPDATE 2.10.23: A randomised control trial (RCT) published at the height of the pandemic, which looked at the affect of NAC administration upon hospitalized Covid-19 patients, found that “[r]egarding the outcome, there was no difference between the Placebo and NAC groups neither in the primary outcome (need for invasive mechanical ventilation) nor the secondary ones (mortality, ICU admission, time of invasive mechanical ventilation).” (38).

Recommendations:

Ultimately we will need to weigh the evidence ourselves and make an educated decision. The good news is that we can safely enjoy the benefits of dietary bioavailable cysteine, found in healthy foods like beans, lentils, oatmeal, sunflower seeds, etc., and thereby ensure healthy normalization of glutathione levels. One of my infection-fighting favorites, raw garlic cloves, contain natural forms of this amino acid, such as S-allyl-cysteine, which also shows potent anti-cancer effects (31, 32, 33). Furthermore, adequate amounts of vitamin D have been shown to safely regulate levels of glutathione (34).

FYI: a little garlic goes a LONG way… and with food please ;)

In summary:

All this being said, perhaps the best way of looking at the NAC-for-Covid-19 question is utilizing the Biblical concept of Temperance:

The moderate use of that which is good, and abstinence of that which is harmful.

Normal levels of intracellular glutathione can definitely have a positive effect upon our health, however, given the raw materials, the body can do a better job of managing the fine line of production so that the compound is not used injudiciously as a cloak for cancer or viral development.

​References:

1) JCI Insight. 2019 Oct 3;4(19). pii: 127647. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.127647.

2) Sci Transl Med. 2014 Jan 29;6(221):221ra15. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3007653.

3) Rejuvenation Res. 2014 Jun;17(3):306-11. doi: 10.1089/rej.2014.1577.

4) Sci Transl Med. 2015 Oct 7;7(308):308re8. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aad3740.

5) https://oukosher.org/…/consumer-kosher/what-could-be-wrong…/

6) N-Acylation of Cysteine Tellis A. Martin, John R. Corrigan, and Coy W. Waller

The Journal of Organic Chemistry 1965 30 (8), 2839-2840 DOI: 10.1021/jo01019a509 

7) https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sial/a7250…

8) Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2018; 2018: 2835787.

9) Pharmacol Ther. 2014 Feb;141(2):150-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2013.09.006. Epub 2013 Sep 28. 

10) Sci Transl Med. 2015 Feb 25; 7(276): 276ra27. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3010525 

11) Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2006 Jan; 61(1): 5–15.

12) J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2009 Oct;54(4):319-26. doi: 10.1097/FJC.0b013e3181b6e77b.

13) Korean J Physiol Pharmacol. 2010 Dec;14(6):391-7. doi: 10.4196/kjpp.2010.14.6.391. 

14) Int J Oncol. 2011 Feb;38(2):485-92. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2010.878. 

15) J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2011 Jan;123(1-2):85-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2010.11.010. 

16) Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2011 Jan;108(1):14-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-7843.2010.00619.x. 

17) J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2003;17(1):19-26. 

18) Anticancer Agents Med Chem. 2014;14(8):1146-53. 

19) Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2013 Nov; 49(5): 855–865.

20) Biochem Pharmacol. 2011 Sep 1;82(5):548-55. doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2011.05.014. Epub 2011 May 25. 

21) J Negat Results Biomed. 2011 May 9;10:5. doi: 10.1186/1477-5751-10-5. 

22) Eur Respir J. 1997 Jul;10(7):1535-41. 

23) Cell Death Dis. 2013 Mar 28;4:e562. doi: 10.1038/cddis.2013.89. 

24) Front Microbiol. 2014; 5: 296.

Published online 2014 Jun 17. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00296. 

25) Blood. 2007 Feb 1;109(3):1131-7. Epub 2006 Sep 19.

26) J Virol. 2007 Aug; 81(16): 8692–8706. 

27) JCI Insight. 2016 Dec 8; 1(20): e88255. 

28) Clin Infect Dis. 2003 Sep 15;37(6):857-9. Epub 2003 Aug 28. 

29) Intensive Care Med. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-05991-x. [Epub ahead of print].

30) Semin Immunopathol. 2017; 39(5): 529–539.

31) Exp Ther Med. 2020 Feb;19(2):1511-1521. doi: 10.3892/etm.2019.8383.

32) Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Feb 6;21(3). pii: E1090. doi: 10.3390/ijms21031090. 

33) Int Immunopharmacol. 2019 Apr;69:19-26. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2019.01.026. Epub 2019 Jan 18. 

34) J Neurochem. 1999 Aug;73(2):859-66.

Updated References:

35) Cell Rep. 2020 Oct 6;33(1):108234. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.108234. Epub 2020 Sep 19.

36) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2021 Jun 8;118(23):e2024202118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2024202118.

37) Free Radic Res. 2023 Feb 1;1-9. doi: 10.1080/10715762.2023.2174021. Online ahead of print.

38) Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Jun 1;72(11):e736-e741. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1443.