Alex Henderson

During the final months of his life, the late conservative Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) wasn't shy about attacking U.S. President Donald Trump over his dealings with Russian President Vladimir Putin. McCain viewed Putin as a dangerous authoritarian and believed that Trump was allowing himself to be manipulated by the former KGB agent.

Rob Dannenberg, former chiefs of operations for the CIA Counterterrorism Center and an ex-CIA station chief in Moscow, during the 1990s, has similar views.

In an interview with the UK-based iPaper published on New Year's Day 2026, Dannenberg emphasized that Putin is great at identifying one's weaknesses and was trained to be a master of manipulation.

Dannenberg told the iPaper, "Those of us who served in Moscow understood Putin maybe a little bit better early on than others did…. I dealt with the KGB my entire life. I understand how this guy thinks."

Trump's ego, Dannenberg argues, is a vulnerability that Putin knows how to exploit —and Trump, the CIA veteran fears, is "incredibly naïve" where the Russian president is concerned.

Danneberg told the iPaper, "Putin looks at Trump and sees a weak guy, vain, with huge ego…. He's being manipulated in the way that a good case officer like Putin would manipulate this guy. He's not monogamous, he's greedy, he's fascinated by gold — all these are things that, if I were a case officer, I would be leveraging to get this guy to do what I want him to do. When that happens to align with Trump's ambition to get a Nobel Peace Prize, so much the easier, right? You're pushing on an open door."

Read the iPaper's full interview with Rob Dannenberg at this link.

After Donald Trump narrowly defeated then-Vice President Kamala Harris in the United States' 2024 presidential election, Democratic strategists spent months feeling demoralized. It was a close election — Trump won the national popular vote by roughly 1.5 percent — yet he made gains with Latinos, Generation Z, independents and swing voters and flipped six states that Joe Biden won in 2020: Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan, Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin.

Moreover, Republicans retook Congress' upper chamber when three Democratic U.S. senators — Pennsylvania's Bob Casey Jr., Ohio's Sherrod Brown and Montana's Jon Tester — were voted out of office.

But a series of elections in November and December went well for Democrats, including double-digit victories in gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia and landslides in three Pennsylvania Supreme Court retention elections. And Eileen Higgins became the first Democrat to win a mayoral race in Miami in 30 years.

In a listicle published on the last day of 2025, The Hill's Julia Mueller lays out five takeaways from these Democratic victories.

"This year's elections offered early signs of what to expect in next year's midterms," Mueller explains. "After much of the country shifted rightward last year, Democrats got a much-needed shot in the arm with a string of impressive victories. The elections have also underscored some of President Trump's weaknesses as his party looks to hold onto both chambers of Congress next year."

Mueller's takeaways are: (1) "Democrats find their momentum," (2) "Economy sends warning signs for GOP," (3) "Redistricting is major wild card," (4) "Democrats are still divided," and (5) "2028 primary is already underway."

"The economy was the top issue for voters throughout the 2025 elections, serving as a warning sign for Trump and the GOP ahead of the midterms," Mueller observes. "Democrats' most high-profile 2025 winners put affordability and economic concerns at the center of their campaigns, while the president is logging some of his lowest economic approval ratings ever, recent polls show. Amid steep tariffs, high prices and cost-of-living issues, some Republicans have also raised concerns about Trump's approach to the issue of affordability, which he's dismissed in recent weeks as a Democratic 'con job.'"

Mueller adds, "Though Trump has said he'd give the economy an 'A-plus-plus-plus-plus' mark, polls suggest many Americans give him a failing grade on the issue and think he's losing the battle against inflation."

Although the 2026 midterms are only a little over 10 months away, Democratic and GOP strategists are already thinking about the 2028 presidential race.

"Leading Democrats are asserting themselves on the national stage, from visits in key early voting states to cross-country book tours, as they eye potential bids to become the party's next standard-bearer," Mueller notes. "California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has emerged as an early frontrunner, alongside a number of his fellow Democratic governors…. On the GOP side, Vice President Vance is widely viewed as an heir apparent to Trump, who has said the Constitution is 'pretty clear' that he could not seek a third term, despite rumors that he was considering the possibility."

Mueller continues, "But growing fissures in the MAGA base raise questions about who might take the reins of the president's movement in 2028. A little less than three years out, the next presidential election could be anyone's game."

Read Julia Mueller's first listicle for The Hill at this link.

When President Donald Trump's MAGA cheerleaders appear on Fox News and Fox Business, they typically put on their best game faces and predict that Republicans will hold the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms. But during a Monday, appearance on MS NOW, conservative Republican Sarah Matthews (who served as deputy White House press secretary in the first Trump Administration and is now a vocal critic of the president) expressed confidence that Trump's "out of touch" messaging on the economy will help Democrats retake the House next year.

Matthews isn't the only one saying that GOP lawmakers could run into problems in 2026.

In a Bloomberg Government column published on Monday, Bloomberg News' Jonathan Tamari looks back on 2025 and cites some "winners and losers" in Congress.

The "winners," according to Tamari, include Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York), and outgoing MAGA Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia).

"John Thune (R-S.D.): The new Senate majority leader kept his conference largely united, confirmed Trump's nominees with little fuss — a tough task considering the baggage some carried — and did it while keeping his vow to preserve Senate traditions like the filibuster," Tamari explains. "He also built an improved relationship with the volatile president, avoiding blow ups after crossing him in the past. Look ahead: If Republicans lose the House next year but keep the Senate, Thune will become even more critical to the GOP as a bulwark in Congress."

Jeffries, Tamari adds, "set Democrats' shutdown strategy in motion and drove attention to health care, a Democratic sweet spot" — while Greene "dared to say out loud" things that other GOP lawmakers were afraid to say.

"The biggest test is whether Jeffries can win the House majority in 2026 and become speaker," Tamari observes. "He ends 2025 closer to that goal than he began it…. (Greene) helped force the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, got a moment on 'The View,' and even got engaged."

Meanwhile, the "losers" in Congress, according to Tamari, include Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana).

"Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.): The Senate minority leader, along with Jeffries, used the recent shutdown to strong political effect," Tamari writes. "But Schumer still carries the stain of a March fiasco when he entered a government funding fight with no plan and folded, sacrificing a rare moment of Democratic leverage. Party activists haven't trusted him since. Look ahead: If he can pull off a near-miracle and win back the Senate, Schumer will earn big plaudits. But as Democrats seek generational change, his long congressional career is likely nearing its end…. Republicans chafed when Johnson kept the House out of session for more than a month during the fall government shutdown, and 2025 ended in chaos as rank-and-file lawmakers overrode him with discharge petitions."

Tamari continues, "It got so bad Johnson had to declare he had, in fact, not lost control. It's never a good sign when a leader has to clarify that. Look ahead: It doesn't look much brighter. The GOP majority isn't going to get much bigger."

Read Jonathan Tamari's full Bloomberg Government column at this link (subscription required).

During a Monday morning appearance on MS NOW, conservative Republican Sarah Matthews — who served as deputy White House press secretary in the first Trump Administration but is now an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump — argued that liberal firebrand Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) is probably too progressive for Texas' 2026 U.S. Senate race. But she didn't think the seat was totally out of reach for Democrats with a more centrist nominee.

Texas remains a red state; Trump carried it by roughly 14 percent in 2024. Yet it's far from the reddest of the red states, and Matthews believes that Republicans have vulnerabilities there — some of which Dallas-based journalist Mike Lee (not to be confused with GOP senator from Utah) identifies in a Monday Politico Playbook column.

"Texas is still Trump country," Lee reports, "but the president's economic policies are starting to sting — and the fallout could hurt Republicans at the ballot box in 2026. Donald Trump took 56 percent of the vote in Texas when he won in 2024, improving his margins from both of his previous campaigns. Republicans also held onto their two-decade majority in the state legislature in the Lone Star State. But as 2025 closes out, polls show growing unrest within the Texas economy, and voters are beginning to blame Trump and Republicans for failing to produce results."

Texas is heavily Latino, and many Latinos voted for Trump there in 2024. But Lee notes that according to a UnidosUS survey of Latinos in November, two-thirds of the respondents were dissatisfied with his handling of the economy.

UnidosUS organizer Eric Holguín told Politico, "Right now, there's such a deep level of anger about what's happening."

Trump's immigration policies, according to Lee, are another liability for him in Texas.

"There are signs that Trump's signature policies are responsible for some of the malaise," Lee explains. "Trump's immigration raids may be hurting the broader Texas economy, according to the Dallas Federal Reserve. The raids have hit permanent residents and foreign students, and the fear has made foreign-born people more likely to miss work and less likely to visit shops and restaurants, the Fed's Texas Business Opportunity Survey said."

Lee adds, "About 13 percent of companies reported they were having a harder time finding and retaining workers, while only 2 percent said it was easier, the (UnidosUS) survey found. Hispanic Texans in the Rio Grande Valley were surprised to see ICE agents raiding local businesses, the AP reported back in July. Many of them voted for Trump and 'didn’t realize his deportation campaign would focus on their neighbors.'"

Read Mike Lee's full Politico Playbook column at this link.

After returning to the White House 11 months ago, President Donald Trump not only made a concerted effort to fill his administration, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI with MAGA loyalists — he also pushed for far-right judges to be confirmed for the lower federal courts.

But according to HuffPost reporter Jennnifer Bendery, Trump's push for MAGA-friendly federal judges is encountering a bump in the road: fewer retirements.

"President Donald Trump had a pretty good run in 2025 when it came to confirming judges," Bendery explains in an article published on December 29. "Republicans control the Senate and rubber-stamped most of his court picks, confirming a total of 25 lifetime federal judges. That's more than Trump got by this point in his first term (19), though not as many as former President Joe Biden (40). But the president was also hampered by a surprising new trend among sitting judges: They're not retiring when they're eligible to do so, and in effect, they've been denying Trump the ability to fill more vacancies with his picks."

Bendery notes that according to George Washington University law professor John Collins, only 30 court vacancies have been announced.

"Of those, 27 are on district courts and just three are on appeals courts — a more powerful tier of courts that often has the final say in federal lawsuits," Bendery observes. "Compare those numbers to the roughly 70 court vacancies that opened up during this same period in (former President Joe) Biden's first year in office — more than twice as many. Part of the reason there aren't as many vacancies to fill is because Trump and Biden both appointed huge numbers of judges over the last eight years, leaving a smaller pool of retirement-eligible judges."

Bendery adds, "But another reason is almost certainly that some judges simply don’t trust Trump to replace them with a qualified pick, given his record of putting far-right ideologues, loyalists and otherwise unqualified people onto the federal bench."

Collins told HuffPost that the judges deciding against retirement is "one of the biggest stories this year." And Russell Wheeler of the Brookings Institution told HuffPost, "It's really pretty striking: Judges, for one reason or another, aren't stepping away."

Read Jennifer Bendery's full HuffPost article at this link.

Although MAGA Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) is still serving in the U.S. House of Representatives, her days as a GOP lawmaker are coming to an end. Greene, in November, resigned from Congress to express her opposition to President Donald Trump's policies, and she's leaving on Monday, January 5, 2026 rather than serving out the rest of her term.

But unlike Trump's Democratic critics or Never Trump conservatives on the right, Greene is criticizing him from a MAGA standpoint — as she believes he has betrayed the America First agenda during his second term.

In an interview with the New York Times' Robert Draper published on December 29, Greene discussed her transition from an "absolute" Trump defender to an outspoken critic.

Recalling MAGA cries for revenge after the murder of Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk, Greene told Draper, "Our side has been trained by Donald Trump to never apologize and to never admit when you're wrong. You just keep pummeling your enemies, no matter what…. After Charlie died, I realized that I'm part of this toxic culture. I really started looking at my faith. I wanted to be more like Christ."

Greene told Draper that she became disenchanted with Trump for a range of reasons, from his support of artificial intelligence to tariffs she said were hurting small businesses in her district. But she was especially upset over his handling of U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) files on the late billionaire financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Greene told Draper, "The Epstein files represent everything wrong with Washington. Rich, powerful elites doing horrible things and getting away with it. And the women are the victims."

The outgoing congresswoman contends that her stand on the Epstein files was what alienated Trump more than anything.

"But it was Epstein," MTG told Draper. "Epstein was everything."

Read the full New York Times interview with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) at this link (subscription required).

Far-right Christian nationalists are feeling empowered during Donald Trump's second presidency. Idaho-based evangelical Christ Church, led by pastor Doug Wilson — who believes that women never should have been given the right to vote — is openly embraced by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. And Vice President JD Vance, speaking at Turning Point USA's recent AmericaFest 2025 convention in Phoenix, told the MAGA crowd that the United States "always will be a Christian nation."

Vance received an aggressive fact-check from MS NOW's Steve Benen, who attacked his statement as "offensive, ahistorical nonsense" and reminded him that President Thomas Jefferson described the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment as "a wall of separation between church and state" back in 1802.

But as much support as Christian nationalism is receiving within the MAGA movement, reporting by Axios' Russell Contreras describes a pattern of "unchurching" in the United States — with many Americans having either a secular outlook or embracing a milder version of Christianity.

"The U.S. is undergoing its fastest religious shift in modern history, marked by a rapid increase in the religiously unaffiliated and numerous church closures nationwide," Contreras explains in a post-Christmas article published on December 26. "Why it matters: The great unchurching of America comes as identity and reality are increasingly shaped by non-institutional spiritual sources — YouTube mystics, TikTok tarot, digital skeptics, folk saints and AI-generated prayer bots. It's a tectonic transformation that has profound implications for race, civic identity, political persuasion and the ability to govern a fracturing moral landscape."

Contreras continues, "By the numbers: Nearly three in 10 American adults today identify as religiously unaffiliated — a 33 percent jump since 2013, according to the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). That's quicker than almost any major religious shift in modern U.S. history, and it's happening across racial groups, an Axios analysis found…. The shift in religious activity also is leaving behind a trail of 'church graveyards,' or empty buildings that are now difficult to sell or have been abandoned."

The Axios reporter notes that according to Gallup, roughly 57 percent of Americans seldom or never attend religious services — an increase from 40 percent in 2000 — and that an "unprecedented 15,000 churches are expected to shut their doors this year" compared to only a "few thousand expected to open."

PRRI CEO Melissa Deckman told Axios that there is no evidence of a widespread religious revival.

"Despite anecdotal and media reports about Gen Z men returning to church," Contreras notes, "there's little evidence it's happening beyond scattered examples to reverse the overall decline, she said. The bottom line: The old religious map is disappearing."

Read Russell Contreras' full article for Axios at this link.

Although Donald Trump's victory in the United States' 2024 presidential election was far from the "landslide" he claims it was — he defeated Democratic nominee Kamala Harris by roughly 1.5 percent in the national popular vote — the now-president showed his political resilience. Trump was facing four criminal indictments, one of which found a jury convicting him on 34 felony counts. But he not only won the popular vote for the first time — he also made inroads with Latinos, Generation Z, independents, swing voters, and the tech industry.

Trump has ran for president four times, starting with a marginal Reform Party campaign in 2000. And 2024 was his most successful thanks in part, according to polls, to his heavy emphasis on the economy and inflation.

But the New York Times' Michelle Goldberg, in her December 26 column, argues that Trump is doing everything he can to sabotage his own presidency.

"It has been a gruesome year for those who see Donald Trump's kakistocracy clearly," Goldberg warns. "He returned to office newly emboldened, surrounded by obsequious tech barons, seemingly in command of not just the country, but also, the zeitgeist. Since then, it's been a parade of nightmares — armed men in balaclavas on the streets, migrants sent to a torture prison in El Salvador, corruption on a scale undreamed of by even the gaudiest third-world dictators and the shocking capitulation by many leaders in business, law, media and academia."

The liberal columnist adds, "Trying to wrap one's mind around the scale of civic destruction wrought in just 11 months stretches the limits of the imagination, like conceptualizing light-years or black holes. And yet, as 2025 limps toward its end, there are reasons to be hopeful."

Democrats were feeling demoralized after Harris' narrow loss. Yet Democrats have enjoyed some major victories in 2025 elections, from double-digit wins in gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey to three Democratic justices winning Pennsylvania Supreme Court retention elections. And Trump's approval ratings are weak in poll after poll.

Trump, Goldberg observes, "ends the year weak and unpopular" — and she argues that politically, he can be his own worst enemy.

"Much of the credit for the reinvigoration of the resistance belongs to Trump himself," Goldberg writes. "Had he focused his deportation campaign on criminals or refrained from injuring the economy with haphazard tariffs while mocking concerns about affordability, he would probably have remained a more formidable figure. He's still a supremely dangerous one, especially as he comes to feel increasingly cornered and aggrieved."

Michelle Goldberg's full New York Times column is available at this link (subscription required).

Donald Trump created the worst possible outcome for Jeffrey Epstein's victims, according to a columnist.

On Friday, December 16 — the deadline for compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act of 2025 — thousands of "unclassified" U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) files on billionaire financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were released. And more files were released two days later.

Many of the files, however, were heavily redacted. And quite a few legal analysts on CNN and MS NOW are expressing their frustration with DOJ and the Trump Administration's handling of the Epstein files, including MS NOW's Joyce White Vance. A former federal prosecutor for DOJ, Vance believes that the Trump-era DOJ is doing Epstein's victims a huge disservice.

Vance is not alone in that view.

In a biting op-ed published by the New York Times on Christmas Eve Day 2025, liberal journalist Molly Jong-Fast argues that DOJ and the Trump Administration have handled the Epstein files badly.

"As we try to find some cozy solace with our families for the holidays, the Department of Justice is starting to — as required by a law that it took an open political revolt by the MAGA base to enact — release the Epstein files," Jong-Fast explains. "It is doing so in what seems to be the most haphazard, obfuscatory and confusing a manner possible. As a result, we are not getting much closer to the truth about many of the fundamental facts of how Jeffrey Epstein ran his sex-trafficking ring, spun his favors and kept some of the most powerful men on the planet in his orbit."

Jong-Fast continues, "Oh, actually, we do know something of how the last part went: He facilitated their receiving the attentions of young women. Some of this was plainly illegal — sex trafficking and rape. Much of the rest of it fell into the legal gray zone of abusive or exploitative. In any case, we seem no closer to getting justice for the women who were the victims of this vast scheme."

The Gen-X journalist, known for her Vanity Fair and The Atlantic articles and frequent appearances on MS NOW, laments that the "release of the Epstein files was not supposed to be this way."

"The fight was to get them released, and then all would be revealed," Jong-Fast argues. "Instead, social media is filled with a bewildering number of documents — some real, many not — and photographs with celebrities and without context. The contents have clearly been selectively released by the Department of Justice, a lot of it highly redacted, revealing little but stirring up much…. The flood of files has created the worst possible outcome, an even more hyper-partisan blame game that is completely unfocused on justice for the victims."

Jong-Fast continues, "And the powerful men that Mr. Epstein cavorted with, who in turn seemed to provide him with so much? Why did many of his 10 possible conspirators have their names shielded? Are they being protected?"

Molly Jong-Fast's full op-ed for The New York Times is available at this link (subscription required).

Mike Johnson has been shameless in his attempts to play dumb in defense of Trump, according to one political analyst.

When MAGA Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) tried to oust Rep. Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) as House speaker in May 2024, she got a backlash not only from fellow Republicans, but also, from Democrats. The House voted 359-43 to keep Johnson as speaker, and many House Democrats — policy differences and all — helped save him from the fate that ousted ex-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-California) suffered.

But much has changed since then. Joe Biden is no longer president, Donald Trump has been back in the White House for 11 months, and Greene's argument that Trump has betrayed the America First agenda has made her persona non grata among his unwavering loyalists — one of whom is Johnson.

While Greene now criticizes Trump frequently — a major contrast to her relentless support of him in the past — Johnson defends him at every turn.

In an article headlined "Mike Johnson: The Man Who Knew Too Little" and published on Christmas Day 2025, The New Republic's Edith Olmsted examines the lengths the House speaker is going to in defense of Trump.

"The Man Who Knew Too Little" is a play on "The Man Who Knew Too Much," a thriller that director Alfred Hitchcock unveiled in 1934 before his famous 1956 remake with Doris Day and Jimmy Stewart.

Johnson, Olmsted laments, is "shamelessly purporting his own ignorance" and being forced to "pull political discourse away from reality" in defense of Trump.

"When all non-essential government services were suspended at the beginning of October," Olmsted observes, "that also seemed to include the House Speaker Mike Johnson's brain-processing power. But unlike the rest of the government, the Louisiana Republican has no intention of turning it back on…. There were several times when Johnson seemed to think he could get away with simply pretending not to read the news — specifically when it came to turning a blind eye to the abuses of Donald Trump's sweeping immigration crackdown."

Olmsted continues, "In late October, Johnson claimed he couldn't comment on a Presbyterian minister whom federal immigration agents shot in the face with a pepper ball during an anti-ICE protest near Chicago."

Johnson, according to Olmsted, goes out of his way to be evasive with reporters when asked about a Trump-related controversy.

"It's true that the breaking news cycle has grown increasingly overwhelming during Trump's first year since returning to office — apparently even for the president's happiest warriors," Olmsted observes. "But when it comes to being speaker of the House, that's no excuse for playing dumb. Johnson's 'See No Evil, Hear No Evil' approach to governance will only allow the president to continue to run amok in the New Year — if the speaker doesn't alienate his fellow Republicans into an all-out revolt first."

Read Edith Olmsted's full article for The New Republic at this link.

When President Donald Trump angrily attacked and ridiculed actor/director Rob Reiner right after his murder, the dominant reaction was outrage. USA Today columnist Rex Huppke, for example, argued that Trump reached a "new low" following a "decade of Trumpian loathsomeness." And some of Trump's critics described Trump's comments as evidence of his poor mental health.

Psychologist Mary Trump, the president's niece and a scathing critic of his politics, often argues that his behavior underscores his mental health issues. And she isn't the only one who is making that point.

In an article published on Christmas Eve Day, The Guardian's Adam Gabbatt examines Trump's first year back in the White House and his "erratic behavior."

"It's true that his second term has been unusual, including in some ways which the president might not appreciate," Gabbatt explains. "That's because Trump, 79, has shown erratic and at times confused behavior throughout 2025, leading to questions about his mental and physical performance. Trump has appeared to fall asleep during some meetings; amid others, he has drifted off-topic, launching into bizarre segues on interior decor or about whales and birds. His public appearances have lacked focus, and he has used speeches to ramble about how Barack Obama walks down stairs, or to invent stories about the Unabomber."

President Trump's "unpredictable behavior" in 2025, Gabbatt observes, "has forced the White House to repeatedly defend Trump's mental acuity, often in hyperbolic terms."

President Trump, for example, claimed that Ted Kaczynski, The Unabomber, was a student in a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) class taught by his uncle, John Trump. But Kaczynski never taught at MIT.

"Earlier this year," Gabbatt notes, "Trump mixed up Albania with Armenia when discussing a peace deal involving the latter…. In December alone, he declared Somali immigrants to be 'garbage' and, in a move that shocked even some Republicans, essentially blamed Rob Reiner for his own death…. Throughout the year, the White House has ferociously defended Trump against accusations he is in decline. Yet the questions about Trump, who will turn 80 in June, are unlikely to go away."

Read Adam Gabbatt's full article for The Guardian at this link.

Like Islam, Christianity is incredibly diverse, ranging from severe fundamentalists to people who are devout but have a more nuanced and complex view of their faith.

President Donald Trump is not a Christian fundamentalist; he was raised Presbyterian in Queens and comes from a Mainline Protestant background. But some of his most ardent supporters in the MAGA movement are white evangelical fundamentalists and far-right Christian nationalists, who embrace a much more severe form of Christianity than the Presbyterian churches Trump's mother, a Scottish immigrant, attended in Queens and Scotland.

Trump's Christian nationalist supporters have very strong views on scripture. But during an appearance on Mother Jones' "More to the Story" podcast posted on Christmas Eve Day 2025, author/religious scholar Dan McClellan stressed that New Testament scripture doesn't necessarily mean what Chrisitan nationalists claim it does.

McClellan, author of the book "The Bible Says So: What We Get Right (and Wrong) About Scripture's Most Controversial Issues," told host Al Letson, "The hot new thing right now is to be a Christian nationalist. And I think a lot of people are jumping at the opportunity to get on board this attempt to take over the government on the part of Christians. And unfortunately, it means hurting an awful lot of people along the way."

McClellan noted that Christian nationalists are demonizing the word "empathy" and railing against "the sin of empathy." Claiming that "empathy" is inherently bad, according to McClellan, is a distortion of scripture.

McClellan told Letson, "Those are the people who are overwhelmingly trying to defend precisely parochial empathy because they're trying to convince others it's bad for us to empathize with undocumented immigrants. It's bad for us to empathize with people from other nations. It's bad for us to empathize with either conservatives or liberals. I think empathy that is outward looking is good."

During the interview, McClellan emphasized that Christian nationalists are "interpreting" the Bible in a way that fits with their political worldview.

McClellan told Letson, "Like everywhere else in the gospels, Jesus says, 'You cannot serve God and mammon.' And Jesus says, 'Blessed are the poor.' And you can look in the sermon on the Mount and in Matthew 5, and it says, 'Blessed are the poor in spirit.' And so, people say, 'Aha. It doesn't say…. That's not about economic poverty, that's about humility.' But you can then go to the sermon on the plain in the Gospel of Luke and it just says, 'Blessed are the poor' — which very clearly is referring to economic poverty."

The author/scholar continued, "As I said before, the Bible is a text. It has no inherent meaning. We create meaning in negotiation with the text, which means we're bringing our experiences and our understanding to the text, and that's generating the meaning."

The full Mother Jones podcast is available at this link.