During his first term, President Donald Trump positioned international religious freedom as a key element of U.S. foreign policy, elevating the Office of International Religious Freedom within the State Department and appointing officials dedicated to the cause at the National Security Council (NSC) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The 2017 National Security Strategy underscored religious freedom as a priority, reflecting a bipartisan consensus that had long supported advancing human rights abroad.

However, the administration’s approach shifted markedly in its second term. The statutory annual reports on religious freedom required by law went unissued, funding for advocacy groups saw significant reductions, and the religious freedom office was relegated within the State Department hierarchy. The 2025 National Security Strategy expressed skepticism toward efforts aimed at fostering “social change” overseas, signaling a retreat from the human rights-focused diplomacy that had previously included religious freedom promotion. The NSC role was diminished, and USAID’s emphasis on religious freedom was substantially curtailed.

Some advocates have condemned these developments as a “betrayal” of religious freedom priorities. Yet, experts note that the erosion of support extends beyond the Trump administration, rooted in broader global shifts. Disillusionment with international institutions and an increased focus on hard national interests over idealistic foreign policy have contributed to declines in funding and attention across Western governments, including those in Europe.

This retreat reflects growing doubts about the ability of American power—both military and diplomatic—to effectively promote freedom and democracy. On the political left and right, skepticism has intensified. U.S. interventions in the Middle East, once cited as efforts to spread liberty, are now viewed by many as sources of instability. On the right, skepticism of human rights frameworks has grown alongside resistance to policies originally championed during the Obama administration, such as integrating LGBTQ rights into foreign policy. Some conservative advocates contend that the expansion of human rights agendas has made religious freedom seem partisan, complicating its bipartisan support.

The political climate surrounding immigration has further complicated matters. Historically seen as a refuge for the persecuted, the United States has long been associated with offering sanctuary to religious refugees. President Joe Biden recently reaffirmed this tradition, referencing Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany. In contrast, Trump has emphasized migration largely through the lens of national security and public safety, implementing strict limitations on refugee admissions. A September report by the Christian aid organization World Relief noted that in the past year, no individuals were resettled in the U.S. under refugee programs specifically for those fleeing religious persecution.

Religious freedom advocates face significant challenges if they are to regain traction within U.S. foreign policy. Experts suggest framing religious freedom not purely as a human rights issue but as integral to American heritage and national security could help build broader support. This approach would prioritize targeted initiatives over reliance on international frameworks.

In this context, Trump’s recent nominations, such as Cissie Graham Lynch as ambassador at large for international religious freedom and Bishop Robert Barron to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, mark a potential attempt to revitalize the agenda in a manner aligned with conservative values and American exceptionalism. Whether these appointments will reinvigorate U.S. leadership on religious freedom abroad remains to be seen.