Bill Donohue

July 29, 2025

Religious liberty in the federal workplace has long been guaranteed in law, but too often violated in practice. Accordingly, the Trump administration’s Office of Personnel Management has issued guidelines that seek to ensure that the law is followed.

Federal employees, the guidelines say, “may express their religious beliefs through prayer, personal items, group gatherings, and conversations without fear of discrimination or retaliation.”

How common is religious discrimination in the workplace? A study by Rice University released in 2022 found that two-thirds of Muslims, half of Jews and a third of evangelical Christians reported being discriminated against at work. These figures include the private, as well as the public, workplace.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees religious liberty for all Americans; a 2007 circuit court decision affirmed this right for federal employees. Subsequently, the Supreme Court has said that the free exercise of religion extends beyond the right “to harbor religious beliefs inwardly and secretly”—it includes “the ability of those who hold religious beliefs of all kinds to live out their faiths in daily life.”

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is frequently invoked by secularists to advance their causes. What is not often mentioned is that a 2015 Supreme Court decision, EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., said “Title VII does not demand mere neutrality with regard to religious practice—that they be treated no worse than other practices.” It insisted that it “gives them favored treatment.” This means, the high court said, that employees cannot be disciplined for “religious observance and practice.”

The Trump directive is aimed at federal employees who want to display a religious symbol, artwork, book, jewelry, and the like, in the workplace. It also protects those who want to engage in conversations about religion, including attempts to “persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views, providing that such efforts are not harassing in nature.” That caveat is important—religious dialogue is protected, not harassment.

Already, those who have a record of opposing the free expression of religion are sounding the alarms over the Trump guidelines.

Freedom From Religion Foundation, an extremist atheist entity, is worried about “proselytizing” in the workplace. Similarly, Mikey Weinstein, the militant secularist who heads the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, is going ballistic.

Their fears are contrived and unfounded. To “proselytize” is to “induce someone to convert to one’s faith or to recruit someone to join one’s cause or group.” Are they against that?

In other words, it is speech that seeks to change the mind of others, whether it be religious or secular in nature. That’s called free speech. Can it be abused? Of course. No right is absolute. In those instances when speech becomes so aggressive and disrespectful of the rights of others—when it crosses the line into intimidation—such examples are not covered. However, religious speech that does not cross the line is not only protected, it is, as the Supreme Court notes, entitled to “favored treatment.”

The Biden administration was the most hostile to religious liberty of any presidential administration in American history. By contrast, no one has championed religious liberty more than Trump.

The guidelines for religious liberty in the federal workplace are a splendid example of what happens when the friends of religious liberty triumph over its foes.

Bill Donohue

July 28, 2025

On July 22, an Interim Staff Report on President Biden’s FBI Catholic spy ring was released by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan. Thanks to Kash Patel, the current FBI director, some of the information is new. When pieced together what we already knew, the picture that emerges is one of an FBI that went off the rails. Christopher Wray, who led the FBI under Biden, bears much of the blame.

The FBI was focused on “radical-traditionalist Catholics.” Who are these people? According to the FBI’s own internal review of this matter, “investigators found that many FBI employees could not even define the meaning of ‘radical-traditionalist Catholic’ when preparing, editing, or reviewing” the Richmond Field office memorandum that authorized the probe.

In other words, the FBI decided that these Catholics were a problem, even though they were unable to explain who they are. FBI agents were convinced that the so-called rad-trads were “linked” to “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists.” What made them think this way is still a mystery, but we know they found nothing. That’s because there is no record of very conservative Catholics linking up with violent thugs. Indeed, on this basis alone there was no reason to investigate them.

This didn’t stop some FBI operatives from categorizing “certain Catholic Americans as potential domestic terrorists.” They came to this absurd conclusion based on articles their employees read. “How Extremist Gun Culture is Trying to Co-opt the Rosary” is one of the gems they named as evidence of the nefarious agenda of “rad-trad” Catholics.

If there is one Catholic group that the FBI thought was emblematic of very conservative Catholics, it is the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). This was not a good choice—they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. This is a break-away association of Catholics founded in 1970 who were upset with the reforms of Vatican II in the 1960s. They were once excommunicated, then reinstated, but are still one step removed from being an authentic part of the Catholic Church.

I have been saying all along that the FBI’s focus on SSPX and the “rad-trads” is a ruse. Quite frankly, this was a pretext to opening the door to a much wider investigation of practicing Catholics, most of whom tend to be more conservative than non-practicing Catholics. The evidence is conclusive.

The latest report shows that the FBI proposed a probe of ‘mainline parishes.” It says that “FBI employees believed without evidence that mainstream Catholic churches could serve as a pipeline to violent extremist behavior.” Without evidence! Also, “The FBI seems to have considered Catholic churches as a potential hot spot for radicalization and viewed investigating Catholic churches as an ‘opportunity.’” Exactly.

As an example of this mad search for wrongdoing, the FBI investigated Catholics who evinced “hostility toward abortion-rights advocates.” In other words, Catholic activists who exercised fidelity to Church teachings on abortion—they are called pro-life Catholics—were considered a domestic threat by the FBI. Similarly, those who espoused “Conservative family values/roles” were labeled “radical.”

This tells us all we need to know about the politicization of the FBI under Biden. It also tells us something else: it was not dissident Catholics the FBI was concerned about, it was the loyal sons and daughters of the Church. How strange it is to note that at least some dissident Catholics, and some FBI agents, were both seeking to subvert the Catholic Church. This may not have been coordinated, but the outcome is nonetheless disturbing.

It is not just the profile of Catholics whom the FBI was examining that was a problem—it was the scope of its investigations. It started in Richmond, then spread to Louisville, Milwaukee and Portland. Its reach even extended overseas—the FBI’s London Office was involved. This is hardly surprising given that we already knew the FBI further proposed “to infiltrate Catholic churches as a form of ‘threat mitigation.’” The goal was to have a “national application” of its investigatory measures.

This was not a mistake. It was a well-planned effort to intimidate and harass practicing Catholics. The Committee and Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government determined in the last Congress that “there was no legitimate basis for the memorandum to insert federal law enforcement into Catholic houses of worship.” That says it all.

Under Biden, the FBI was looking for dirt on Catholics, especially those who are pro-life and hold to traditional moral values. This was one of the most despicable violations of the civil liberties of innocent Americans conducted by the federal government in modern times. That it took place in an administration run by a “devout Catholic” makes it all the more outrageous.

We are thankful to Rep. Jim Jordan for all the good work that he, his committee, and his staff have done.

The “Catholic League Brief” provides short video overviews of contemporary issues helping Catholics take a stand on these important cultural markers. Catholic League Director of Communications Mike McDonald and policy analyst Sean Leigh re-visit the controversy surrounding a radical Georgetown University professor by examining how the Jesuit school publicly proclaims its great interest in human rights and social justice while one of its major funders has an atrocious record on this matter. To watch, click here.

Bill Donohue

July 24, 2025

We recently issued two statements on what is happening at Georgetown University: “Georgetown’s Muslim Problem” and “Why Georgetown Has a Muslim Problem.” We concluded that its astounding tolerance for anti-Semitism is not unrelated to its being greased by Qatar to the tune of over $1 billion. Yet this Jesuit school publicly proclaims a great interest in human rights and social justice. Qatar’s record on this score, however, is atrocious.

Here is what Georgetown has to say about human rights.

Georgetown Law Human Rights Institute is the “focal point of human rights at Georgetown Law.” It aims to be the “premier training academy for the next generation of human rights advocates.” Law students can also avail themselves of the university’s Human Rights Associates Program. Students are introduced to “the breadth of human rights law and practice,” allowing them to “navigate academic and career choices.”

There is a special organization, The O’Neill Institute, Center for Health and Human Rights, that “focuses on the nexus of health and national and international human rights law.” There is also an annual meeting, the Samuel Dash Human Rights Conference, that “brings together leading figures in the human rights field to discuss and debate a current human rights issue.”

A look at the Georgetown course catalog reveals 39 classes on human rights for the fall semester of 2025. In addition, there are four student organizations dedicated to human rights. Moreover, Georgetown University Press lists 57 books on the subject of human rights.

Here is what Georgetown has to say about social justice.

The Center for Social Justice Research has many goals, among them being the development of “curricular offerings that incorporate social justice issues.” The Pathways to Social Justice Curriculum is one of the vehicles that Georgetown uses to accomplish this end. The Alternative Breaks Program is designed to “foster intersectional solidarity and inspire lasting commitment to service and social justice.”

The Education and Social Justice Project is a fellowship that allows students “to conduct in-depth examinations of innovative educational initiatives.” The Center for Social Justice Faculty Fellows Program is an inter-departmental effort that seeks to highlight the work of faculty in this area.

There are 47 student organizations dedicated to social justice. Annually, there is a Social Justice Send-Off commencement event that “celebrates students who have engaged in social justice work and public/community service work.”

The list of human rights and social justice initiatives is striking. Just as striking are the human rights and social justice abuses currently being practiced by one of its most generous donors, the nation of Qatar.

The U.S. Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in 2023 has much to say about Qatar. Among the list of human rights abuses are the following:

• Arbitrary arrest
• Political prisoners
• Serious restrictions on free expression
• Substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association

The report notes that “Citizens did not regularly discuss sensitive political and religious matters in public fora, but they did so in private and carefully on social media. The law prohibited criticism of the emir.”

The government has the right to censor the media and “close outlets and confiscate assets of a publication.” Conveniently, all print media are owned by the ruling family or those closely associated with it.

The State Department’s 2023 Report on International Religious Freedom says that “Conversion to another religion from Islam is defined as apostasy and is illegal.” Also, those found guilty of offending or misinterpreting the Quran can be imprisoned for up to seven years. This includes insulting the prophets or committing blasphemy against Islam.

Catholics, and other non-Muslims, are prohibited from “displaying religious symbols, which includes banning Christian congregations from advertising religious services or placing crosses outdoors where they are visible to the public.” All religious publications are subject to censorship.

Such is the state of human rights in Qatar today.

Apparently, none of this matters to Georgetown. It talks a great game when it comes to human rights and social justice, but it is deadly silent on these abuses as practiced by one of its most prominent benefactors. How a university that professes to be Catholic—with a big emphasis on its Jesuit roots—can live with itself under these circumstances is disturbing, to say the least.

It is also disturbing to note that while Georgetown has pledged to raise $100 million for the descendants of the 272 enslaved people that the Jesuits sold in 1838, it has had no problem employing Jonathan Brown, the anti-Semitic professor who has justified slavery and rape (as long as the offenders are Muslims).

Georgetown’s Center for the Study of Slavery and its Legacies should investigate this phenomenon. It is a classic case of what psychologist Leon Festinger called “cognitive dissonance,” the uncomfortable condition that exists when experiencing two internal inconsistencies.

Also, the alumni need to take the lead in resolving this situation. The governing boards, the administration and the faculty have shown themselves to be morally delinquent and guilty of rank duplicity.

Contact Georgetown’s interim president, Robert Groves: presidentsoffice@georgetown.edu

The “Catholic League Brief” provides short video overviews of contemporary issues helping Catholics take a stand on these important cultural markers. Catholic League Director of Communications Mike McDonald and policy analyst Sean Leigh re-visit the controversy surrounding a radical Georgetown University professor by taking a look at the financial contributions the university has received from pro-Muslim governments. To watch, click here.

Bill Donohue

July 22, 2025

Every survey over the past few decades shows that the Democratic Party is overrepresented by secularists, many of whom are anti-religion, especially anti-Christian. That is why its leaders are attracted to someone who might be able to resonate with Christians, yet appeal to their base. They think they have found one in James Talarico.

Rep. Talarico serves in the Texas legislature, and after a lengthy interview with podcast superstar Joe Rogan, he is the talk of the town in Democratic circles. “You need to run for president,” Rogan said. The 36-year-old might just do that, but now he is contemplating a run for the U.S. Senate.

Two years ago, Talarico caught the eye of Politico, the influential news website. The title of the article tells why: “James Talarico is a Deeply Religious Democrat Who Just Might Be the Next Big Thing in Texas.”

It is not every day that Politico finds someone who is “uniquely positioned to actually be the Democrat who wins statewide.” An “aspiring preacher,” he has been attending the Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary; he is in the Masters of Divinity program.

All of this is music to the ears of Democrats looking for someone other than a socialist to save them. But the more we know about him, the more the music sounds discordant.

As it turns out, Talarico is a die-hard secularist dressed in religious garb. In many ways, he is just like that “devout Catholic,” Joe Biden, only worse—he is a preacher man.

Talarico’s mentor is Rev. Jim Rigby. His pastor not only supports the whole panoply of gay rights, he loves ordaining gay and lesbian clergy. When Talarico was invited to give his first sermon in Rigby’s church in 2023, he chose to discuss abortion. He asked the parishioners, “Did they teach you in Sunday school that Jesus Christ himself was a radical feminist?”

In 2022, Talarico wrote to Biden asking him to issue three executive orders: 1) lease federal property to abortion clinics on federal lands or in federal offices 2) prohibit states from imposing restrictions on abortion medication through the Food and Drug Administration, and 3) hire abortion providers as federal employees. It is for reasons like this that in 2019 Texas Right to Life awarded him a score of 0%.

To an increasing number of Americans, allowing minors to undergo sex-reassignment surgery is child abuse. Allowing boys and men to compete against girls and women, and to shower together, is considered unjust.  But not to Talarico—he’s all in. Indeed, he tells his fans that those who oppose genital mutilation, chemical castration and puberty blockers are  “pushing us to waste time on these culture war issues.” He accuses his critics of wanting to “hurt trans kids.”

Talarico is so far gone that he actually believes there are sexes beyond male and female. He told one of his colleagues, “In fact, there are six.” He did not have a name for these creatures or share pictures of them. He should also be asked to explain why he chose six and not seven.

The “aspiring preacher” wants to ban the display of the Ten Commandments in the schools, but not “sexually explicit materials.”

When a bill to mandate the display of the Ten Commandments surfaced in the Texas legislature, Talarico, who explicitly called himself a “devout Christian,” said it was “deeply un-Christian.” He even branded it “idolatrous” and “un-American.” But some were ecstatic about what he said. Barack Obama advisor David Axelrod and California Governor Gavin Newsom were blown away, casting him as their new savior.

Talarico says he wants to help the poor, but his policies suggest he wants to keep them in their place. He strongly opposes school choice measures, calling them “welfare for the wealthy.” But it is the poor, not the wealthy, who cannot afford to place their children in a private or parochial school. No matter, he wants to consign them to failing public schools.

Perversely, Talarico is actually an advocate of “welfare for the wealthy.” He places no income limit on giving away a whole range of services. He supports medical debt forgiveness, baby bonds, subsidized marriage counseling, and what he calls “Medicaid for Y’All.”

Given his passion for radical transgenderism and abortion, it is hardly surprising to learn that he has won the endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign and Planned Parenthood. He’s their kind of guy.

Obama and Biden both said they believed in religious liberty. Obama declared war on the Little Sisters of the Poor and Biden’s FBI spied on Catholics. Talarcio is cut from the same cloth.

If he is regarded as a “deeply religious Democrat,” we’d hate to meet those who aren’t.

Contact: james.talarico@house.texas.gov

Bill Donohue

July 21, 2025

On July 17, we issued a news release, “Georgetown’s Muslim Problem,” that addressed the legacy of one of its professors, Jonathan Brown. To say he has an animus against Jews and Israel would be a gross understatement: he exhibits a greater affinity to Hamas than to Catholicism.

Our response came two days after Brown drew the ire of a congressional committee. The interim president, Robert Groves, took the heat. He told the panel that after it was revealed last month that Brown expressed hope that Iran would bomb U.S. military bases in the Middle East, he was relieved from his post as chairman of the university’s department of Arabic and Islamic studies; he is currently on leave, pending an investigation.

Brown may be the most conspicuous anti-Jewish professor at Georgetown, but he is hardly alone. Mobashra Tazamal also teaches there and his specialty is “Islamophobia.” He is known for comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. Nothing phobic about that—it’s simply a malicious lie.

To understand why Georgetown has a Muslim problem, all we need do is follow the money.

In 1977, Libya bought an endowed chair for $750,000. This was done under the auspices of Muammar Gaddafi, the brutal dictator and ally of the Soviet Union. In 2005, Saudi Arabia gave $20 million to establish a Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. It is known for banning Christianity and oppressing women, two issues that are a flagrant violation of the mission of this Jesuit-run institution. But this is chicken feed compared to what Qatar has given.

The Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy recently issued a lengthy report that is eye-opening. “Foreign Infiltration: Georgetown University, Qatar, and the Muslim Brotherhood.” It documents the incestuous relationship between the government and the university. To be exact, “it lays bare how Qatari money is systematically used to buy influence, compromise academic integrity, and embed Islamist ideologies at the heart of American education.”

Qatar has greased Georgetown to the tune of over $1 billion. These include funds to operate Georgetown’s Qatar campus. This has real-life consequences: everything from research to faculty hiring and curriculum development reflect the priorities of the Qatari regime. As a result, the report concludes that this is a campus where censorship is extant and academic freedom is severely compromised.

Georgetown professes to be a school that prizes liberty and equality, so why didn’t anyone object to the establishment of a Georgetown campus in Doha? Actually, some did. The Georgetown Voice registered a complaint in 2018. But this is a student newspaper and the administration and faculty simply ignored their plea to close the Qatar campus. Money talks.

It is not just at the Qatar campus where free speech is squashed. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) monitors free speech at American colleges and universities. In its 2025 report on 251 institutes of higher education, Georgetown ranked near the bottom; it was number 240. The majority of its students say they self-censor at least once or twice a month. This is no doubt due to many factors, but surely the Islamic connection is one of them.

At the D.C. campus, Brown was a beneficiary of Qatar generosity. The regime funded a post he occupied, the Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization in the School of Foreign Service. But the real damage done by the Qatar-Georgetown nexus is not Brown’s chairmanship—it is the damage done by those who graduate from the university’s School of Foreign Service.

The report does not exaggerate when it says that this school “has produced more U.S. diplomats and ambassadors than any other institute. Many alumni have been shaped by ideologically slanted curricula and faculty with close ties to foreign leaders. These graduates go on to shape policy—often in ways aligned with the worldview of their financial backers.”

In short, Georgetown’s Muslim problem is a direct result of being bought by those whose values are about as anti-American and anti-Catholic as it gets. We will have more to say about this subject in due course.

The “Catholic League Brief” provides short video overviews of contemporary issues helping Catholics take a stand on these important cultural markers. This week, Catholic League Director of Communications Mike McDonald and policy analyst Sean Leigh examine the fallout from social media posts of a radical Georgetown professor. To watch, click here.

The “Catholic League Brief” provides short video overviews of contemporary issues helping Catholics take a stand on these important cultural markers. This week, Catholic League Director of Communications Mike McDonald and policy analyst Sean Leigh discuss a rule change at the IRS that gives greater freedom to churches to discuss the intersection of faith and politics. To watch, click here.

Bill Donohue

July 17, 2025

Georgetown University, which identifies as Catholic, has a Muslim problem. There is nothing new about this, but now that it is front and center, it can no longer be ignored.

On July 15, Robert Groves, the interim president of Georgetown, testified before the House Committee on Education and Workplace. He told the panel that one of his tenured professors, Jonathan Brown, is no longer chairman of the university’s department of Arabic and Islamic studies.

Brown, who is a convert to Islam, is stridently anti-Jewish, and he is quite open about it. He also defends slavery and rape. I wrote about this in my 2019 book, Common Sense Catholicism. I will address his enthusiasm for slavery shortly, but the reason why Groves was grilled by the congressional committee has to do with an X post that Brown made last month.

Iran is the primary source of terrorism in the Middle East, and a potential nuclear threat to Israel and the U.S. It was due to the escalating attacks on Israel that the U.S. bombed Iranian nuclear facilities in June. Brown, who holds an endowed chair at Georgetown, responded by saying Iran should attack U.S. military bases in the Middle East. “I am not an expert, but I assume Iran could still get a bomb easily. I hope Iran does some symbolic strike on a base, then everyone stops.”

The Georgetown interim president told federal lawmakers that “Within minutes of our learning of that tweet, the dean contacted Professor Brown. The tweet was removed. We issued a statement condemning the tweet. Professor Brown is no longer chair of his department. He’s on leave, and we’re beginning a process of reviewing the case.”

Brown’s hatred of the Jewish state was made plain after Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023. In an unprovoked barrage, the Iranian-backed terrorists killed 1,200 men, women and children, leaving 3,000 injured. Brown, the son-in-law of convicted terrorist supporter Sami Al-Arian, defended Hamas. More than that, he said, “Israel has been engaged in a genocidal project for decades.”

This is vintage Brown. He is such an extremist that he claims Israel has a Nazi-like history. “Israel will go down in history as a country whose main claims to fame are genocide, racial fanaticism on the level of the Third Reich and religious fanaticism that makes ISIS look mellow.”

Similarly, Brown wonders why so many Jews have “embraced genocide as a core tenet.” Indeed, he contends that this is “an inalienable part of their faith.” Just as obscene, he portrays the Israeli army as evil, saying it is “objectively the most effective child-killing machine in modern history.”

That any professor would tell such an outrageous lie is mindboggling. That it is said by a professor at one of the nation’s most prestigious Catholic universities is all the more astounding.

Georgetown has known for years that Brown is a radical activist, not a scholar. As I previously documented, he has publicly maintained that slavery is okay, provided it is grounded in Islam. In 2017, he spoke at the Institute for Islamic Thought. He informed the crowd that “there is no such thing as slavery in Islam until you realize that there is no such thing as slavery.” This was not a throw-away line.

In a classic expression of moral relativism, Brown contended that “Slavery cannot just be treated as a moral evil in and of itself.” In fact, he flatly said, “I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody because we own lots of people all around us.” As I said when I first read this, “He did not say whom he owns, though it if he does, he should be reported to the police.”

Perhaps Brown feels guilty about the fact that his hero, Muhammad, was a slaveowner. During the Q&A that followed his talk, he said the following about the Islamic prophet: “He had slaves, there is no denying that.” But so what? Brown quickly berated the audience, saying, “Are you more morally mature than the prophet of God? No, you’re not.”

It should not come as a surprise that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is standing by their man, even after Brown’s admission that he hopes Iran strikes U.S. military installations. In 2014, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) designated CAIR a terrorist organization. And on July 15, Rep. Elise Stefanik said that CAIR was a co-conspirator in a terrorist-financing case and has ties to Hamas.

In a letter to Groves, CAIR pleaded its case for Brown.

“We urge Georgetown University to immediately cease any investigation or disciplinary action related to Dr. Brown’s tweet. Instead, the university should affirm its commitment to protecting academic freedom, resisting political intimidation, and standing with faculty members who have dedicated their careers to the pursuit of knowledge, justice, and dialogue. Dr. Brown should be fully reinstated as chair and no further action should be taken against him.”

I wrote to Groves as well, but my recommendation is very different from the one CAIR made.

Contact Robert Groves: presidentsoffice@georgetown.edu