At the bottom of the seventh page of the newly released draft report from the Presidential Religious Liberty Commission, a brief editorial note appears. It states that the document will be open for public comment for fifteen days. For advocates, critics, and ordinary citizens reading the 223-page blueprint, this ticking clock presents an immediate strategic dilemma.
Is it a good idea to publicly comment on a document that aims to redefine the boundary between church and state? This article examines the stakes of participating in the public comment period for a commission tasked with prioritizing religious expression in public life. Submitting feedback requires bypassing broad ideological complaints and targeting exact policy recommendations, such as the proposed Equal Treatment Rule or the reinterpretation of the Establishment Clause.
Background and Context
President Donald J. Trump established the Religious Liberty Commission via Executive Order 14291 on May 1, 2025. Chaired by Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, the commission’s stated purpose is to produce a comprehensive report on the foundations of religious liberty and identify strategies to protect it. The resulting draft report relies on testimony from over 100 witnesses claiming their religious freedoms were violated in schools, hospitals, the military, and the private sector. The document targets the mid-twentieth century Supreme Court interpretation of the “wall of separation between church and state,” labeling it an “ahistorical generalization”. The commission recommends rolling back these interpretations to allow greater religious expression in government-run institutions.
The Strategy of Engagement
The choice to engage with the comment period presents competing theories of civic action. Some civil rights advocates suggest that submitting comments merely legitimizes a predetermined outcome. The commission’s makeup features religious leaders and legal experts closely aligned with a rigid ideological framework. This composition suggests the final report will likely not change its core thesis. Submitting comments creates a permanent administrative record. Should the commission’s recommendations lead to binding executive actions or legislation—such as the proposed repeal of the Johnson Amendment or the creation of a Parental Rights Task Force’a strong record of opposition or requested clarification becomes legally useful for future litigation.
Key Conflicts and Specific Feedback
The primary conflict for commenters is resisting the urge to write sweeping moral arguments. The report makes 12 key recommendations, ranging from creating a “Presidential Medal of Religious Liberty” to initiating Department of Justice litigation against public schools. Effective public comments must challenge the exact mechanics of these proposals.
-
Federal Funding & Faith-Based Institutions: Request exact details on the proposed “Equal Treatment Rule”. Ask how the government will prevent publicly funded discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals or religious minorities if faith-based groups receive federal grants without modifying their religious practices.
-
Healthcare Conscience Protections: Demand exact definitions of the medical emergencies that would override a practitioner’s refusal to provide care based on religious objections. The report pushes for the Conscience Protection Act.
-
K-12 Education: Challenge the recommendation to establish “expedited timelines” for Title VI enforcement against religious discrimination. Ask how this applies to students targeted by the proposed religious curricula.
Broader Implications
The draft report signals a profound shift in American governance. By framing religious liberty as a public good that the state must actively accommodate and fund, particularly in education through universal school choice, the administration is attempting to dismantle decades of secular administrative state precedent. The public comments submitted will serve as the first draft of the opposition’s legal strategy for the coming decade.
Closing Thoughts
The fifteen-day window will close quickly. The comments submitted may not alter the commission’s immediate conclusions. They do anchor a necessary historical and legal counterweight. The boundary between church and state is being redrawn. Silence leaves the new borders entirely uncontested.
My response:
July 11, 2026
To the Members of the Presidential Religious Liberty Commission:
I am writing to formally submit my comments and outline several pressing legal concerns regarding the draft report, “Americans’ First Freedom.” While the Commission’s dedication to preserving the First Amendment is evident, the proposed recommendations raise significant constitutional issues, particularly regarding the delicate balance between the Establishment Clause and general free speech limitations.
The report advocates for a sweeping reinterpretation of the separation of church and state, specifically targeting policies that prevent government-funded institutions from imposing religious doctrines on the broader public. While protecting the internal, faithful mission of religious organizations is a bedrock constitutional principle, we must be highly cautious of how the Commission’s proposals might inadvertently expand free speech restrictions in the public square.
By recommending that institutions receiving federal funding operate with expansive exemptions from established civil rights, healthcare, and educational standards, the state risks effectively deputizing private religious enforcement. This creates a fraught legal environment where the free speech and conscience rights of dissenting citizens, employees, and students could be severely restricted under the guise of an institution’s overarching religious liberty. True religious freedom ensures the government does not silence individuals, but it cannot be weaponized to silence others in publicly funded arenas.
Furthermore, the recommendation to repeal the Johnson Amendment fundamentally alters the statutory nature of tax-exempt entities. Removing this restriction does not merely protect the pulpit; it risks transforming houses of worship into unregulated conduits for partisan political campaigns. This policy shift would heavily entangle the state’s tax apparatus with religious and political speech, blurring the lines of government endorsement.
Our constitutional framework relies on a vital, historical balance. It absolutely guarantees that the state will not suppress individual religious exercise, but it equally demands that the government does not establish, fund, or coerce religious orthodoxy. I strongly urge the Commission to reconsider and revise its recommendations to ensure that efforts to protect religious liberty do not inadvertently foster state-sanctioned free speech restrictions for the broader American public.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Peabody, Esq.
Los Angeles, California