U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) was elected speaker of the House of Representatives yesterday. Many reporters are focusing on his role as a 2020 election denier, but that’s just the beginning: Johnson holds many alarming views.
Johnson, a former attorney for the Christian Nationalist legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), is anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-reproductive freedom. He peddles misinformation about separation of church and state.
Yesterday afternoon, several AU staff members spent some time digging into Johnson’s record. Here are some things we found:
Johnson parrots Christian Nationalist views on separation of church and state: In a Facebook post, Johnson wrongly claimed that Thomas Jefferson didn’t really support church-state separation. “Jefferson clearly did not mean that metaphorical ‘wall’ was to keep religion from influencing issues of civil government,” Johnson wrote. “To the contrary, it was meant to keep the federal government from impeding the religious practice of citizens. The Founders wanted to protect the church from an encroaching state, not the other way around.”
During a 2022 podcast, Johnson claimed that America is the only country in the world founded upon a “religious statement of faith” – a claim that’s demonstrably false.
Johnson regularly posts Bible verses and other religious content on his official Facebook page. He’s closely aligned with creationist Ken Ham and backed Ham’s raid on taxpayer funds to build his evangelistic Ark Park in Kentucky. He has also praised the notorious “Christian nation” fake “historian” David Barton, calling him “a profound influence on me and my work and my life and everything I do.”
Johnson has promoted evangelical Christianity in public schools: In 2002, Johnson advocated for a Bible course created by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools that was offered in eight Louisiana parishes. The course, which was widely panned by legitimate scholars of the Bible, was heavily skewed toward Protestant evangelical Christianity, treated “the Bible as an accurate record of history,” and was a “thinly veiled” attempt to push Christianity in public schools. Johnson told the media that the “Supreme Court did not say you have to discuss everybody’s view on the Bible.” Requiring that public schools treat all religious traditions equally, Johnson said, is “the height of political correctness.”
Johnson believes courthouses should be able to display religious symbols: In 2008, Johnson defended the display of a portrait of Jesus in a Slidell, La., courthouse, arguing that its purpose was to “use art to emphasize the importance of following the law in order to have a peaceful society.” He said that the Jesus painting “clearly delivers an inclusive message of equal justice under law. The ideas expressed in this painting aren’t specific to any one faith, and they certainly don’t establish a single state religion.”
Johnson says houses of worship should be able to intervene in partisan elections: At the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit in 2017, Johnson backed weakening or repealing a provision in federal law that bars tax-exempt, non-profit groups, including houses of worship, from intervening in elections by endorsing or opposing candidates.
“We need to unshackle the voice of the church again,” said Johnson, who claimed the law silences and censors houses of worship. He said changing the law “could be a game changer.”
Johnson was a lead co-sponsor, with U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), of the Free Speech and Fairness Act in 2017 to repeal the law. When ADF openly called on preachers to defy the law in 2008, Johnson told WND the goal really is to “take the muzzle off” Christian churches. “We’re reminding them that they have the right to openly discuss the positions of political candidates, and we’re going to be there for them if there’s a challenge,” he said. “There’s a very aggressive campaign to unlawfully silence the church,” he said.
Johnson has a long record of attacking LGBTQ+ rights: Johnson defended Louisiana’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples, the Louisiana Marriage Protection Amendment, in court. In 2015, as state legislator in Louisiana, Johnson introduced a First Amendment Defense Act-style bill (HB 707) that would have created a broad religious exemption to license discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation/gender identity.
In 2003, he wrote an op-ed criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated state laws making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in sexual activity. He called the decision a blow to “fundamental American values and a millennia of moral teaching” and said, “proscriptions against sodomy have deep roots in religion, politics, and law.”
In a 2004 op-ed, Johnson called for amending Louisiana’s Constitution to ban marriage equality. He asserted that “the extremists who seek to redefine marriage also want to deny you the right to object to immoral behavior. Our precious religious freedom hangs in the balance.” He continued: “God loves every sinner, but we model true compassion when we remain ‘pro-traditional marriage’ and conscientiously opposed to all deviations from it. This follows common sense and five millennia of moral teaching.” He called homosexuality an “inherently unnatural” and “dangerous lifestyle” that would lead to legalized pedophilia and possibly even destroy “the entire democratic system.”
Johnson has long worked to make abortion illegal and curtail access to birth control: While at ADF, Johnson wrote a letter to shut down an abortion clinic. In 2012, Johnson represented Louisiana College in its challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage requirement. “This mandate,” he said, “offers no choice; Americans either comply and abandon their convictions or resist and be punished.”
He was co-counsel representing the state of Louisiana to defend a law (Act 620) that would have prevented doctors from providing abortion services in the state unless they secured admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where they provide abortion care. This law was designed to close clinics and undermine access to abortion. As a member of the House, he has cosponsored several bills that would ban abortion nationwide.
This is your new House speaker, America. Buckle up because it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Photo: House Republicans surround U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson (center). By Alex Wong/Getty Images
by Alan Chen
New York Governor Kathy Hochul has signaled her intention to opt the state into a new federal private school voucher program.
Passed as part of President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act in July 2025, the federal voucher program — misleadingly named the Education Freedom Tax Credit — diverts public money into private schools. States that opt into the program allow taxpayers to receive dollar-for-dollar credits of up to $1,700 on their federal taxes in return for “donations” to eligible scholarship-granting organizations, or SGOs. These SGOs, in turn, use these funds to cover private school tuition and other educational expenses for a select few students.
At first glance, Hochul’s intention to participate in the voucher scheme might appear harmless. But the danger lies below the surface.
Under this program, SGOs would siphon public money — funds that the federal government would forego through tax-credit reimbursements — into private schools that aren’t held to the same anti-discrimination or educational standards as public schools. A trail of reports has documented countless instances of racism and discrimination against LGBTQ+ students, students with LGBTQ+ parents, and students with disabilities in private schools. While this voucher scheme masquerades as an attempt to broaden the slate of educational options available to families, it fundamentally works to divert public funds into schools that can by law discriminate.
At the same time, many of the private schools that stand to benefit from the voucher scheme have strong religious ties. In Ohio, which opted into the voucher in February 2026, a state comptroller’s audit found that 4 in 5 eligible SGOs exclusively awarded scholarships to religiously affiliated private schools. Participation in this voucher program violates the constitutional principle of church-state separation — a principle that has long prevented taxpayer money from going toward religious activities.
But the stakes of this decision far exceed the bounds of New York’s schools.
Today, our nation has been fractured into states embracing Trump’s push for private school vouchers and states holding the line for public education. While New York has historically rejected vouchers, opting into the program now could signal to other states that participation in this program is acceptable — that the line can be crossed for short-term fiscal gain, or, worse, for electoral favor.
New York has long been a leader in the resistance to federal overreach — and other states are watching. If Hochul goes through with opting New York into the federal voucher program, she risks normalizing a program that funnels public funds into discriminatory private schools and furthering the ongoing erosion to our nation’s constitutional commitments.
Governor Hochul, as you make your final decision, I urge you to consider what is at stake beyond Albany. Hold the line — for New York’s schools, for the students and families that this program would leave behind, and for the strength of church-state separation in this nation.
P.S. Members of Congress have introduced the Keep Public Funds in Public Schools Act, which would repeal this federal private voucher program. Use AU’s simple online form to urge your representatives to support this important bill, which protects public education and religious freedom.
Alan Chen is a member of Americans United’s Youth Organizing Fellowship program. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Americans United.
By The Rev. Charles A. Fredrickson, ELCA
As a pastor, a member of Americans United for Separation of Church and State’s San Antonio Chapter, and a resident of Texas, I was dismayed to hear Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick on June 26 claim that “separation of church and state is not in the Constitution” and urge public officials to stop invoking the principle when addressing potential violations of religious freedom law.
Patrick’s remarks, delivered in the Oval Office in his role as chairman of President Donald Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission, reflect a growing pattern among Christian Nationalist leaders who seek to delegitimize the constitutional framework that protects religious freedom for all Americans. His statement went further than past rhetoric by directly challenging public officials — local, state, and federal — to abandon the long-standing legal doctrine that prevents government from privileging religion or coercing religious practice.
While Patrick is correct that the exact phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear verbatim in the U.S. Constitution, the principle is embedded in the First Amendment’s twin religion clauses: no establishment and free exercise. For more than 75 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that these clauses work together to create a structural separation that protects religious liberty for everyone — not just the religious majority.
Moreover, as Patrick is an elected official in Texas, he is bound not only by the U.S. Constitution but also by the Texas Constitution, which contains some of the strongest church-state separation language in the country. Article I, Section 6 states:
These provisions — along with Section 4’s prohibition on religious tests for public office and Section 5’s protection of witnesses regardless of religious belief — form a clear constitutional mandate: Texas may not compel religious participation, interfere with conscience, or prefer one faith over another.
Dan Patrick’s claim that public officials must now “prove” constitutional violations because “the phrase should have no power over people of all faiths ever again in America” is not only legally inaccurate — it is an attempt to chill the lawful responsibilities of public servants nationally and in the State of Texas who are obligated to uphold both federal and state constitutional protections.
Americans United San Antonio Chapter calls on public officials at every level — school boards, city councils, county governments, and state agencies as well as federal offices — to continue enforcing constitutional boundaries between religion and government. Patrick’s remarks should not deter them from:
As AU’s Vice President for Public Policy Alessandro Terenzoni noted on the blog last week, the Religious Liberty Commission’s draft report has a myriad of deficiencies, including its lack of ideological diversity and its alignment with narrow Christian Nationalist policy goals. Patrick’s remarks underscore the urgency of monitoring the commission’s work and ensuring that “religious liberty” is not weaponized to undermine the very constitutional protections it claims to defend.
Americans United is encouraging everyone to submit public comments about the vital role church-state separation plays in protecting religious freedom by the commission’s July 13 deadline. AU has provided this online portal that makes commenting quick and easy.
Meanwhile, the Americans United’s San Antonio Chapter will continue to:
Dan Patrick’s comments are not merely rhetorical — they are part of a coordinated strategy to erode federal and state constitutional safeguards and pressure public officials into abandoning their duties. Americans United San Antonio rejects this attempt to rewrite history and will continue defending the separation of church and state as the essential condition for genuine religious freedom.
The Rev. Charles A. Fredrickson is a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and a board member of AU’s San Antonio Chapter.
Photo: Religious Liberty Commission Chairman and Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (center) speaks alongside President Donald Trump and RLC members Dr. Ben Carson (left) and Dr. Phil McGraw during an event in the White House on June 26, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Photo credit: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Americans United for Separation of Church and State President and CEO Rachel Laser issued the following statement in response to U.S. Reps. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) introducing a new House resolution honoring church-state separation as the nation celebrates its 250th anniversary:
“Americans United for Separation of Church and State applauds Reps. Huffman and Raskin for continuing to champion the fundamental role church-state separation plays in our democracy and in protecting religious freedom for all. As we’ve seen in the run-up to the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the separation of church and state is under severe attack from religious extremists who want to impose their narrow beliefs on all of us. This House resolution is an important reminder that our country needs a national recommitment to the separation of church and state before it’s too late.”