January 6, 2026
Secretary of War/Defense Pete Hegseth wants to overhaul the military's chaplain corps and "make them great again." In a post on X, he wrote:
In an atmosphere of political correctness and secular humanism, chaplains have been minimized, viewed by many as therapists instead of ministers. Faith and virtue were traded for self-help and self-care.
If you need proof, just look at the current Army Spiritual Fitness Guide. In well over 100 pages, it mentions God one time. That's it. It mentions "feelings" 11 times. It even mentions "playfulness," whatever that is, nine times. There's zero mention of virtue. The guide relies on new age notions.
These types of training materials have no place in the War Department. Our chaplains are chaplains, not emotional support officers, and we're going to treat them as such.
Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the chairman of the Religious Liberty Commission, which was established by President Trump via executive order in May of 2025, thinks that Hegseth's action is commendable:
The Religious Liberty Commission applauds Secretary Hegseth and the Department of War's quick action to restore the military chaplaincy to its full strength and influence in our armed forces. As we were reminded at our Commission hearing last week, the chaplaincy is foundational to the American military-a source of spiritual strength so that our servicemembers continue to serve as a force for good in the face of evil and oppression. Tragically, past administrations sought to undermine the spiritual and strategic role of the military chaplaincy.
We commend President Trump and Secretary Hegseth for their leadership in executing these much-needed reforms, which we know will continue to make America, and our military, great again.
I don't.
I have written twice against Christians serving as military chaplains ( here and here) and mentioned the subject in other articles of mine on Christianity and the military. Here are some of my conclusions:
Taxpayer-supported chaplains are expected to serve two masters: God and the state. Compromise and concession are inevitable.
One cannot "serve" in the military - and especially in an influential position like a chaplain - and not support the activities of the military.
Should a Christian be a military chaplain ? Not if he opposes compromise with the state, the state's military, the state's wars, and the state's foreign policy.
But you don't have to listen to anything I have to say about military chaplains. Just listen to former president, co-author of The Federalist, and father of the Constitution James Madison (1751-1836).
After he left office in 1817, Madison wrote some private reflections now known as the Detached Memoranda. They were first published in 1946 in The William and Mary Quarterly. Madison was a firm believer in religious liberty, but believed that that government-paid chaplains were unconstitutional:
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?
In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain ? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.
If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. How small a contribution from each member of Congs wd suffice for the purpose ? How just wd it be in its principle ? How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience ? Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Govt.
Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality?
Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex: or to class it cum "maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura."
Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right pinciple, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong one. Look thro' the armies & navies of the world, and say whether in the appointment of their ministers of religion, the spiritual interest of the flocks or the temporal interest of the Shepherds, be most in view: whether here, as elsewhere the political care of religion is not a nominal more than a real aid. If the spirit of armies be devout, the spirit out of the armies will never be less so; and a failure of religious instruction & exhortation from a voluntary source within or without, will rarely happen: and if such be not the spirit of armies, the official services of their Teachers are not likely to produce it. It is more likely to flow from the labours of a spontaneous zeal. The armies of the Puritans had their appointed Chaplains; but without these there would have been no lack of public devotion in that devout age.
The case of navies with insulated crews may be less within the scope of these reflections. But it is not entirely so. The chance of a devout officer, might be of as much worth to religion, as the service of an ordinary chaplain. [were it admitted that religion has a real interest in the latter.] But we are always to keep in mind that it is safer to trust the consequences of a right principle, than reasonings in support of a bad one.
Christians have no business being in the murderous U.S. military, and especially as chaplains who will be expected to soothe the consciences of soldiers who bomb, maim, destroy, and kill for the state in places they have no business going. No chaplain of any faith could do otherwise and tell the truth about the evils of U.S. foreign policy without being subject to discipline or court-martial.