Confusion Surrounds Draft Executive Order on Eve of First Religious Liberty Commission Hearing

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Monday that the DOJ “will use every legal and constitutional tool available to ensure Americans can live out their faith freely without fear.”

by Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Monday said the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) “will use every legal and constitutional tool available to ensure Americans can live out their faith freely without fear.”

Bondi spoke at the first hearing of the newly formed Religious Liberty Commission. Many health freedom advocates hope her pledge will translate into a requirement that all 50 states honor religious exemptions from vaccine mandates.

Currently, parents in four states — California, New York, Connecticut and Maine — cannot opt their children out of school-mandated vaccinations, even if that’s what their conscience and beliefs dictate, according to Children’s Health Defense (CHD) CEO Mary Holland.

Holland, who attended Monday’s commission hearing, said:

“Health freedom and religious freedom are inextricably intertwined … While there is much work for the commission to do, the meeting has raised hopes of a more robust interpretation of religious freedom going forward.”

President Donald Trump last month established the Religious Liberty Commission by executive order. He tasked the commission with recommending steps the executive branch can take to protect religious freedom in the U.S. and promote it abroad.

The commission is also tasked with writing a “comprehensive report” on “foundations of religious liberty in America, the impact of religious liberty on American society, current threats to domestic religious liberty, strategies to preserve and enhance religious liberty protections for future generations, and programs to increase awareness of and celebrate America’s peaceful religious pluralism.”

The report is required to cover “conscience protections in the health care field and concerning vaccine mandates,” among other topics.

‘Tip of the spear’ of federal government efforts to restore religious freedom

Monday’s hearing was the first of seven to nine hearings the group plans to hold over the next year or so, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who chairs the commission, told Deseret News.

In addition to Bondi and Patrick, commission members include U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson and religious leaders and legal experts.

Bondi said the Religious Liberty Commission will be the “tip of the spear” for the federal government’s efforts to restore religious freedom. “Together, we will return America to the vision of our founders: a nation where faith merely isn’t tolerated, but it’s embraced and celebrated.”

The group will report its findings to Trump, Patrick said. The deadline for the report is unknown. However, the commission is set to expire on July 4, 2026, unless Trump extends it.

40-plus groups ask commission to restore religious exemption rights for vaccines

On June 4, a national coalition of over 40 health and religious freedom groups and individuals sent a letter to the commission urging it to take “immediate action” to address “critical violations” of religious freedom in the four states that “deny religious exemptions” to school vaccine mandates and “cause discriminatory practices in healthcare.”

Groups that signed on included lead organizer Guiding the Impact, CHD, Informed Action Consent Network, Autism Action Network, Physicians for Informed Consent, Global Wellness Forum, MAHA Institute and Teachers for Choice.

The letter, which was also sent to Trump, asked the commission to include three key recommendations in its report:

(1) An Executive Order and legislation to withhold federal funds from educational institutions denying religious exemptions to vaccination requirements, ensuring access to education;

(2) legal action by the Attorney General against New York, California, Connecticut, and Maine for First Amendment violations; and

(3) regulations and legislation to prohibit medical providers receiving federal funds from denying non-emergency care based on religious objections to vaccinations, ensuring healthcare access.

The signees requested a meeting with commission members to discuss “substantial evidence from families in New York, California, Connecticut, and Maine documenting the religious discrimination and hostility they face.”

A Guiding the Impact spokesperson told The Defender the commission has yet to respond to the meeting request. The spokesperson added that they hand-delivered a copy of the letter to the commission at Monday’s meeting.

Some worry an executive order ‘could backfire’

Other prominent health freedom groups, including the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), voiced concerns that an emergency order to protect religious exemptions “could backfire.”

In a June 14 letter to the commission, the groups claimed that federal action, including an executive order, could jeopardize states’ religious exemptions. They argued that religious exemption rights should be addressed at the state level.

Holland responded to the groups’ concerns in a June 16 X post:

“Vaccination has become a de facto religion based on belief — required from the womb to the grave — without gold standard science or true ethics. It is a cruel orthodoxy. …

“Some in the health freedom movement prefer state power to address this catastrophe …

“… We should embrace all lawful levers, federal and state, to end vaccine mandates, including executive orders based in existing federal law and powers.”

The Autism Action Network sent out an action alert encouraging people to get behind a federal executive order to support religious exemption rights.

Both state and federal actions are important when it comes to religious exemptions, according to CHD General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg. “We have to look at as many options as possible to preserve religious freedom,” Mack Rosenberg told Michael Kane in today’s episode of “Good Morning CHD.TV.”

“No one’s suggesting stomping on state public health laws,” Mack Rosenberg said. “This is about using federal law to protect religious freedom.”

Mack Rosenberg told The Defender:

“What is being proposed here is the use of federal discretionary spending to protect religious freedom — not trying to create federal public health law or rewrite state laws.

“If the order were to be adopted, states would make decisions about whether they wanted to receive discretionary federal dollars where those dollars are tied to protecting the right to free exercise of religion.”

Executive order wouldn’t threaten states’ religious exemptions

Kane, founder of Teachers for Choice, interviewed Mack Rosenberg and attorney Sujata Gibson to clarify what the June 4 letter, led by Guiding the Impact, proposed, after the letter triggered confusion and concerns.

Much of the confusion arose after NVIC made public a draft of the executive order, even though it was marked “For White House Review Only.”

NVIC posted the draft at the end of a PDF of the other groups’ June 4 letter. The post appears on a June 16 webpage that also includes a link to a June 14 letter by NVIC and

According to Kane, the groups and individuals who signed onto Guiding the Impact’s June 4 letter only signed onto the letter — not a particular draft for an executive order draft.

Gibson, who signed Guiding the Impact’s June 4 letter, told The Defender:

“The document that I signed and 40 other groups signed was a letter asking the President to consider an executive order and other action, such as DOJ intervention in cases to uphold religious freedom from vaccine mandates where necessary.”

Gibson explained the origin of the draft of the executive order that NVIC posted:

“One of the grassroots groups submitted a sample executive order to the White House, which they had run by a lot of lawyers in the medical freedom space first, and which is modeled on the COVID-19 vaccine executive order that President Trump signed on Valentine’s Day.”

NVIC obtained a copy of the draft.

According to Gibson, the draft circulated by NVIC is “just an example and ultimately, if he were interested, the President would have to work with his own lawyers to craft the language of an executive order before he signs.”

NVIC and the other groups that opposed federal action said in their June 14th letter that the drafted executive order could result in a U.S. Supreme Court case that would likely affirm the precedent-setting ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

Such an event “could further restrict religious exemptions to vaccination,” they wrote.

However, Gibson told Kane that it wouldn’t be possible. She said any Supreme Court case related to the executive order — which currently exists only in draft form and has yet to be issued — would deal exclusively with constitutional issues of how federal funds are allocated, not whether religious exemptions should be allowed.

The proposed executive order would withhold federal funds from schools that deny religious exemptions to vaccination requirements.

Such funds have to be spent in very specific ways, Gibson explained. Any potential Supreme Court case would rule on whether funds were allocated wrongfully.

Gibson also said it would be a “misunderstanding” to presume that the proposed executive order would put states’ religious exemptions at risk because of a federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).

According to Gibson, RFRA “forces” the federal government to offer religious protection. She told The Defender:

“RFRA is a one-way valve, so to speak. It is consistent with RFRA to condition funding on providing religious protection. But it is not something that can go the other way.

“If a different administration were to try to condition federal funding on removing religious protection, it would be a clear violation of RFRA.”

Watch Mack Rosenberg, Gibson and Kane’s discussion of federal action & religious exemption here:

Related articles in The Defender

• Breaking: Trump to Strip Federal Funding From Schools That Mandate COVID Vaccines

• Massachusetts Lawmakers Get an Earful on Vaccine Mandates and Religious Exemptions

• Massachusetts Proposes Laws to Remove Religious Exemptions, Parental Consent for Vaccines

• Hawaii Kills Bill to End Vaccine Exemptions After Massive Pushback From Public

• Public Support for Religious Exemptions Nearly Doubled Over Past 6 Years