Executive Summary

  • The Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty holds its seventh and final public hearing Sunday, April 13, at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C. A final report — expected to shape executive policy on religious freedom for years — is due by May 1.
  • The commission's 13 members include 12 Christians and one Orthodox Jewish rabbi. No Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or secular representative has a seat. No member represents the roughly 3.5 million American Muslims, 2.5 million American Buddhists, or 3.3 million American Hindus, according to Pew Research Center estimates.
  • A federal lawsuit filed by Democracy Forward and Americans United for Separation of Church and State alleges the commission violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires advisory bodies to maintain "fairly balanced" membership "in terms of the points of view represented."
  • The question is not whether Christianity deserves a voice on religious liberty. It obviously does. The question is whether a commission that claims to speak for all American religious freedom can do so credibly when it has excluded most of the traditions it claims to protect.

Tomorrow morning, at the Museum of the Bible on the Washington, D.C. waterfront, thirteen people will sit at a long table and hold the final public hearing of the Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty. They will discuss, according to the commission's Federal Register notice published March 31, 2026, "the contributions religious liberty has made to Americans' freedom to flourish." A final report is expected by May 1. That report will inform executive branch policy on religious freedom — what it means, who it protects, and where the government should act.

The thirteen people at that table are Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, who serves as chair. Dr. Ben Carson, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, who serves as vice chair. Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York. Bishop Robert Barron. Pastor Franklin Graham. Pastor Paula White. Dr. Phil McGraw. Ryan T. Anderson, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Kelly Shackelford, CEO of First Liberty Institute. Carrie Prejean Boller, former Miss California USA. Allyson Ho, a Texas appellate lawyer. Eric Metaxas, conservative author and radio host. And Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, an Orthodox rabbi at Congregation Shearith Israel in New York City.

That is the complete roster, as published by the White House in May 2025. Twelve Christians and one Jewish rabbi.

What the Law Requires

The Federal Advisory Committee Act — the 1972 law that governs how the executive branch creates advisory bodies — contains a straightforward requirement. Section 5(b)(2) states that advisory committee membership must be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee."

The requirement exists for a practical reason. When the government convenes experts to advise the President on a topic, the quality of that advice depends on the range of perspectives informing it. A commission on agricultural policy that includes only corn farmers will produce different recommendations than one that also includes ranchers, dairy producers, and consumers. The balance requirement is not about quotas. It is about ensuring the advice is comprehensive enough to be useful.

Applied to a commission on religious liberty — a commission tasked with assessing threats to religious freedom across all American faith traditions — the balance requirement raises an obvious question: How does a body composed almost entirely of members from one religious tradition assess threats to traditions it does not represent?

Who Is Missing

According to Pew Research Center's 2024 Religious Landscape Survey, approximately 24 percent of American adults are religiously unaffiliated. Roughly 1.1 percent are Hindu, 1 percent are Buddhist, 0.9 percent are Muslim, and smaller but significant communities include Sikhs, Jains, Baha'is, and practitioners of Indigenous religious traditions.

None of these communities have a commissioner. None have a formal advisory role in the commission's proceedings. When the commission held hearings on topics including "attacks on houses of worship" and "conscience protections in healthcare" — topics that directly affect Sikh gurdwaras, Hindu temples, and Buddhist centers — the perspectives shaping the findings came exclusively from Christian and Jewish viewpoints.

The Interfaith Alliance, one of the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit, noted in its February 2026 filing that the commission's hearing agendas focused overwhelmingly on issues where conservative Christian institutions have active litigation or policy interests: pastor speech rights, religious exemptions from anti-discrimination law, parental authority over education curriculum, and voluntary prayer in public schools.

These are legitimate religious liberty issues. They are not the only religious liberty issues.

Sikh Americans face documented discrimination in military service, where grooming standards have historically conflicted with religious practice. Hindu and Buddhist temple communities have reported vandalism and zoning obstruction. The religiously unaffiliated — a quarter of the American population — have stakes in ensuring that "religious liberty" is not defined in ways that privilege belief over nonbelief.

A commission that does not hear from these communities cannot credibly claim to have surveyed the landscape of American religious freedom.

The Lawsuit

In February 2026, Democracy Forward and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed suit in the Southern District of New York on behalf of the Interfaith Alliance, Muslims for Progressive Values, the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Hindus for Human Rights. The lawsuit alleges two primary FACA violations: the commission's membership is not "fairly balanced," and the commission has failed to comply with transparency requirements including public access to documents and advance notice of meetings.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to block publication of the final report until the court can rule on whether the commission was lawfully constituted. As of this writing, the court has not ruled. That ruling could come before, during, or after Sunday's hearing — creating the possibility that the commission completes its work under an active legal challenge to its legitimacy.

The Department of Justice, which houses the commission, has defended its composition, arguing that the commission's mandate focuses on specific First Amendment issues where the selected commissioners have relevant expertise.

The Precedent Problem

If the commission's final report recommends executive action on religious liberty — and it is expected to — those recommendations will carry the weight of a presidential advisory body. Courts, agencies, and state legislatures will cite them. Policy advocates will invoke them.

But recommendations produced by a body that excluded the perspectives of most non-Christian faith traditions face a legitimacy deficit that legal challenges will exploit for years. Every policy built on those recommendations inherits the vulnerability.

The irony is sharp. A commission established to defend religious liberty may produce a report that undermines it — not because the commissioners are insincere about religious freedom, but because the body's composition tells every non-Christian faith community in America that their experience of religious liberty was not considered worth hearing.

Religious liberty is either universal or it is not religious liberty. It is religious privilege. The composition of the body tasked with defining it determines which one the government is actually pursuing.

What to Watch Tomorrow

Sunday's hearing begins at 9 AM at the Museum of the Bible. The commission's Federal Register notice indicates the topic is "the contributions religious liberty has made to Americans' freedom to flourish." Public attendance is available but seats are limited.

The hearing itself matters less than what follows. The final report — due approximately May 1 — will reveal whether the commission's year of work produced recommendations that account for the full range of American religious experience, or only the portion represented at the table.

The federal court's ruling on the preliminary injunction will determine whether that report is published on schedule or delayed pending resolution of the FACA challenge.

And the broader question — whether the government can credibly define "religious liberty" through a body that heard from one tradition — will outlast both the hearing and the report.

The Religious Liberty Commission's final hearing is Sunday, April 13, 9 AM–1 PM, at the Museum of the Bible, Washington, D.C. Bastion Daily will provide live coverage. The commission's final report is expected by May 1.