Veterans Affairs Order to Report ‘Anti-Christian Bias’ Spark

---

Published: April 25, 2025

By L. D. Lee | The LDY Perspective

In a striking and controversial move, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has issued a directive ordering staff to report instances of perceived “anti-Christian bias” in the workplace. According to internal documents obtained by The Guardian, this directive is part of a broader effort by Trump administration officials to reframe religious protections through an explicitly Christian lens. However, legal scholars and constitutional experts warn that the policy is not only ethically questionable — it is likely unconstitutional.

A thorough constitutional analysis reveals that the VA’s action violates multiple First Amendment principles, endangers the religious neutrality required of government agencies, and creates a chilling environment for free speech among federal employees.

Favoring One Faith Over Others: A Clear Violation of the Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from promoting, endorsing, or favoring any particular religion. It reads plainly:ress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

In practice, this means that government institutions must remain neutral in matters of faith, neither promoting nor denigrating any belief system. The Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) firmly established that the government must show “no favoritism” among religions and no hostility toward any.

The VA’s directive, however, explicitly privileges Christianity, requiring the reporting of “bias” only against Christians, while providing no similar mechanism to protect Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or other employees. This government preference for a single religion is precisely what the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent.

Moreover, under the legal framework articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), a government action is unconstitutional if it:

1. Lacks a secular purpose,

2. Has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion,

3. Fosters excessive government entanglement with religion.

The VA’s directive fails all three prongs of this “Lemon Test.” Its clear religious purpose, its advancement of Christianity, and its mandate that supervisors monitor and police employees’ religious views together constitute an unmistakable breach of constitutional limits.

Compelled Speech and Chilling of Free Expression

Beyond the Establishment Clause concerns, the VA’s reporting mandate raises equally troubling First Amendment free speech issues. Compelling employees to report one another for perceived “anti-Christian bias” forces individuals to engage in government-mandated surveillance and speech regarding religious matters.

The Supreme Court, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), held that the government cannot compel individuals to express certain views or adopt an orthodoxy in matters of religion. As Justice Robert H. Jackson famously wrote,If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty,escribe VA directive pressures employees to conform to a particular religious orthodoxy — the idea that any criticism or disagreement with Christian viewpoints must be treated as reportable “bias.” Such compulsion not only chills workplace dialogue but also risks retaliation against employees who express secular, interfaith, or critical perspectives, violating core First Amendment protections.

Selective Protection and Religious Inequality

Under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the government must treat all religious beliefs and non-beliefs equally. In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), the Court struck down laws that targeted a specific religion for disfavored treatment, emphasizing that neutrality and general applicability are fundamental to constitutional governance.

By singling out Christianity for special protection, the VA’s policy discriminates against employees of other faiths — and against those who are non-religious — by offering unequal access to institutional support. Such preferential treatment undermines both the Free Exercise and Equal Protection principles foundational to American law.

What Employees and Citizens Can Do

For VA employees concerned about their rights:

Document all communications and directives related to the policy.

File internal complaints through the VA’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) office, citing religious discrimination.

Contact the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) to report potential constitutional violations by a federal agency.

Seek legal counsel through organizations like the ACLU or Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Consider litigation if retaliation or further constitutional violations occur.

For private citizens alarmed by these developments:

Contact elected representatives to demand congressional oversight of VA practices.

Support civil liberties organizations challenging religious favoritism in the federal government.

Raise public awareness through responsible journalism, public advocacy, and voting to uphold constitutional norms.

A Dangerous Precedent

The Veterans Affairs directive to prioritize the protection of Christian employees at the expense of religious neutrality marks a grave departure from constitutional principles. Government agencies, entrusted to serve a religiously diverse public, cannot elevate one faith above others without undermining the very freedoms they are sworn to defend.

If unchecked, this policy risks setting a dangerous precedent — one that could erode both the Establishment Clause and free exercise protections for generations to come. In a democratic society built on religious liberty for all, neutrality must remain not only a constitutional requirement but a moral imperative.

Published: April 9, 2025

By L. D. Lee | The LDY Perspective

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump signed four executive orders aimed at bolstering the U.S. coal industry. While the move is being framed by the administration as a revival of American energy independence, the claims made to justify these orders rely more on sentiment than science. As usual, the rhetoric outpaced reality—so let’s take a closer look.

CLAIM #1: “It’s cheap, incredibly efficient, high density and it’s almost indestructible.”

THE FACTS: Coal is, in fact, one of the least economical sources of new power. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), new coal-fired power generation costs nearly $90 per megawatt hour—far above the cost of both natural gas ($43) and standalone solar ($23), the latter of which benefits from incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act.

Notably, no new coal plants are being planned or constructed in the U.S., and for good reason. A 2023 report by Energy Innovation found that 99% of existing coal plants are more expensive to keep running than replacing them with local renewables. American consumers, in other words, start saving the moment coal is retired.

So no—it’s not cheap. And calling it “indestructible” doesn’t change the math.

CLAIM #2: “I call it beautiful, clean coal.”

THE FACTS: The phrase "clean coal" has always been a branding effort more than a scientific term. While it’s true that emissions per unit of coal-fired electricity have decreased over time, largely due to technological upgrades, coal remains one of the dirtiest forms of energy in use today.

Burning coal releases not only carbon dioxide—a primary contributor to global warming—but also sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which cause acid rain and respiratory illness. Globally, coal use needs to sharply decline to meet climate targets, per United Nations-backed research.

Calling it "beautiful" doesn’t make it benign.

CLAIM #3: “The value of untapped coal in our country is 100 times greater than the value of all the gold at Fort Knox.”

THE FACTS: As of early 2024, the U.S. had roughly 469 billion short tons of coal in reserve. Only about half of that is recoverable, and its estimated value—per EIA data—is $598.3 billion.

Fort Knox, meanwhile, holds 147.3 million troy ounces of gold. While the U.S. Treasury values that at a book value of $6.2 billion, its actual market value (as of April 9) is closer to $440.6 billion. So yes, U.S. coal reserves are technically worth more than the gold at Fort Knox—but nowhere near 100 times more.

This is yet another example of policy justification via exaggerated numbers—a recurring theme in this administration’s economic messaging.

CLAIM #4: “They’re opening up coal, coal plants all over Germany.”

THE FACTS: This claim is simply false. In response to energy insecurity caused by the war in Ukraine, Germany did briefly allow some coal plants to return from reserve in 2022–2023. However, all of those plants were taken offline by March 2024, according to Berlin-based climate think tank Agora Energiewende.

In fact, Germany shut down 18 coal-fired plants this year and remains on track to phase out coal entirely by 2038. The German government has explicitly stated that “no new coal-fired power plants will be built.”

This narrative—meant to suggest a global coal resurgence—is not grounded in fact.

The Coal Curtain Call

President Trump’s latest executive orders appear to be a nostalgic appeal to a past energy economy that no longer exists. While they may win points with certain political constituencies, they do little to address the structural and economic realities of today’s energy landscape.

Coal is not becoming cheaper, cleaner, or more viable—it’s being phased out by both the market and the climate. And while the administration may continue to offer up selective data and misrepresentations, the broader trajectory is clear: coal’s decline isn’t political, it’s practical.

This moment demands policy rooted in evidence, not in slogans. And it certainly demands leaders who understand the difference.

Source: Goldin, Melissa, and Jennifer McDermott. “Trump Signs Orders Aimed at Boosting Coal, Misrepresents Industry Realities.” Associated Press, April 9, 2025. APNews.com

Published: April 9, 2025 By L.

D. Lee 

On April 9th, President Donald Trump stunned markets by announcing a 90-day pause on most U.S. tariffs—just hours after cryptically posting, “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT,” on Truth Social. The market responded with fervor. The S&P 500 surged 9.5%, regaining over $4 trillion in market value lost during the previous four trading days.

At face value, this shift appears to be a calculated effort to localize an increasingly global trade war, concentrating the administration’s punitive trade focus squarely on China by escalating their import tax rate to an eye-popping 125%. Other nations, for the moment, have been granted a temporary reprieve—facing only a 10% tariff during this 90-day window.

The market rally may have been relief-driven, but the timing raises significant questions. Namely: did the president front-run his own policy reversal with a “buy” signal to followers and traders, just before the surge he himself engineered?

Trump’s defenders call this “reassurance.” Critics, including former ethics officials, are calling for closer scrutiny, citing potential violations of securities law or at minimum, impropriety unbecoming of a sitting head of state. That his post included his own initials—“DJT,” which also happens to be the ticker symbol for Trump Media, the company behind Truth Social—only adds to the appearance of blurred lines between statecraft and self-interest.

Indeed, shares of Trump Media jumped nearly 23%—a company reportedly hemorrhaging money yet somehow outperforming the broader market, all after a single presidential post. That same day, Tesla—another favorite of this administration—also saw a sharp rise, continuing a pattern of public praise from Trump followed by market surges.

Ethical concerns aside, the deeper issue remains: what exactly is this administration’s trade strategy, and who is it meant to benefit?

Trump’s explanation for the abrupt policy shift was as inconsistent as it was vague. Asked when the decision was made, he answered, “This morning… over the last few days… fairly early this morning.” The lack of clarity only reinforces a broader theme of this presidency—policy by impulse, often delivered through a digital bullhorn, with massive financial implications.

As the administration now prepares for country-by-country negotiations, Americans are left to question whether they’re watching a coherent economic strategy unfold—or simply witnessing a game of political brinkmanship wrapped in stock tickers and slogans.

One thing is clear: a president who can move markets with a sentence must be held to a higher standard of transparency and restraint. And yet, this particular president seems disinclined to respect either.