Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington has found herself at the center of a heated debate following a sermon at the Washington National Cathedral that directly challenged the policies of President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Her remarks, which addressed controversial topics like immigration and LGBTQ rights, were delivered in the presence of the leaders and their families. However, what began as a call for compassion has spiraled into a scandal fueled by her past political affiliations and accusations of hypocrisy.
A Sermon Turned Political Commentary
During her sermon, Bishop Budde implored President Trump to “have mercy” on vulnerable groups in the U.S., including undocumented immigrants and LGBTQ individuals. She highlighted the struggles of immigrants working in labor-intensive jobs, stating, “The people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meatpacking plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shifts in hospitals, they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes and are good neighbors.”
This emotional appeal, while resonant for some, drew visible disapproval from Trump and Vance, who appeared unimpressed during her remarks. The sermon was described by many attendees as less of a spiritual message and more of a political lecture, leaving the congregation divided.
Budde’s plea for compassion extended to LGBTQ rights, referencing the ongoing debates over biological males competing in women’s sports. While she did not delve deeply into specific policy details, her tone suggested disapproval of the administration’s stance, further igniting criticism.
Doubling Down on Controversy
In the wake of her sermon, Budde faced widespread criticism on social media. Many accused her of using the pulpit to push a political agenda rather than delivering a message of unity and spirituality. Despite the backlash, Budde defended her remarks during an interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett.
“I was looking at the President because I was speaking directly to him,” Budde explained. “I wanted to counter as gently as I could with a reminder of [immigrants’ and LGBTQ individuals’] humanity and their place in our wider community. And I was speaking to the president because I felt that he has this moment now where he feels charged and empowered to do what he feels called to do. And I wanted to say, you know, there is room for mercy.”
When asked what motivated her to address such polarizing topics, Budde said, “These are the people that I know. These are not abstract people for me. These are actual people that I know. So I wanted to speak on their behalf.”
While Budde maintained that her remarks were not intended to be overtly political, her history of activism suggests otherwise.
A History of Activism and Political Ties
Bishop Budde has a long-standing reputation as a progressive leader, often aligning with liberal causes. Financial records reveal that Budde donated $250 to the Obama for America campaign in 2012, a contribution that was recorded under her occupation as clergy for the Episcopal Diocese of Washington.
Her son, Amos, is also deeply involved in left-wing political activism. According to reports, he collaborates with a former head of Obama’s campaign team and contributes to George Soros’ Swing Left PAC, an organization focused on flipping Republican-held districts.
These revelations have fueled criticism that Budde’s sermon was less about compassion and more about advancing a political agenda.
Trump Responds to the Sermon
President Trump did not hold back in addressing Budde’s remarks. Taking to his Truth Social platform, he labeled her a “Radical Left hardline Trump hater” and criticized her tone and approach.
“The so-called Bishop who spoke at the National Prayer Service on Tuesday morning was a Radical Left hardline Trump hater,” Trump wrote. “She brought her church into the World of politics in a very ungracious way.”
Trump also called out what he perceived as omissions in Budde’s sermon, particularly the darker side of illegal immigration. “She failed to mention the large number of illegal migrants that came into our Country and killed people. Many were deposited from jails and mental institutions. It is a giant crime wave that is taking place in the USA,” he added.
Public Reaction: Divided Opinions
The public response to Budde’s sermon has been polarizing. Supporters praised her for using her platform to advocate for marginalized communities and challenge political leaders on their policies. They viewed her message as a courageous act of compassion in the face of adversity.
Critics, however, accused her of hypocrisy and questioned the appropriateness of delivering such a politically charged message in a religious setting. Many felt that the sermon crossed the line between spiritual guidance and political activism, undermining the church’s role as a place of unity and solace.
The Broader Implications
Budde’s sermon and the ensuing backlash highlight the growing tension between religion and politics in America. While religious leaders have historically played a role in social and political movements, the line between advocacy and partisanship has become increasingly blurred.
For Budde, the controversy surrounding her sermon is unlikely to fade quickly. Her comments have not only drawn attention to her own political affiliations but have also reignited debates about the role of religious institutions in addressing political issues.
Conclusion: A Call for Reflection
Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde’s sermon at the Washington National Cathedral was undoubtedly a bold move. Whether one views her remarks as an act of compassion or a political misstep, they have sparked an important conversation about the intersection of faith, politics, and social justice.
As the nation grapples with divisive issues, the role of religious leaders in shaping public discourse will continue to be a topic of debate. For now, Budde’s sermon serves as a reminder of the power—and the pitfalls—of using the pulpit as a platform for advocacy.
