The Dictatorship
White evangelicals overwhelmingly voted for Trump. Where’s their outrage over USAID cuts?
Whether a person is American or from another country, whether they live next door or half a world away, whether they are our best friend or a complete stranger, Christianity compels its followers to care for them and to help them. Today, this core Christian value is under threatnot from foreign enemies but from our own governmentwhich has proudly proclaimed that the U.S. Agency for International Development is going into the “wood chipper.”
And while the sudden suspension of the USAID program is among a number of disappointing actions taken by the new administration, what is particularly alarming is that it’s destroying this humanitarian work with the tacit (if not explicit) support of too many people who cite the Gospels as their guide.
With the latest announced cuts in federal spending, many of the programs that have helped people in need across the globe are at risk.
While I am not in a position to judge all of the policies or practices of USAID, I do know the agency is charged with caring for vulnerable children throughout the world. The U.S. is — and should be — the largest donor for children in the world. Yet, with the latest announced cuts in federal spending, many of the programs that have helped people in need across the globe are at risk, such as the AIDS relief effort credited with saving 25 million lives, mostly in Africa.
Funding cuts will also hurt Christian charitable groups that receive financial assistance from the U.S. government. Two of the largest organizations, Catholic Relief Services and World Vision (an evangelical organization), are heavily dependent on government funding to perform their lifesaving work: Catholic Relief received 64% of its revenue from government contributions in 2022; World Vision received 44% in the same year. Both are now facing massive layoffs.
Also disturbing to me are radical cuts to efforts by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide relief for areas hit by major disasters in the U.S., and layoffs at the Federal Housing Administration that threaten to disrupt its ability to provide the mortgage insurance on which millions of Americans depend.
All this by an administration that so far has enjoyed strong support among Christians. The situation leads me to wonder whether some Christians have made a single issue or two the sole determinant of their political views and, by doing so, have sold their souls in a Faustian deal for political power. According to an NBC News exit poll in the 2024 election, 63% of voters in the “Protestant or other Christians” demographic supported the new administration. If we restrict this to white people, the number climbs to 72%. Fifty-nine percent of all Catholics and 63% of white Catholics voted for Donald Trump. White evangelicals supported Trump with 82% support. These numbers represent a solid bloc of Christian voters.
This level of support makes me deeply concerned that many will associate Christianity with this administration’s policies, like the closing of USAID and cuts to other programs that provide assistance to the poor. In particular, I worry that the younger generation will either come to dismiss Christianity as amoral or identify with it for its relationship to political power rather than its moral and spiritual principles. Neither option is acceptable in my judgment.
I worry that the younger generation will either come to dismiss Christianity as amoral or identify with it for its relationship to political power rather than its moral and spiritual principles.
At a recent discussion of my colleague Phil Gorski’s work “The Flag and the Cross,” which explores the rise of Christian nationalism, I asked Gorski whether Christianity had become a dirty word. He responded, “You are right as dean of the divinity school to be worried about this.” When I asked a good friend who was the senior pastor of a large church in Manhattan what he thought of this, he said he had quit using the word Christian to describe himself and preferred to use “follower of Jesus Christ.”
In “Where Love Is, There God Is Also,” one of Leo Tolstoy’s most famous short stories, a cobbler named Martin takes a friend’s advice to read the Gospels. One evening, he hears a disembodied voice promise to visit him the next day. Martin watches but only meets an old soldier, to whom he gives some hot tea; a woman with a baby, to whom he gives a cup of soup and an old cloak; and a woman in a confrontation with a boy who has attempted to steal an apple. Martin makes that situation right by giving the boy the apple and compensating the woman.
In response to a knock at his door that evening, Martin asks, “Who is it?” and each of the people he’d met that day steps forward to say, “It is I,” only to disappear. Martin returns to his reading and sees: “I was hungry and you gave me meat; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you took me in.” This is perhaps the most famous interpretation of the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew. In my judgment, the “parable” draws on the ancient literary tradition of deities who disguise themselves as humans to see how humans treat strangers.
The proposed closure of USAID and the pulling of funds from other agencies and groups that care for the “hungry … thirsty … stranger … naked … ill … imprisoned” is anti-Christian at its core. It reflects a rejection of a basic value that Jews and Christians (and many others) hold as sacred. Christians may disagree about a number of important issues, but the imperative to care for the downtrodden is not one of them. Pope Francis and Gabriel Salguero, president of the National Latino Evangelical Coalition, have raised their voices in protest.
It is time for many of the rest of us to join them.
Gregory E. Sterling
Gregory E. Sterling is Dean and Professor of New Testament at Yale Divinity School. He has published more than 110 scholarly papers and has authored or edited 10 books on early Christianity and related subjects.4
The Dictatorship
Mike Collins wins Georgia GOP Senate primary runoff to face Ossoff
Rep. Mike Collins won Georgia’s Republican Senate primary runoff Tuesday, defeating former University of Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley.
Now, he will have the far larger task of knocking off Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff in one of the most competitive Senate race this election cycle.
The runoff was triggered after Collins and Dooley each failed to win a majority in the May 19 primary, forcing a second round in a contest that Republicans view as one of their best opportunities to flip a Democratic-held Senate seat in 2026. President Donald Trump endorsed Collins over the weekend, boosting his chances in the runoff.
Collins, a congressman representing Georgia’s 10th District, finished first in the primary. The trucking company owner and staunch ally of Trump built his campaign around support for the president’s agenda, border security, immigration enforcement and conservative cultural issues. Collins sought to portray himself as a proven conservative fighter with experience in Washington and strong ties to the Republican base.
Dooley, meanwhile, leaned on his name recognition as a former college football coach and member of one of Georgia’s most prominent political families. His father, Vince Dooley, was the legendary University of Georgia football coach and athletic director. Although Dooley has never held elected office, he has campaigned as a political outsider capable of attracting independent and swing voters in a general election.
Collins argued that Republicans need a candidate with a proven conservative record and close ties to Trump. Dooley has countered that his outsider status and broader appeal would make him a stronger challenger in November.
But some Republicans are worried about Collins, including his hardline stance on abortion rights and an Office of Congressional Conduct probe into his office’spotential misuse of resources that the Republican lawmaker has referred to as a “nothing burger.”
His social media tonewhich includes severely downplayingthe U.S. Capitol attack where some pro-Trump rioters injured members of law enforcement, gives credence to the president’s view of him as a “a true Friend, Fighter, and WARRIOR,” as Trump wrote in his post endorsing Collins.
But those sentiments also spotligh a few of the vulnerabilities for a statewide candidate coming from a reliably red congressional district.
Collins will now face Ossoff, who is seeking a second term after winning a pair of runoff elections in 2021 that helped Democrats gain control of the Senate. Since taking office, Ossoff has built a national fundraising network. His re-election campaign has emphasized lowering costs for families, protecting access to healthcare, supporting economic development and promoting government accountability.
In a statement published shortly after Collins’ win, Ossoff called the congressman a “notorious bigot” who was under federal investigation.
“Donald Trump’s handpicked candidate Mike Collins is a notorious bigot, antisemite, and extremist currently under federal investigation for the illegal misuse of tax dollars,” Ossoff said. “Collins, who is only a congressman because his daddy was a congressman, voted to double health insurance premiums for more than a million Georgians, for the Iran War, and for the Trump tariffs.”
The House Ethics Committee is investigating allegations that Collins used government funds to benefit an aide.
Georgia remains a key battleground state heading into the midterm elections. Once considered a reliably Republican stronghold, the state has become increasingly competitive over the past decade.
Republicans see Georgia as one of their strongest pickup opportunities in a midterm cycle where control of the Senate could once again hinge on a handful of closely contested races. Democrats, meanwhile, are expected to invest heavily to protect Ossoff’s seat, viewing him as a key part of the party’s future.
Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.
The Dictatorship
GOP senators say they want a vote on an Iran deal — for now
Senate Republicans are still waiting for details of the preliminary U.S.-Iran agreement. But they’re already making one thing clear: Congress should have a vote on any final deal.
President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf signed a memorandum of understanding on Monday, formally giving the two countries 60 days to negotiate an agreement.
While there’s a healthy dose of skepticism about the deal and whether it will actually materialize, Republicans want a say on the eventual agreement.

“If there is a final deal, and I hope there is, it should come to the Senate for approval,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told reporters on Tuesday.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said if the final agreement is a treaty — and it “sounds like a treaty,” he said — then it “certainly seems like” the deal should be subject to a vote by Congress.
And Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, echoed his colleagues.
For now, it appears Trump agrees with Senate Republicans.
During a bilateral meeting at the Group of Seven (G7) summit in France on Tuesday, Trump suggested he would be open to sending the eventual deal to Congress. “I wouldn’t mind,” he said.
“I never thought about sending. Never even thought about it,” Trump added. “But I will — I will send it to Congress. I like the idea.”
Trump’s comments quickly made their way to Washington, where Republican senators like Lindsey Graham and Roger Marshall repeatedly pointed out that Trump said he would give Congress a vote.
“I hope he does,” Marshall said.
Despite the GOP desire for a vote, it’s far from clear Congress will ever hold one. For starters, the talks could fall apart before a final agreement is reached. And if the deal ultimately resembles elements of the Obama-era accord that Republicans long opposed, GOP leaders may be reluctant to force lawmakers into a politically fraught vote — particularly if Democrats line up against it.
The dynamic highlights a familiar tension on Capitol Hill.
For years — decades, even — lawmakers have talked about replacing the sweeping 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force with a more targeted authorization. The law has been used to justify dozens of military operations in more than 22 countries. But when it comes time to take ownership of a new war authorization, many in Congress seem content to defer to the president and the nearly 25-year-old law.

To be sure, there were some GOP voices on Tuesday who suggested a vote on Trump’s emerging Iran deal isn’t needed.
Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., argued that a law signed amid the debate over the Obama-era deal never explicitly required a vote — just congressional review.
“You might decide your opinion is we should vote on it, but there is no requirement that we do,” Schmitt said.
And some other Republican senators kept their cards close to their vest, insisting they need more information on the deal before asserting that a vote is necessary.
“Everybody’s got to see what it is first,” Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., said. “None of us have seen it.”
Pressed on whether he wants a vote, regardless of the terms of the deal, the Oklahoma Republican offered a congressional truth: “It depends on what the deal is.”
Part of the insistence on a vote, Republicans say, is because the Iran nuclear deal brokered under President Barack Obama — formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA — wasn’t affirmed by Congress. That allowed Trump to singlehandedly dismantle it during his first administration.
This time, lawmakers say they want a deal to outlast the Trump presidency.
Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, said Congress should “absolutely” vote on the final agreement, if negotiators reach one.
“That was one of the problems with President Obama’s deal,” Curtis said.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he thought it “makes more sense” to have Congress give any agreement its stamp of approval, pointing to Obama’s now defunct deal.
“Obama made a mistake when he didn’t do the work to have it rise to a level of a treaty, and I believe that we should here, otherwise it’s only good for two and a half years,” Tillis said.
“Why don’t we do the hard work of making sure that it has staying power?” he added.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle — particularly Republicans — would be happy to approve an Iran peace agreement that advances U.S. interests. Republicans are inclined to support Trump, and few lawmakers seem eager to prolong the Iran “excursion,” as the president has put it.
But approving a deal that’s less-than-stellar for the United States isn’t such a popular prospect. And congressional leaders might hesitate to put the agreement up for a vote out of fear that lawmakers may shoot it down.
A failed vote would put Trump and the United States in a difficult position.
Just having to vote on the deal could put lawmakers in a tough political spot of their own — and right before the midterm elections.

If the final agreement ends up resembling the Obama-era JCPOA, Republicans could be forced to either support a deal they’ve long criticized or risk drawing Trump’s ire. Neither choice is ideal.
Meanwhile, if Democrats vote against a final deal, they could face accusations that they don’t want the war to end. Some Republicans see political value in forcing Democrats to take a position.
“When there’s a deal, of course, put the Democrats on record,” Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, told MS NOW.
But if the final deal is one Republicans don’t love, don’t expect the agreement to come before Congress.
Already on Monday, several Republicans expressed nervousness about the early contours of a deal, as described in press reports about a yet-to-be released memorandum of understanding. And on Tuesday, the top Senate Republican — John Thune of South Dakota — said he had still not been briefed on the contents of the memorandum.
A handful of Republicans revealed to reporters that they had been in touch with senior U.S. officials to get some of their questions answered.
Moreno, for instance, said he was given some details about the agreement on Monday from Vice President JD Vance and White House peace envoy — and Trump son-in-law — Jared Kushner.
Asked about the delay in revealing the preliminary memorandum, Moreno insisted the Trump administration was just being “methodical,” in part so as not to upend the internal politics in Iran.
“It’s not going to kill everybody to just take a breath and wait until Friday,” Moreno said.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
The Dictatorship
Rick Jackson wins Georgia GOP governor runoff, will face Bottoms in November
Healthcare executive Rick Jackson clinched the Republican gubernatorial nomination on Tuesday, pulling off a win over Lt. Gov. Burt Jones and securing a spot in the November election against Democratic nominee Keisha Lance Bottoms.
The pair advanced from the Republican primary after neither candidate secured the majority needed to avoid a runoff on May 19.
The contest came as Republicans seek to hold the governor’s mansion in a state that has become one of the country’s premier political battlegrounds. Gov. Brian Kemp is term-limited and cannot seek re-election, creating the first open governor’s race in Georgia since 2018. Kemp threw his weight behind Jones over the weekend.
Jackson, a businessman who entered politics as an outsider candidatesought to position himself as an alternative to career politicians. His campaign focused heavily on economic issues, government spending and opposition to what he describes as establishment politics.
Jackson has argued that Republicans need a nominee who can energize voters frustrated with the political system. He has also attempted to appeal to conservatives who want a candidate outside Georgia’s existing political leadership structure.
The runoff highlights divisions within the Georgia Republican Party over the direction of the state’s conservative movement after Kemp’s tenure. While both candidates embraced many of the same conservative policy positions, they have differed over experience, electability and the future of Republican leadership in the Peach State.
The race also attracted attention because of Georgia’s importance ahead of the midterms. Democrats have made significant gains in the state over the past decade, winning presidential and Senate races while turning Georgia into a key battleground. Republicans, however, have continued to perform strongly in statewide races, including Kemp’s decisive re-election victory in 2022.
Bottoms, who served as Atlanta’s mayor from 2018 to 2022 and later worked in the Biden administration, secured the Democratic nomination and is preparing for a competitive general election campaign. Democrats view the open-seat contest as an opportunity to regain control of the governor’s office for the first time in more than two decades.
Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words




