If Donald Trump is remembered for anything, it may be as a president at war—with migrants, trade, Venezuela, Iran, and now religion. His latest assault targeted Pope Leo XIV, whom he labeled “weak on crime” and a “very liberal person” catering to “the radical left,” even accusing the pontiff of wanting Iran to possess a nuclear bomb.

Trump’s verbal attack on the Holy See followed a series of provocative posts that offended not only Catholics but Christians across the spectrum. These included a profane Easter-morning message targeting Iranian leadership, a subsequent threat to commit genocide against the Iranian people, and—most controversially—an AI-generated image of himself as a Christ-like figure performing a miracle.

Vice President JD Vance compounded the controversy by defending Trump’s criticism of the pope at an event hosted by Turning Point USA, a highly politicized, MAGA-aligned youth organization. The remarks were delivered at an evangelical megachurch, underscoring the religious overtones of Vance’s justification. Vance, a recent Catholic convert, lectured the pontiff on moral and spiritual discourse, further escalating tensions.

This escalation in Trump’s conflict with religious constituencies occurs amid a slow but significant shift within his once-unified conservative Christian base. As a scholar of evangelical Christianity, I offer analysis on why the MAGA religious base is deteriorating—and how this erosion may deny Trump, his allies, and future MAGA successors the reliable support of the right-wing religious vote they have long depended on.

Evangelicals Once United Behind Trump—Now Divided Over Theology

Evangelicals were once a monolithic bloc in their support for Trump. Today, they are fractured over theology—and neither faction is satisfied with his irreverent behavior. In June 2020, Trump posed for a photo holding a Bible outside St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, DC.

To understand this divide, we must examine the theological distinctions within American evangelicalism. While denominations vary widely, evangelicals can broadly be grouped into two camps: Reformers (Calvinists) and Arminians, named after 16th-century Reformation figures John Calvin and James Arminius.

Calvin taught that God predestines some individuals for heaven and others for hell, with no human agency in the matter. Arminius, by contrast, argued that salvation is accessible to all and depends on personal choice. Portraits of John Calvin (left) and James Arminius illustrate this historic theological divide.

Until recently, Arminians dominated American evangelicalism, controlling large churches and influential ministries for at least 50 years—if not longer. Their dominance shaped the movement’s political and cultural engagement, aligning closely with conservative causes.

Theological Schism: How Calvinism Is Reshaping Evangelical Politics

In recent years, however, Calvinism has gained ground within evangelical circles, particularly among younger, politically engaged Christians. This shift has introduced new tensions, as Calvinist theology often emphasizes divine sovereignty over human action—a perspective that can clash with the activist, outcome-driven ethos of traditional evangelical politics.

Trump’s behavior has exacerbated these divisions. His attacks on religious leaders, use of sacred imagery for political purposes, and inflammatory rhetoric have alienated both Arminians and Calvinists, despite their theological differences. Neither group finds his approach compatible with their values.

For decades, evangelicals have been a cornerstone of the Republican coalition, providing unwavering support for conservative policies and candidates. Trump’s recent actions risk undermining this alliance, as his rhetoric and actions increasingly clash with the moral and theological expectations of Christian voters.

The deterioration of this relationship could have profound implications for the future of the MAGA movement and the Republican Party. Without the reliable backing of evangelicals, Trump and his allies may struggle to mobilize the same level of grassroots support that has defined their political success.