Which evangelical leaders have defended Trump against antichrist accusations?

1. Who stepped forward with spiritual defenses — and what they actually said that pushed back on “antichrist” labels

Contemporary reporting highlights a cluster of evangelical and conservative Christian leaders who countered antichrist accusations by portraying Trump as protected, chosen, or at least justified in his political aims. Prominent names cited in the compiled analyses include Hank Kunneman and Lance Wallnau, both televangelists who have used prophetic language to argue that Trump is “anointed” or under God’s hand; Tony Perkins, who cast legal and political attacks as a spiritual battle; and Mike Huckabee, who defended Trump by emphasizing policy accomplishments rather than personal moral failings ^[1]. A separate line of defense drew on scripture such as Romans 13, with figures like Robert Jeffress and others invoking the passage to justify strong executive actions and policies as aligning with divinely sanctioned authority, thereby rebutting claims that Trump embodies antichrist characteristics ^[2]. These defenders rely on spiritual-war framing and legal-theological justification to neutralize the label.

2. Who pushed back — influential evangelical critics who refused the messianic framing

Other evangelical leaders and theologians explicitly rejected the argument that Trump should be seen as divinely anointed or immune from moral critique. Figures like Russell Moore publicly criticized conflating Christian discipleship with uncritical political support, urging Christians not to “worship” a political leader; John Piper and other prominent thinkers were reported as reassessing or distancing themselves from unqualified support for Trump ^{[3] [4]}. These critics portray the antichrist accusation as a symptom of deeper problems—either the improper sacralization of politics or an erosion of biblical ethics within parts of the evangelical movement—arguing that political success or alignment with certain policies does not equal divine endorsement and warning against prophetic rhetoric that places a politician beyond scrutiny ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Evidence trail and timing — what the sources report and when they were published

The most explicit listing of evangelical defenders appears in a Reuters piece dated March 22, 2024, which names Kunneman, Wallnau, Perkins, and Huckabee as part of a media ecosystem that fired up Trump support with messianic messaging ^[1]. Analyses from 2020 and 2025 contextualize these defenses: a June 2020 piece documents figures invoking Romans 13 to defend Trump-era policies, including Robert Jeffress and others ^[2], while several 2021–2025 reflections and investigative pieces document growing splits among evangelicals over Trump’s character and role ^{[4] [3] [5]}. The timeline shows sustained defensive rhetoric across multiple years and outlets, alongside increasing public criticism from evangelical intellectuals; the pattern is consistent: repeated defenses from media-facing prophets and pastors contrasted with theological pushback from institutional or scholarly evangelicals ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

4. How defenders justified their stance — prophetic language, Romans 13, and policy wins

Defenders use three recurring argument types: prophetic anointing, scriptural authority, and policy-oriented apologetics. Prophets and TV evangelists assert God’s blessing or protection over Trump and frame opposition as demonic or politically motivated; this messaging casts antichrist accusations as part of a spiritual assault ^[1]. Parallelly, leaders like Robert Jeffress and some allied officials have used Romans 13 to defend government authority and, by extension, controversial policies enacted under Trump, suggesting that enforcing laws—even harshly—is scripturally sanctioned ^[2]. Finally, politicians-turned-pastors such as Mike Huckabee emphasize tangible policy achievements to argue that Trump’s stewardship, not moral perfection, merits support; this pragmatic defense avoids direct messianic claims while undercutting moralistic accusations ^[1].

5. The opposing narratives and what’s omitted from public defenses

Critics emphasize that invoking prophetic status or Romans 13 can obscure accountability and conflate partisan loyalty with religious fidelity. Analyses and reporting note that some defensive rhetoric downplays ethical concerns raised by other evangelicals and fails to engage with theological warnings from figures like Russell Moore or the broader historical usage of “antichrist” in Christian thought ^{[3] [4]}. Coverage also indicates gaps: defenders rarely address the theological implications of elevating a political leader to prophetic status or the historical-respect for checks and balances in Christian ethics; omitted considerations include long-term institutional credibility and the pastoral duty to critique moral failings regardless of political alignment ^{[3] [4]}.

6. The broader picture — partisanship, media ecosystems, and motivations behind the defenses

The available reporting paints these defenses as products of an interlocking ecosystem of conservative media, prophetic ministry, and partisan interest. Messianic messaging circulates most effectively through Christian TV and online platforms where audience affirmation and political mobilization reinforce leaders who promise spiritual validation for partisan goals ^[1]. Institutional critics often come from scholarly or denominational bodies that prioritize doctrinal norms and ethical accountability, reflecting a divide between media-driven prophetic leadership and institutional theological authority. Observers should note potential agendas: prophetic defenders gain attention and influence by fusing spirituality with politics, while institutional critics risk alienation from congregations driven by political identity—both dynamics shape how the “antichrist” accusation is advanced and rebutted ^{[1] [3]}.