Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Have Julie Green's prophecies about politics been accurate?
Executive summary
Julie Green has made multiple high-profile political prophecies—about King Charles, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump among others—that mainstream outlets characterize as false, vague, or unfulfilled (e.g., the Charles murder claim and the Trump “innocent” prediction) [1] [2] [3]. Her own ministry publishes ongoing political prophecies and media outlets note her close alignment with MAGA events and figures, which helps explain why her predictions receive amplification even when they fail to materialize [4] [5].
1. A track record of bold claims and visible failures
Reporting catalogs several specific, high-profile predictions by Green that did not come to pass: Rolling Stone documents her claim that Prince Charles would murder Queen Elizabeth (a prediction that clearly failed when Charles was crowned and the queen did not die as alleged in that context) and Newsweek/News outlets recorded her public forecast that Trump would be found “innocent” in his hush‑money trial—he was convicted, and Green later reinterpreted the prophecy [1] [2] [3].
2. Prophecies are often political and amplified by partisan networks
Green regularly mixes spiritual language with political forecasting and appears on right‑wing stages and platforms; Newsweek and other outlets note she’s been present at ReAwaken America events and appeared with figures tied to GOP politics, which increases her visibility within MAGA circles [5] [1]. This ecosystem helps her predictions reach sympathetic audiences even when mainstream outlets treat them skeptically [5].
3. Her own outlets show continued political focus and repetition
Julie Green Ministries publishes numerous prophecies that explicitly target political figures and institutions—calls for “total transparency” about the president and warnings about “snakes” in political and faith positions appear on her site and media pages—showing she frames many pronouncements as current political interventions rather than distant, ambiguous spiritual metaphors [6] [4].
4. Media assessments emphasize vagueness and performance value
Commentators and independent journalists place Green in a tradition of prophetic performance that often prioritizes mobilizing a constituency over precise forecasting. Diana Butler Bass argues that the value of such prophecy can be political—energizing followers and challenging authorities—rather than predictive accuracy, a perspective useful to explain why failed prophecies don’t always diminish influence [7].
5. Supporters and critics interpret outcomes differently
Supportive outlets or commentators sometimes insist Green has “numerous prophecies that have come to pass” and defend her ministry’s credibility [8]. Critics and many mainstream reports instead highlight specific failed predictions and label some claims “bunk” or “preposterous,” pointing to concrete mismatches between prophecy and reality [1] [9]. Both viewpoints are present in the record: believers emphasize unseen meanings or future fulfillment, while skeptics point to demonstrable misses.
6. Patterns: vagueness, reinterpretation, and retrospective fitting
Coverage shows a recurring pattern: a confident prediction is made publicly; when reality diverges, the prophecy is often reinterpreted or framed as still valid for reasons not immediately clear to outside observers [2] [3]. This pattern—common in many contemporary prophetic movements—makes independent verification of “accuracy” difficult unless the prophecy is specific and time‑bounded.
7. Independent evaluations and missing claims
Analysts note gaps in Green’s historical prophetic record and question selective visibility—MarketFaith points out she did not prophesy many major past world events, a critique used to assess a prophet’s résumé [8]. Available sources do not provide a systematic, independent audit counting Greens’ hits versus misses; reporting relies on prominent examples and pattern analysis rather than a comprehensive ledger [8].
8. What this means for a reader deciding credibility
If you measure prophetic accuracy by concrete, time‑bound predictions, mainstream reporting supplies several clear counter‑examples—highly publicized forecasts that failed or required reinterpretation [1] [2] [3]. If you view prophecy as political speech that mobilizes identity and hope, commentators argue its “success” can be social influence rather than empirical truth [7]. Both frameworks appear in the coverage and explain why Green retains followers despite prominent misses [5] [9].
Limitations: news coverage focuses on the most controversial prophecies and public reactions; available sources do not include a complete, date‑by‑date verification of every prophecy Green has made, so a full statistical accuracy rate is not possible from the provided reporting [4] [8].