Which megachurch leaders switched support between 2016 and 2020 and why?
Executive summary
Several high-profile evangelical megachurch leaders shifted public political alignments and endorsements between 2016 and 2020, largely driven by organizing efforts from pro-Trump networks and by strategic outreach to minority religious voters. Reporting shows groups like United in Purpose worked to mobilize evangelical leaders on behalf of Donald Trump in both 2016 and 2020, explicitly adapting tactics in 2020 to court Latino and African‑American church leaders [1]. Available sources do not provide a comprehensive list of individual megachurch pastors who personally switched endorsements between 2016 and 2020; they focus on organizing groups and local exceptions (not found in current reporting).
1. Who moved and why: organizers, not always named pastors
National reporting about the 2016–2020 period emphasizes the role of intermediary groups in shifting evangelical voting patterns rather than cataloging individual pastors who changed positions. The Intercept’s reporting on United in Purpose (UIP) describes UIP as a network that worked to grow evangelical support for Trump in 2016 and then refined a 2020 strategy to “target religious Latino and African American voters,” demonstrating that much of the movement came through political operatives courting church leaders rather than publicized one‑off pastor reversals [1].
2. The mechanism: high‑profile events and targeted outreach
UIP and allied actors used high‑visibility events—such as “Evangelicals for Trump” launches at megachurches—and private strategy calls to recruit pastors and amplify endorsements. The Intercept reports Trump launched a 2020 “Evangelicals for Trump” event at a large Miami megachurch led by Pastor Guillermo Maldonado, and UIP’s 2020 plan included replicating such events and arranging meetings for Trump with African‑American and Latino church leaders [1]. This shows the switch was often engineered via campaign outreach rather than spontaneous shifts by individual pastors.
3. Local exceptions and alternative shifts
Some megachurch communities moved in other directions. The New York Times opinion piece on an Ohio megachurch described how Crossroads mobilized large numbers of evangelicals into civic activism that bucked the Trump trend in their county—organizing for local measures and racial‑justice framing—and providing a blueprint for evangelical engagement that did not align with national conservative politics [2]. That story illustrates how megachurch influence did not uniformly translate into pro‑Trump support and that some leaders and congregations reoriented toward different civic priorities between 2016 and 2020 [2].
4. Why switches were possible: structure and incentives in megachurches
Scholars and institutes note structural features that make megachurch leaders influential and accessible to political outreach. The Hartford Institute’s research explains megachurch pastors are typically charismatic, singular leaders whose churches can be pivotal political nodes; roughly 30% of megachurches had senior leaders who were not founders, and the senior pastor often exerts strong influence over congregants [3]. Combined with weak external accountability in many nondenominational megachurches—an academic critique echoed in multiple sources—this created a receptive environment for political actors to cultivate endorsements [4] [3].
5. Motives behind switches: political access, voter mobilization and image management
Campaigns pursued megachurch leaders for voter turnout, legitimacy and media optics. UIP’s 2020 pivot toward minority religious leaders reveals a motive to expand evangelical support among demographic groups where 2016 underperformed, showing political strategy drove outreach to pastors [1]. Conversely, some megachurch leaders and congregations emphasized local civic goals—education funding, racial‑justice work—that led them away from national partisan alignment, as Crossroads leaders demonstrated [2].
6. Limits of available reporting and what remains unknown
The provided sources document organized efforts and specific events but do not compile an authoritative list of named megachurch pastors who publicly “switched” endorsements between 2016 and 2020. Detailed, individual-level tracking—who endorsed whom in 2016, then changed in 2020 and why—is not present in these sources (not found in current reporting). Researchers relying on these materials must therefore distinguish between documented organizational campaigns (UIP) and anecdotal local cases (Crossroads), and avoid claiming a comprehensive catalog of individual switches without further evidence [1] [2].
7. What to watch and why it matters
Future reporting should pair campaign records with public statements from named pastors to verify individual switches. The dynamic matters because megachurch leaders serve as vote‑mobilizing conduits: organized outreach can shift blocs of voters when influential pastors change messaging or endorsements, as UIP’s tactics illustrate, while locally focused pastoral activism can redirect evangelical political energy away from national partisan alignment [1] [2]. Researchers must use church statements and event records to move from plausible organizational influence to validated lists of individual switches [1] [2].