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.
Which organizations have been identified as promoting white Christian nationalism in the United States?
Executive Summary
Multiple recent analyses identify a mix of formal organizations, donor networks, policy projects, and devotional movements as key promoters of white Christian nationalism in the United States, from the so‑called “Shadow Network” and Project 2025 to Ziklag, the New Apostolic Reformation, and associated faith‑political offices tied to the Trump era [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reporting and research differ on scale and emphasis: some name specific legal and funding hubs while others highlight looser movements and media platforms that advance a similar theocratic agenda [1] [3] [5].
1. Who’s on the roster: named organizations and funds driving the agenda
Several investigative reports and analyses converge on a set of specific organizations and funding vehicles described as advancing Christian nationalist goals, centering on long‑standing conservative legal and policy networks as well as newer philanthropic entities. Key named actors include Leonard Leo’s Marble Freedom Trust and its legal‑advocacy ecosystem, the Center for Renewing America, and Project 2025 as a 900‑page policy playbook aligning governance with conservative Christian principles; affiliated law and policy arms such as America First Legal and America First Policy Institute are also cited, along with Heritage Foundation fellows who contributed to Project 2025 [1] [2]. These sources frame those entities as institutional levers seeking to reshape government policy and law toward religiously infused governance [1] [2].
2. Charity, covert networks, and election influence: Ziklag and similar actors
Investigations identify Ziklag, presented as a tax‑exempt charitable network of wealthy Christians, as a group explicitly organizing to embed Biblical values into politics and culture and to influence the 2024 election, raising concerns about charities’ political activity rules and the opacity of funding channels [6] [3]. Reporting portrays Ziklag as emblematic of a strategy that mixes philanthropy, culture‑war messaging, and electoral mobilization to build a parallel religious infrastructure across civic institutions, potentially blurring legal lines between charity and political campaigning [6] [3].
3. Movements and mandates: NAR, Seven Mountains, and spiritual strategies for power
Beyond institutional funders, analysts point to broader devotional movements as ideological engines of Christian nationalism: the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), the Seven Mountains Mandate, and other Dominionist frameworks that call for Christian control over cultural spheres. These movements are loosely organized yet influential, mobilizing clergy and lay leaders to target schools, media, and local government, and their leaders have advised political officeholders; reporting ties figures like Paula White and other charismatic leaders to this spiritual governance strategy [3] [7] [4]. Such movements function as ideological incubators rather than formal policy shops, making attribution of organizational responsibility more diffuse [3] [7].
4. Institutional positions and governmental roles: faith offices and advisory boards
Analysts document how the Trump administration placed Christian nationalist‑aligned actors into formal governmental roles, including faith advisory offices and boards, with figures such as Paula White cited for leading faith outreach that critics say prioritized one brand of Christianity in policy formation. These appointments illustrate how organizational networks translate into government influence, with concerns that institutional placement of Christian nationalist actors can reshape policy priorities, press civil liberties, and legitimize exclusionary religious approaches to governance [4]. The effect is both symbolic and operational: appointments validate the movement while operationalizing its agenda inside federal institutions [4] [1].
5. Scope, evidence gaps, and dissenting perspectives: what reporting does and does not show
The sources vary in specificity and reach: some pieces map donor universes and named legal affiliates with documentation [1] [2], while others profile ideological movements and media platforms without enumerating a closed list of organizations [8] [9]. Polling work shows that Christian nationalist sentiment correlates with demographic and partisan factors across states but does not single out organizations as sole drivers; this indicates a complex ecosystem of beliefs, institutions, donors, and cultural movements rather than a single monolithic organization [5] [9]. Reporting also diverges on whether groups like Heritage or conservative think tanks are driving religious nationalism intentionally or contributing via shared policy goals, an important distinction for assessing culpability and strategy [2] [8].
6. What to watch next and why it matters
The convergent signal from investigative reporting and research is that a mix of funding hubs, policy projects, charismatic movements, and government placements are implicated in promoting white Christian nationalist aims; the actors named include Marble Freedom Trust, Project 2025 architects, Ziklag, the New Apostolic Reformation, Seven Mountains proponents, and politically active faith offices tied to prominent advisors [1] [6] [3] [4]. Monitoring should focus on documented funding flows, the legal boundaries of tax‑exempt activity, and the translation of religious mandates into concrete policy proposals. These developments matter because they affect legal norms, civil‑religious pluralism, and institutional checks on faith‑aligned governance—areas central to the rule of law and democratic accountability [1] [6].