Three FBI interviews released last week present graphic and detailed allegations of sexual and physical assault against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein

Three FBI interviews that contain graphic sexual and physical assault allegations against President Donald Trump were released late last week by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Julie K. Brown, the Miami Herald reporter who is credited with breaking a series of stories that led to Jeffrey Epstein's conviction on federal sex-trafficking charges, writes that a report says investigators found the victim to be credible, even though the White House deemed her claims to be "baseless." Under the headline "DOJ releases Epstein files with accusations against Trump," Brown and fellow Herald reporter Claire Healy write:

The reports were follow-up interviews a woman gave to the FBI in 2019, when the agency was investigating Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking crimes.

There is no indication in the reports whether the FBI was able to verify her claims. The White House on Thursday called the woman’s allegations “baseless.” But a DOJ source told the Miami Herald that agents found her to be credible – and that they would not have interviewed her four times if they thought she was lying. For a time, she declined to cooperate with their investigation, and they lost touch with her, the source said.

Her first interview, on July 24, 2019, was contained in the Epstein files that were released by the DOJ in January. That report, which was redacted, said the woman alleged she was raped by Jeffrey Epstein in the 1980s, when she was about 13 and living in Hilton Head, South Carolina, with her mother. Her mother, who worked in real estate, had put an advertisement for babysitting services in a packet provided to her tenants. Epstein responded, the report said, and she sent her daughter. Epstein gave her drugs and raped her over the course of several years, the report said.

That interview summary did not contain Trump’s name, although the report was heavily redacted and the woman alluded to having a photograph of Trump on her phone, which agents noted to be a widely distributed photo of Trump and Epstein. When pressed further by the agents, she became emotional and ended the interview.

At first, it looked like details from the victim's account might not come to light because they did not appear to be part of the files. Brown and Healy explain how the DOJ, under fire for failing to abide by provisions of a recently passed transparency law, belatedly issued files that contained significant damning information about Epstein and Trump. From the Herald report:

An examination of the date stamps showed that she was interviewed three more times – but those FBI interviews were not part of the files, prompting a public outcry earlier last week. The controversy comes as Attorney General Pam Bondi has been under fire over the DOJ’s handling of the files, which were released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA) passed by Congress in November. The DOJ said the missing files had not been published because they were incorrectly marked as “duplicative.”

In those subsequent interviews, the woman described how Epstein trafficked her to several men, including Trump, in the 1980s. She was interviewed again by the FBI on Aug. 7, 2019; Aug. 20, 2019; and Oct. 16, 2019. In her second interview, she claimed that Epstein either flew or drove her from South Carolina to New York or New Jersey when she was between 13 and 15 years old. “She was introduced to someone with money, money…it was Donald Trump,” the FBI report said.

The victim had a solid memory of the surroundings when she was introduced to Trump. She also said that she was disgusted by his behavior. That seems in line with other reports about Trump's behavior toward women or girls in seemingly private situations. (See here, here, and here.)

She recalled that she was in a “very tall building with huge rooms” when she met Trump, whom she said  immediately didn’t like her because she was a “boy-girl” – or tomboy. She claimed she was with Epstein and several other people who left her alone in the room with Trump. “Let me teach you how little girls are supposed to be,” she recalled Trump saying, according to the FBI report. She said he unzipped his pants and forced her head to his penis. She said she immediately bit him and Trump struck her, the report said.

She told the FBI agents that she bit him because he “disgusted” her. In her third interview, she told agents she wanted to clarify how Trump reacted to her biting him, explaining that Trump “pulled her hair and punched her on the side of the head.” She also said that Epstein blackmailed her mother by saying he had explicit photographs of her daughter, and that her mother later went to prison for embezzling money from her job in an effort to purchase the photos from Epstein.

The woman could not name any of the other men Epstein trafficked her to, except for a man she identified as “Jim Atkins,” whom she believed worked for an Ohio university. The Miami Herald could not locate him on deadline. During her third interview with agents, she detailed how she and her mother had received numerous death threats and had twice been run off the road. She said she felt she was being threatened by Epstein and Trump. She said the callers told her “we know where you’re at, you need to keep your mouth shut.”

In the last interview, in October 2019, she said she felt “what’s the point?” The assaults had taken place so long ago, that she felt nothing could be done now. The woman’s allegations were included in a July 2025 FBI PowerPoint presentation which listed the uncorroborated allegations against several men, including Trump. Trump has denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and many of the materials released by the Justice Department lack substantiation and context. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in an emailed statement to the Herald, said the woman’s accusations had no validity. “As we have said countless times, President Trump has been totally exonerated by the release of the Epstein Files.” She said the woman’s statements were backed by “zero credible evidence from a sadly disturbed woman who has an extensive criminal history.”

No one should be surprised that the White House claims regarding a criminal record proved to be false:

The Herald, which is not naming the woman, found no “extensive” criminal history for her. She was arrested for theft in the past, public records show, but the charges were dismissed. In 2019, the woman joined a civil lawsuit against the Epstein estate which was settled. Trump was not mentioned in the suit.

Kristi Noem's stumbling answers to questions about alleged affair with Corey Lewandowski forced her exit at DHS, but Trump ensured she had a soft landing

Kristi Noem and Corey Lewandowski (MSN)

Donald Trump is notorious for a lot of things, but perhaps No. 1 on the list is his prodigious ability to tolerate incompetence. In fact, Trump seems especially welcoming for any staffer who's is "mentally unstable and bad at his job." Kristi Noem certainly qualified on both counts; after all, this is a woman who earned the nickname "Puppy Killer" by fatally shooting her 14-month-old dog named Cricket, also shooting the family goat, and writing about both incidents in her book.

That tale, however, did not disqualify Noem in Trump's eyes. In fact, it might have ensured that he would name her secretary of homeland security, joining a "Cabinet of Horrors" that includes Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr., and . . . well, you get the idea. But a pair of Congressional hearings this week -- a less damning one before the U.S. Senate and a highly damning one before the House of Representatives -- caused even Trump to reach his "puke point" with Kristi Noem. It wasn't because Noem directed an immigration operation that led to the shooting deaths of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis.

Trump did not seem particularly bothered by that. But Noem's stumbling answers to questions at the House hearing about her alleged extramarital affair with former Trump staffer Corey Lewandowski proved more than the president could stomach, according to a report at the New York Post. From my vantage point, it looks like Trump was embarrassed, as if Lewandowski had "cucked" him. That suggests Trump had a vested interest in Noem maintaining at least a public appearance of "sexual purity" after a certain event, say a rendezvous (or two or three . . . ) with Trump. 

With headlines blaring about the Noem-Lewandowski affair -- and with Noem's dodgy answers to questions on the subject captured for posterity in the Congressional Record -- Trump's tolerance for a DHS secretary soiled by scandal suddenly vanished. It's not that Trump minds scandal; in fact, he seems to roll around in it like a barnyard pig in slop. But a scandal that raises possible questions -- and (horror!) jokes -- about his sexual prowess, or lack thereof . . . well, that's not going to fly. Nope, as a malignant narcissist, Donnie J. Trump cannot tolerate the thought of people laughing at him. And so, Kristi Noem had gone a bridge too far and was ousted.

To be sure, Noem did not receive a much-deserved pink slip -- even though a number of news outlets used the term "fired" to describe her dismissal. In fact, Trump tossed bouquets in her direction and assigned her to a cushy position as "special envoy to the shield of the Americas."

What does the New York Post make of this? Let's check out their article under the headline "Noem's answer on 'sexual relations' with Lewandowski was "final straw' for Trump, sources say." It took three reporters to put it together, so it must be good. Steven Nelson, Emily Goodin, and Marisa Schultz write:

The “final straw” prompting President Trump to fire Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was her stunning non-answer at a House hearing Wednesday about whether she had “sexual relations” with top aide Corey Lewandowski, sources inside and close to the White House told The Post.

Trump had been nearing a boiling point in his frustration with Noem and already was considering ousting her after she claimed to senators Tuesday that Trump approved $220 million in ads starring herself — but her inability to answer the affair questions  sealed her fate.

“The question about the affair at the hearing was actually the final straw. It was f—ing brutal,” one source said of Noem’s reply, which was widely seen as an admission that she was sleeping with her subordinate. Her husband of 34 years Bryon Noem had joined her at the hearing.

Did it matter to Trump that Bryon Noem might have been embarrassed? That is doubtful. But did it matter to Trump that HE was embarrassed? Hell, yes. From the Post: 

The soon-to-be axed DHS head refused to directly answer when asked if she is having sexual relations with Lewandowski, calling the question “garbage.”

“Have you had sexual relations with Corey Lewandowski?” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) asked Noem during the hearing.

“I am shocked that we’re going down and peddling tabloid garbage in this committee today,” Noem said in response. “All I would tell you is that he is a special government employee who works for the White House. There are thousands of them in the federal government.”

Noem's mistake, it appears, was picking a special government employee who happened to be a former aide to Trump. Even worse, Noem made it appear that she preferred Lewandowski's intimate company to whatever Trump could provide. That must have irked Ttump enough that he did not "axe" her (to use the Post's term), but he did ship her off to Nowheresville. Once news of Noem's ouster blows over, it will be interesting to see when Noem's name shows up again in headlines. My guess is that it will be, as Linda Ronstadt sang, "A Long, Long Time."

In testimony before the House, Noem kept digging a hole for herself, sources tell the Post:

After repeated pushing from other lawmakers for a yes or no response, Noem still deflected.

“I really think you need to say the word ‘no’ into the record so that you can clear that up,” Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) said.

Noem never did.

“It kept mounting up,” said another source, who agreed that it was the final straw.

A third source said, “There was just no going back with the two hearings. It all became about her and him.”

As for the role an affair might have played in Noem's ouster, Lewandowski had no answer for that one. Trump, however, also was displeased with Noem's answer to questions about spending on advertising:

Lewandowski himself told The Post he wasn’t sure what role the alleged affair played.

“You’re asking me to speculate on things that I have no insight into,” he said when reached by phone.

Trump’s ouster of Noem — the first cabinet shakeup of his second term — came shortly after he told Reuters that she lied to Congress about his approval of advertising spending, giving the impression that was the core reason for his decision to swap her out for Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.).

“I never knew anything about it,” Trump told the outlet. 

Some of the ad money flowed to a company run by the husband of Noem’s then-spokeswoman. One ad featured Noem, 54, on horseback, riding in front of the iconic Mount Rushmore, which sits in her home state of South Dakota.

And her voice-over featured tough words: “You cross the border illegally, we’ll find you. Break our laws, we’ll punish. You harm American citizens, there will be consequences. But if you come here the right way, your American dream can be as big as these endless skies.

From President Trump and me: Welcome home.”

That sounds like a pretty clever ad, but despite some tough language, it ultimately sends a  squishy, feel-good message about immigration -- and that might not have pleased Trump:

Sources said that the ad issue was indeed a key motivation for Trump, though her poor handling of the affair query removed any doubt.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told reporters after Noem’s termination that Trump was “mad as a murder hornet” and considering replacing her with Mullin on Tuesday night after her Senate testimony — though he didn’t do so until Thursday following her disastrous House testimony on Wednesday.

“The president, when he called me Tuesday night, the night of the hearing, when he was mad as a murder hornet, he asked me what I thought about Markwayne,” Kennedy said. 

Noem thanked Trump for her new post, and she probably should be thankful. Under normal circumstances, she likely would have been canned outright. A lot of federal workers in the age of DOGE probably would love to have a soft landing like the one Noem received. Some of them probably are wondering how to stay out of foreclosure or bankruptcy. From the Post report:

For her part, Noem maintained a strong public facade. She spoke to a law enforcement conference in Nashville minutes after she was fired and kept it to business as usual.

She thanked Trump in a statement for her new appointment as the Special Envoy for the Shield of the Americas.

“In this new role, I will be able to build on the partnerships and national security expertise, I forged over my time as Secretary of Homeland Security. We have made historic accomplishments at the Department of Homeland Security to make America safe again,” she said.

Trump was already aware of Noem’s relationship with Lewandowski, who served as his first campaign manager in 2016, and has joked about it for years — but viewed her handling of the affair question as a disaster for her already crumbling credibility.

Tensions boil over at U.S. Senate committee hearing on the Iran war, as GOP Senator Tim Sheehy pitches in to help police remove a protester, Marine veteran

Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT) wraps his arm around protester's shoulder (Independent)

A protester apparently had his hand broken as he was forcibly removed yesterday from a U.S. Senate hearing on the Iran war. A scrum of security personnel struggled to remove Brian McGinnis, a North Carolina resident and a military veteran who was wearing a Marine Corps uniform. U.S. Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT), who participated in the hearing as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, assisted with removing the protester -- and some online commenters said video of the incident showed Sheehy, a former Navy SEAL, helped break McGinnis' hand or arm.

This is a report from Sheehy's home-state newspaper, the Daily Montanan. Under the headline "Montana Sen. Sheehy gets in altercation with anti-war protester, veteran, on Capitol Hill," Micah Drew writes:

Montana Sen. Tim Sheehy got into an altercation with an anti-war protester during a Senate Armed Services Subcommittee meeting that appears to have left the protester with a broken arm.

In a video shared by CBS News’ Alan He, three Capitol Police officers are working to subdue and eject Brian McGinnis, a Marine Corps veteran and Green Party candidate for the U.S. Senate in North Carolina, who shouts, “No one wants to fight for Israel.”

Sheehy is seen rushing in to help subdue McGinnis, grabbing his lower leg as the Capitol Police attempt to carry him through the hearing room door.

McGinnis hooks one of his arms around the door frame, and Sheehy moves to wrap an arm around McGinnis’ shoulder and pry him away from the door. An audible snap is heard on the video, and it appears that either McGinnis’ lower arm or wrist broke.

U.S. Capitol police alleged that McGinnis engaged in an illegal protest and noted that he would face a series of criminal charges. Might McGinnis have grounds to press criminal charges or file a civil rights/personal-injury lawsuit against Sheehy, whose duties as a member of a senate committee likely do not include assisting with security matters? We do not have an answer to that question at the moment, but one way or another, this incident probably will wind up in court. Drew writes:

Sheehy reposted the video on his own social media account with a statement.

“Capitol Police were attempting to remove an unhinged protestor from the Armed Services hearing. He was fighting back. I decided to help out and deescalate the situation. This gentleman came to the Capitol looking for a confrontation, and he got one. I hope he gets the help he needs without causing further violence.”

In another video showing McGinnis being escorted away, he expresses support for a Free Palestine, and the individual filming indicates McGinnis’ arm is broken.

As fallout from the incident, McGinnis definitely will have to tend to legal issues, Drew reports: 

In a statement, a public information officer for the Capitol Police said that McGinnis was treated for an injury, but did not specify the injury. The Capitol Police also said three officers had to be treated for injuries.

“This afternoon, an unruly man who started to illegally protest during a hearing, put everyone in a dangerous position by violently resisting and fighting our officer’s attempts to remove him from the room,” the statement from the Capitol Police said. 

According to the Capitol Police, McGinnis faces three counts of assaulting a police officer, and three counts of “resisting arrest and crowding, obstructing, and incommoding for the unlawful demonstration.”

“Protests are not allowed inside the Congressional Buildings. There are plenty of other spots on Capitol Grounds, outside, where demonstrations are allowed,” the statement said.

The Daily Montanan sent questions about the incident to Sheehy’s office, but did not receive an immediate response.

While it would have been best if McGinnis had been able to leave the hearing without being removed by force, the available evidence indicates his behavior stepped outside the boundaries of Senate norms. We do not have access to a video that shows the full incident, but it would have been unusual for a member of the public to be invited to speak. And even if invited to speak, if he became loud or disruptive, security personnel probably would have been within their rights to remove him -- although those rights might not have extended to Sheehy. This is from an AI Overview item about the usual procedure followed at Senate hearings:

While U.S. Senate committee hearings are generally open to the public to attend, private citizens are not typically invited to make live, in-person comments or testimony during the hearings. Instead, participation is curated, with witnesses selected in advance by committee staff, often representing specialized groups, government officials, or experts.

In short, Senate hearings are designed to be orderly, and if McGinnis was disorderly, his defense on the charges against him probably will be difficult.

Here is a brief bio on McGinnis from timesnownews.com:

Brian McGinnis is a former Marine who served from 2000 to 2004, participating in the initial Iraq invasion and later joining the All-Marine boxing team. After his military service, he pursued an education degree. His recent protest in the Senate highlighted his opposition to military actions involving Israel.

On X (formerly Twitter), commenters tended to be supportive of McGinnis and critical of Sheehy: Here is a sampling:

(1) From "Adam" -- BREAKING MARINE: “NO ONE WANTS TO DIE FOR ISRAEL”

Reports that they BROKE his hand. This is a patriot.

(2) From "Eh, What's Up, Doc" -- U.S. Marine Brian McGinnis. Imagine serving as a Marine and then being injured at home, on purpose, by a sitting Senator while exercising your constitutionally-protected rights. got dragged out of a senate hearing for standing up and saying what everyone is thinking.

(3) From "never again is happening now" -- What is wrong with America?

Why are we are NORMALIZING VIOLENCE toward protesters?

Let him speak then adjourn the meeting until he leaves WITH DIGNITY

(4) From "Danieee" -- The generals just sitting there like bots is probably the scariest part of the whole video.

Trump and Hegseth hardly are paragons of virtue, but on their watch, troops are being subjected to end-of-times theology as U.S. aligns with Israel in Iran war

U.S. troops have yet to start operating like a well-oiled machine as they seek to fulfill their Trump-mandated mission of attacking Iran to accomplish . . . something, although no one in authority seems able to articulate what the goal actually is. Even Secretary of State Marco Rubio does not seem sure if America launched its latest foreign adventure because of an order from its president or the whims of Israel's charged war criminal, Benjamin Netanyahu. 

At least our troops know they represent a pluralistic society where attending church generally is considered a good thing, but as a matter of constitutional directive, "Congress shall makeno law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, where and how to worship is your choice, and no one should be forcing a particular religious doctrine down your throat. Oh wait, according to dozens of complaints from U.S. troops, that already is being done -- in that not-so-pluralistic paradise of Iran. 

How is this happening? It seems U.S. military leaders want troops to chew on some peculiar religious ideas that sound like they came from the Book of Revelation. And that of course, in the words of the late Johnny Carson, is "some wild, weird stuff."

How weird is it? Independent journalist Jonathan Larsen, a former producer for Chris Hayes and Keith Olbermann  at MSNBC tries his best to tell a strangely un-American tale. Right-wing crusader types have been itching to force their religious vision on their unwilling citizens for decades now, and Larsen informs us it is actually happening on the watch of that noted theologian Donald J. Trump. Under the headline "U.S. troops were told Iran War Is for "Armageddon," Return of Jesus," Larsen writes:

A combat-unit commander told non-commissioned officers at a briefing Monday that the Iran war is part of God’s plan and that Pres. Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth,” according to a complaint by a non-commissioned officer.

From Saturday morning through Monday night, more than 110 similar complaints about commanders in every branch of the military had been logged by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF).

The complaints came from more than 40 different units spread across at least 30 military installations, the MRFF told me Monday night.

The MRFF is keeping the complainants anonymous to prevent retribution by the Defense Department. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to my request for comment.

There is grim irony in Larsen's words. The military became a bulwark for civil rights in America when President Harry Truman issued a pair of executive orders in 1948 that desegregated the military and prohibited discrimination in federal agencies. But the need to prevent retribution by the Defense Department suggests the Pentagon is knowingly violating the First Amendment's religion clauses, likely at the direction of Secretary of War (SOW) Pete Hegseth. Given that Hegseth has a reported history of being intoxicated on the job and has been accused of sexual assault, perhaps Americans should insist the SOW refrain from presenting religious instruction to troops. 

How dubious are the religious messages being relayed to our fighting forces? Larsen provides insight:

One complainant identified themselves as a non-commissioned officer (NCO) in a unit currently outside the Iran combat zone but in Ready-Support status, deployable at any time. The NCO said they were Christian and emailed the MRFF on behalf of 15 troops, including at least 11 Christians, one Muslim, and one Jew.

The NCO wrote to the MRFF that their commander “urged us to tell our troops that this was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’ and he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.”

That sounds like something ripe for parody on The Simpsons. This, however, is real, and it gets weirder, Larsen reports:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has enshrined evangelical Christianity at the uppermost levels of the U.S. military, airing monthly prayer meetings throughout the Pentagon. Last year, the Pentagon confirmed to me that Hegseth attends a weekly White House Bible study. It’s led by a preacher who says God commands America to support Israel.

Monday’s email from the NCO said that their commander’s remarks “destroy morale and unit cohesion and are in violation of the oaths we swore to support the [C]onstitution.”

The head of the MRFF seems astonished that he is having to address such an issue in 2026, especially when you consider that the Uniform Code of Military Justice forbids the injection of religious beliefs into official military instruction or messaging. Welcome to the Era of Trump, Hegseth, and Hypocrisy on Steroids, America. Larsen writes:

MRFF President and Founder Mikey Weinstein, a veteran of the Air Force and the Reagan White House, told me that since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran early Saturday morning, the MRFF has been “inundated” with similar complaints:

These calls have one damn thing in freaking common; our MRFF clients [service members who seek MRFF aid] report the unrestricted euphoria of their commanders and command chains as to how this new “biblically-sanctioned” war is clearly the undeniable sign of the expeditious approach of the fundamentalist Christian “End Times" as vividly described in the New Testament Book of Revelation.

Many of their commanders are especially delighted with how graphic this battle will be, zeroing in on how bloody all of this must become in order to fulfill and be in 100% accordance with fundamentalist Christian end of the world eschatology.

Weinstein cited constitutional and Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) prohibitions against injecting religious beliefs into official military instruction or messaging.

He said, “Any military members seeking to take advantage of their subordinates by advancing their blood-soaked, Christian nationalist wet dreams upon the flames of this latest non-Congressionally sanctioned attack against Iran, should be swiftly, aggressively and visibly prosecuted.”

Weinstein added that the MRFF receives similar complaints about Christian eschatology — end-of-the-world theology — “whenever this shit blows up with Israel in the Middle East.” 

To be sure, the introduction of end-times thinking into the military predates the arrival of Trump and Hegseth. Larsen reports:

After the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, for instance, the MRFF reported a complaint about an Air Force commander who said at a briefing that, “[T]he war between Israel and Hamas has all been foretold by the Book of Revelation in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and no-one can do anything about that.”

After 9/11, Pres. George W. Bush referred to the American “crusade” against terrorism, evoking the ancient clashes between Christian crusaders and Muslims. Bush’s language was seen as potentially inspiring Muslims to take up arms against the U.S., if it proclaimed itself a Christian army waging war on Islam.

French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine said, "One has to avoid falling into this huge trap, this monstrous trap" set by al Qaeda with the 9/11 attacks. Bush dropped the term “crusade.”

Given that Trump has shown little regard for our nation's rules, regulations, and norms, it probably should be no surprise that religious indoctrination of our troops has ramped up on his watch -- even though he personally seems to have virtually no understanding of even basic religious principles. Larsen writes:

While Christian nationalism has simmered in the military for decades, Hegseth has ended even the pretense of official intolerance for it. Trump, too, has cast himself as a champion of Christian exceptionalism, embedding it within divisions of the executive branch.

As I revealed last year, Hegseth sponsors the weekly White House Bible study that preaches support for Israel. 

Some Christians claim biblical prophecy requires Israel to exist for Jesus to return. But Hegseth’s Bible study leader, preacher Ralph Drollinger, teaches that the reason to support Israel is that God still blesses Israel’s allies and curses Israel’s enemies, even though Israel killed Jesus (this smear, the historic root of antisemitism, has been rejected by every major religion).

After Israel’s attack on Iran last year, Drollinger dedicated two weeks of lessons to preaching support for Israel. His lessons went out to White House cabinet members and members of Congress even as Israel, too, was lobbying for U.S. engagement.

Hegseth has also initiated monthly prayer sessions, most recently featuring Doug Wilson, the far-right Christian nationalist. He has also brought in other preachers from his personal circle, rejecting any attempt at making the meetings ecumenical.

Hegseth himself also speaks at these meetings, proselytizing his personal religious beliefs. “This is … I think, exactly where we need to be as a nation, at this moment,” Hegseth reportedly said, “in prayer, on bended knee, recognizing the providence of our lord and savior Jesus Christ.”

While the MRFF historically has been able to get the Pentagon to swat down Christian incursions into the military, the Trump administration is openly disdainful of military norms and law. It remains to be seen whether and how wholesale Christianization of the Iran war will be opposed by officials inside the Pentagon, or political and legal advocates for secular values outside it.