Opinion
Trump Considers Writing Own Testament For Bible After Concluding One Book Was Not Enough
Prof. Eleanor Watts reviews the draft theology memo and finds its footnotes more serious than its premise should permit.
I have written three books about executive power. None of them prepared me for the phrase Trump Testament, which arrived in my inbox at 8:14 a.m. with no greeting and an attachment labeled draft theological framework.
I want to be precise at the outset. The Bible is not the Federal Register. The New Testament is not a vacant lot. There is no recognized Article II mechanism by which a president appends material after Revelation because, as one adviser reportedly put it, so many people have books.
"A constitutional crisis is one thing. A constitutional crisis with a concordance is, at minimum, a new seminar." Prof. Eleanor Watts
The Proposed Testament
The working concept, according to two people familiar with the draft and one person familiar with how familiar the first two people are, is that a single Trump book is insufficient to the historical moment. Books are common. Testaments, the document suggests, are rarer.
The proposed Trump Testament would appear after the New Testament in participating editions, with placement language still under review. A marginal note proposes the phrase added in recognition of extraordinary spiritual leadership, which my research assistant has placed in a spreadsheet column titled Please Advise.
Aides insist the President is not calling himself the second coming. The draft merely states that many people are saying that, unsolicited, with tears in their eyes and no citation. I have taught enough methods courses to recognize the evidentiary weakness of many people, but I also recognize its durability as a governing phrase.
The Title Problem
One proposed honorific under discussion is Supreme Spiritual Religious Leader of Christianity. This is not a title with clear denominational uptake. It is, however, a title assembled from words that individually carry meaning and collectively suggest the author did not want a shorter meeting.
I am not a theologian. I am a political scientist, which means I can tell you when a title has migrated from symbolic politics into institutional fantasy. This one has purchased property there.
"The First Amendment has entered the chat, and I regret the phrasing even as I stand by the analysis." Prof. Eleanor Watts
The Treason Appendix
The enforcement appendix is where the draft leaves the realm of devotional merchandising and enters my professional jurisdiction. It states that publishers refusing to include the Trump Testament shall be subject to treason review, a phrase that caused my research assistant to whisper please do not make me create a treason tab.
Treason is narrowly defined in American constitutional law. It is not, traditionally, triggered by table-of-contents disputes. I write traditionally because the last decade has punished every scholar who uses the word impossible too early.
For now, the proposal remains pre-decisional, internally contested, and more formatted than any draft involving Revelation should be. My values have not changed. My priors have, however, acquired a religion column.
Disclosure: I voted against Trump twice and have never successfully completed a devotional appendix. The second fact appears less relevant until you read the memo.