US Evangelical Leaders Publicly Back Trump's Military Campaign in the Middle East

On February 28, 2026, the United States launched Operation Epic Fury, a joint military campaign with Israel against Iran that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in its opening hours and struck more than 12,000 targets across the country over 38 days [1]. Within hours of the first bombs falling, America's most prominent evangelical leaders had already framed the campaign not merely as a strategic necessity but as a chapter in a divine story — one with roots in biblical prophecy, decades of political organizing, and billions of dollars in institutional infrastructure.

The speed and uniformity of evangelical institutional support for the operation was striking. But beneath the public unanimity of megachurch pastors and lobbying organizations, a generational fault line has opened that raises questions about the long-term durability of the evangelical-military alliance — and about whether the Christians most endangered by the campaign are the ones its American champions claim to protect.

The Endorsement Machine

The three most prominent evangelical endorsements came quickly and emphatically. Pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the largest pro-Israel organization in the United States with ten million members, declared: "Operation Epic Fury is making the world a safer and better place for all its inhabitants; stay the course, Mr. President" [2]. Franklin Graham, president and CEO of Samaritan's Purse, warned that had President Trump not acted, Iran's "fanatical Islamic regime" would have acquired the capability to strike within months [2]. Dr. Mike Evans, founder of the Friends of Zion Heritage Center in Jerusalem and a longtime Trump ally, called the U.S.-Israel partnership "historic" and "unprecedented" [2].

Each leader drew on a distinct but overlapping theological register. Hagee's framing was openly eschatological — he told supporters, "Prophetically, we're right on cue," linking the campaign to the dispensationalist belief that conflicts in the Middle East fulfill biblical prophecy and precede Christ's return [3]. Evans and Graham relied more heavily on a blend of covenant theology — the idea, rooted in Genesis 12, that God blesses nations that bless Israel — and a just-war argument that positioned the campaign as defensive action against an imminent nuclear threat [2][4].

The endorsements were not limited to senior leaders. Sean Feucht, the Christian singer and activist with a large following among younger evangelicals, referenced "end-time open doors" regarding Iran's regime removal [3]. Greg Laurie, a California megapastor, stated publicly that "the next event on the prophetic calendar would be the rapture" [5]. Travis Johnson, an Alabama pastor, posted of Khamenei's death: "Bye, Felicia. Khamenei has left the building" [5].

The Money Behind the Movement

CUFI's political influence extends well beyond prayer rallies. Since 2016, the organization has spent nearly $2.5 million in direct congressional lobbying, with over $679,000 in 2025 alone focused on Iranian and Syrian sanctions, anti-BDS legislation, and pro-Israel trade policy [6]. CUFI is registered with the IRS as a church, meaning it is not required to disclose its finances — a structure that limits public accountability over its spending [7]. Its sister organization, the CUFI Action Fund, a 501(c)(4), lobbies at both the federal and state level [7].

Separate analyses have identified between $50 million and $65 million in evangelical-linked investments flowing to illegal Israeli West Bank settlements [6]. Precise 2026 campaign contribution data from evangelical-affiliated PACs is not yet publicly available, and CUFI itself has not reported direct contributions to candidates in recent election cycles [7]. Compared to the Iraq War era, when Christian Zionist organizations were still building their lobbying apparatus — CUFI was not founded until 2006 — the institutional infrastructure supporting the current campaign is substantially larger and better funded.

A coalition of more than 60 national ecumenical organizations, including the National Council of Churches, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the United Methodist Church, and the United Church of Christ, urged Congress to oppose a $50 billion supplemental appropriations bill for the war, calling the campaign "illegal and reckless" [8].

Holy Warriors in the Pentagon

The evangelical imprint on Operation Epic Fury extends beyond civilian advocacy and into the military chain of command. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has brought an overtly Christian nationalist orientation to the Pentagon. In his 2020 book American Crusade, Hegseth wrote: "We Christians...need to pick up the sword of unapologetic Americanism and defend ourselves" and called for "a 360-degree holy war" [9]. He bears tattoos of the Jerusalem cross and the Latin phrase "Deus vult" — "God wills it" — a Crusader motto [9].

Since taking office, Hegseth has hosted monthly prayer gatherings with evangelical chaplains at the Pentagon, reduced the military's faith codes from over 200 to 31 categories — eliminating atheistic, agnostic, and Wiccan designations — and dismissed the Army's top chaplain, Maj. Gen. William Green Jr., reportedly over opposition to the faith code changes [9]. He compared a downed Air Force pilot's rescue to Christ's resurrection: "Shot down on a Friday — Good Friday. Hidden in a cave...rescued on Sunday...A pilot reborn...God is good" [9].

Paula White-Cain, head of the White House Faith Office, has been equally explicit, stating: "To say no to President Trump would be to say no to God" [5]. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation reported receiving over 200 complaints from service members describing commanders framing the Iran conflict as part of "God's divine plan" [3]. One anonymous human resources sergeant told The Intercept that "commanders...tell soldiers Trump has been ordained by God" to pursue "a war to bring their bloodthirsty version of Jesus back" [5].

Senator Mark Kelly called the intertwining of religion with combat operations "pretty objectionable" [9]. Legal experts have argued these actions violate the First Amendment's establishment clause [9]. Melissa Deckman of the Public Religion Research Institute noted: "What distinguishes Hegseth...is his willingness to use overt Christian language and bring a very sectarian view of Christianity into the Pentagon" [9].

The Christians Who Pay the Price

The campaign's most bitter irony may be this: the Middle Eastern Christians who live in the conflict zone have been among its most vocal opponents.

As the war widened, buildings belonging to the Chaldean Church in Ankawa, the Christian suburb of Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan, were struck in a drone attack [10]. In Iraq's Nineveh Plain, the Syriac town of Bartella experienced a strike on a building affiliated with the Popular Mobilization Forces [10]. In Lebanon, residents fled Beirut's southern suburbs and southern Lebanon, including several Christian towns [10]. Five foreign nationals were killed across the Gulf states — one each in Kuwait and Bahrain, three in the UAE [10].

Chaldean Patriarch Cardinal Louis Raphael Sako called on all Chaldean churches to pray for peace [10]. The Assyrian Church of the East urged "maximum restraint to protect innocent civilians" [10]. Bishop Eugene Nugent characterized the situation as "grave and deteriorating," with air raid sirens becoming "an alarming reality in countries long considered safe havens" [10]. Anglican Archbishop Hosam Naoum called on leaders to "recognize the futility of this bloodshed" [11].

The historical record that critics cite is stark. After the 2003 Iraq invasion — also supported by many evangelical leaders — Iraq's Christian population fell from an estimated 1.5 million to fewer than 250,000 [6]. Libya's post-2011 intervention saw its small Christian community face increased persecution. Supporters of Operation Epic Fury counter that Iran's own regime systematically persecuted Christians, particularly converts, and that the destruction of the regime may create space for religious freedom. That argument remains untested, and Cardinal Dominique Mathieu, the Latin Archbishop of Tehran, was unable to issue formal statements due to internet blackouts and mobile disruptions inside Iran [10].

The Generational Fracture

The most significant challenge to the evangelical consensus on Israel and military intervention is demographic. Polling data shows a dramatic shift among younger evangelicals.

Source: Pew Research Center / University of North Carolina

Data as of Apr 7, 2026CSV

In 2018, 69% of American evangelicals under 30 sided with Israel. By 2025, that figure had fallen to 32% [12]. Among evangelicals aged 30 to 49, support declined from 76% to 58% over the same period [12]. Evangelicals over 65 have remained more stable, declining from 85% to 78% [12]. Dr. Mike Evans acknowledged the shift, estimating that 22% to 23% of younger evangelicals have moved away from traditional support for Israel [2].

A March 2026 Pew Research Center survey found that among all Americans, 59% said the decision to use military force against Iran was wrong, while 38% said it was right [13]. White evangelical Protestants showed higher personal engagement with the Iran campaign than the general public — 86% called it personally important — but this figure masks internal disagreement about whether that importance translates into support or opposition [13]. The survey did not publish a standalone evangelical approve/disapprove breakdown, a limitation in the available polling evidence.

Among the broader American public, 69% cited higher gas prices as their top concern about the war, reflecting the economic fallout: Brent crude surpassed $100 per barrel for the first time in four years by March 8, peaking at $126 per barrel as Iran's retaliation closed the Strait of Hormuz [1][14].

The Legal Scaffolding

The administration launched Operation Epic Fury under Article II commander-in-chief authority, without a congressional declaration of war, a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), or a specific triggering attack on U.S. territory or forces [15]. The existing 2001 AUMF — passed after the September 11 attacks to authorize force against those responsible — was not invoked [15].

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities and limits operations to 60 days without congressional authorization, with a 30-day withdrawal period [15]. Trump submitted the required 48-hour notification but cited only general executive authority rather than a concrete triggering event [15].

Senate Republicans defeated a Democrat-led effort to curtail the president's military authority, blocking a resolution that would have mandated withdrawal unless Congress passed a formal AUMF [16]. The Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) urged Congress to pass a retroactive AUMF to provide legal cover [17].

Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, former chief of international law at U.S. Central Command and now a national security law professor at Southwestern Law School, stated that the operation "clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution" [18]. Stanford Law School's Allen Weiner raised additional constitutional questions about both the domestic and international law basis for the strikes [19]. Legal scholars writing at Lawfare and Just Security noted a broad consensus among international lawyers regarding the illegality of the operation [20].

Defenders of the action, including scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, argue that Article II provides sufficient authority for the president to act against imminent threats to national security, and that the elimination of Iran's nuclear infrastructure justified preemptive action [21].

Steelmanning the Evangelical Case

The strongest version of the evangelical argument for intervention rests on three pillars. First, theological: covenant theology holds that the United States has a moral obligation, derived from Genesis 12:3 ("I will bless those who bless you"), to defend Israel from existential threats [4]. Second, humanitarian: Iran's regime systematically persecuted religious minorities, including Christians, Bahá'ís, and Sunni Muslims, and its destruction removes a source of state-sponsored religious oppression [2]. Third, strategic: Iran's nuclear program, ballistic missile arsenal, and network of proxy forces (Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iraqi militias) constituted an imminent and growing threat that diplomacy had failed to resolve [21].

Supporters point to the stated objectives of the campaign — obliterating Iran's ballistic missile capacity, dismantling its nuclear infrastructure, and severing proxy networks — as proportionate and achievable [1]. They cite the ceasefire achieved after 38 days as evidence of decisive success [1].

Critics counter with the historical record. The post-2003 exodus of Iraqi Christians — from 1.5 million to fewer than 250,000 — occurred under similar conditions of regime change that evangelicals had supported [6]. Libya's 2011 intervention produced state collapse and increased religious persecution. The counterargument is that Iran's regime was uniquely dangerous because of its nuclear ambitions and that the alternative — a nuclear-armed Iran — posed a greater threat to regional Christians and minorities than the risks of intervention. This debate cannot be resolved by the available evidence; only the coming years will determine whether the campaign protects or further endangers the communities its supporters claim to defend.

The Comparison to Past Wars

Evangelical institutional support for Operation Epic Fury moved faster and with greater organizational coordination than in any prior Middle Eastern conflict. During the 2003 Iraq invasion, evangelical opinion was divided — the National Association of Evangelicals did not take a formal position, and prominent voices like Jim Wallis of Sojourners actively opposed the war [22]. During Obama's 2011 Libya intervention, evangelical institutions were largely silent, neither endorsing nor condemning the action. During Trump's first-term Syria strikes in 2017 and 2018, evangelical support was present but ad hoc.

The difference in 2026 is structural. CUFI, founded in 2006, now commands ten million members and a professionalized lobbying apparatus [6]. The Trump administration has placed evangelical allies — Hegseth at the Pentagon, Huckabee as ambassador to Israel, White-Cain at the White House Faith Office — in positions of direct operational influence [5][9]. And the theological framing has shifted: where Iraq was debated primarily through just-war doctrine, Operation Epic Fury has been framed through dispensationalist eschatology that makes the campaign not just justified but prophetically necessary [3].

Red Lines That May Not Exist

When asked what conditions would cause them to withdraw support, most endorsing evangelical leaders have offered few specifics. Hagee's framing is essentially unconditional: if the conflict is prophetically ordained, there is no condition under which opposition would be theologically coherent [3]. Franklin Graham's support is conditioned on the threat calculus — he has focused on Iran's nuclear ambitions rather than eschatological claims, leaving more theoretical room for reconsideration if civilian casualties mount [2]. Evans acknowledged the generational shift but offered no conditions for withdrawal [2].

No prominent evangelical leader who initially endorsed Operation Epic Fury has publicly withdrawn that endorsement as of April 9, 2026. The ceasefire, reached after 38 days of major combat, has reduced immediate pressure to take a position on the campaign's continuation. Whether that unanimity holds through the occupation, reconstruction, and political transition phases — where past interventions have produced their worst consequences for religious minorities — remains an open question.

A Fractured Christendom

The most striking feature of the Christian response to Operation Epic Fury is the chasm between American evangelicals and virtually every other Christian tradition. The World Council of Churches condemned the campaign [11]. Pope Leo XIV urged all parties to "stop the spiral of violence" [11]. The Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), United Church of Christ, and United Methodist Church all issued condemnations [11][8]. More than 60 ecumenical organizations called on Congress to defund the war [8].

Middle Eastern Christian leaders — the communities with the most direct stake in the outcome — have universally called for peace, not escalation. The Maronite Patriarch, the Chaldean Patriarch, the Assyrian Church of the East, and Anglican leaders in Jerusalem all opposed the military campaign [10][11]. Bethlehem Bible College stated simply: "War does not discriminate; it leaves emotional, economic, and spiritual wounds in every community" [11].

The evangelical leaders who endorsed Operation Epic Fury claim to speak for Christianity's interests in the Middle East. The Christians who actually live there disagree.