In a move that prioritizes institutional secrecy over child safety, the Trump administration's Department of Justice has aggressively intervened in June 2025 to block Washington state's law requiring clergy to report suspected child abuse—even when disclosed during confession.
The Law: Simple Child Protection
Washington's Senate Bill 5375, signed by Democratic Governor Bob Ferguson on May 2, 2025, simply adds clergy to the already existing list of mandatory reporters required to report suspected child abuse within 48 hours. The law covers "any regularly licensed, accredited, or ordained minister, priest, rabbi, imam, elder, or similarly positioned religious or spiritual leader."
The law doesn't target Catholics specifically—it applies to all religious leaders, aligning them with existing requirements for teachers, doctors, nurses, and other professionals who work with children.
The DOJ's Swift Response: Protecting Institutional Secrecy
Within 72 hours of the law's passage, the Trump administration launched what it called an investigation into this "anti-Catholic law." On June 23, 2025, the Department of Justice formally intervened in federal court to block enforcement.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, characterized Washington's child protection law as mounting "attacks on the free exercise of religion," declaring: "The Justice Department will not sit idly by when States mount attacks on the free exercise of religion."
The DOJ's Legal Arguments
The federal lawsuit argues that requiring Catholic priests to report child abuse "deprives Catholic priests of their fundamental right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, as guaranteed under the First Amendment." The filing states that because "punishment for directly violating the sacramental seal of Confession is excommunication... a more direct burden on the exercise of religion would be difficult to imagine."
Source: https://www.bishop-accountability.org/2025/07/trump-administration-intervenes-to-help/
The Court's Decision: Vatican Protection for Child Rapists Wins
On July 18, 2025, U.S. District Judge David G. Estudillo granted a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking the law's application to Catholic confession. The judge ruled that requiring disclosure of confession information "infringes on their First Amendment right to practice religion."
The Governor's Response: A Catholic Defending Child Safety
Governor Bob Ferguson, who is Catholic and has attended confession himself, defended the law and expressed disappointment with the Church's position. "I'm disappointed my Church is filing a federal lawsuit to protect individuals who abuse kids," Ferguson stated.
Ferguson noted that Catholic bishops potentially having to reveal child abuse claims disclosed during confession "didn't give him pause." When asked about his familiarity with confession, he responded: "I'm very familiar with it. Been to confession, myself."
The Broader Context: Institutional Protection vs. Child Safety
This intervention comes as Catholic institutions face unprecedented financial accountability for institutional abuse. U.S. Catholic dioceses have paid over $5 billion in abuse settlements since 2004, with the Los Angeles Archdiocese alone recently paying $880 million to over 1,300 survivors.
Sources:
- $5 billion total: https://www.ncronline.org/news/more-5-billion-spent-catholic-sexual-abuse-allegations-new-report-finds
- LA settlement: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/17/nx-s1-5155654/archdiocese-of-los-angeles-will-pay-880-million-to-settle-sexual-abuse-claims
What Makes This Intervention Unusual
Several states have successfully implemented clergy reporting requirements without constitutional crises. According to documented research, six states completely eliminate clergy exemptions: New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, and West Virginia—many of them highly conservative states.
Source: https://www.bishop-accountability.org/2025/07/trump-and-the-catholic-church-fight/
The federal intervention suggests Vatican protection rather than constitutional necessity, especially when conservative states have implemented similar laws without federal opposition.
The Political Theater
The timing reveals the political nature of this intervention. The Trump administration's lawsuit came amid broader conflicts over religious freedom issues, yet focused specifically on protecting Catholic institutional interests rather than defending religious liberty generally.
As one analysis noted, "Trump — himself found liable for sexual abuse — has steered clear of criticizing the Catholic Church over its own scandals, instead casting himself as a defender of religion against government overreach."
Source: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-catholic-church-child-abuse-law-clergy-priests-1235388032/ ; https://www.bishop-accountability.org/2025/07/trump-and-the-catholic-church-fight/
The Larger Pattern
This intervention fits a documented pattern where Vatican authority receives governmental protection while independent religious voices face systematic suppression. When federal officials simultaneously protect institutional secrecy and coordinate with platforms to suppress voices warning about institutional failures, it raises serious First Amendment concerns about government coordination to control religious discourse.
What This Means for Child Safety
The practical effect of this intervention is clear: Catholic priests in Washington can legally keep child rape secret if disclosed during confession, despite the state's determination that child safety requires mandatory reporting from all professionals who work with children. And considers the Catholic protection of its unscriptural confessional ritual more important than the actual safety of innocent young children who are abused by the world's most dangerous cult.
While the Church frames this as protecting sacred religious rites, child safety advocates point out that the same protections aren't extended to other confidential professional relationships when child welfare is at stake.
Looking Forward
This case will likely continue through appeals, with broader implications for how courts balance institutional religious authority against child protection mandates. The Trump administration's aggressive intervention suggests this issue extends beyond Washington state to fundamental questions about governmental favoritism toward specific religious institutions.
The documented pattern of coordination between government officials, tech platforms, and institutional religious authority raises constitutional questions that courts will need to address as these cases develop.
For ongoing coverage of institutional accountability and religious freedom issues, follow developments at @tlthe5th on X, tlthe5th.ai, SpirituallySmart.com and the #OvertPsyops movement documenting these coordination patterns.
