Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) said Christian nationalism is the most dangerous political movement in the U.S. during a recent interview.
The warning comes as Huffman releases a new book aimed at exposing the movement's influence on American governance. He argues that the fusion of religious extremism and political power threatens the foundational separation of church and state.
Speaking on Morning Joe in July, Huffman said he wrote the book, titled “No Prophets: The Fight to Save Democracy from Christian Nationalism,” to expose the movement [1]. He described the ideology as a primary threat to the democratic process and the legal boundaries between religious institutions and government authority.
Huffman linked the movement to political violence, saying that Christian nationalism erupted for all to see during the Jan. 6 [2] Capitol insurrection. This event occurred five years [3] ago, serving as a focal point for his arguments regarding the volatility of religious extremism in politics [3].
Beyond his legislative role, Huffman brings a unique personal perspective to the debate. He is currently the only self-declared humanist [4] serving in Congress [4]. This identity informs his approach to protecting the rights of non-believers and ensuring that no single religious doctrine dictates national law.
In a separate discussion with The New York Times, Huffman said the separation of church and state is in grave danger [5]. He suggests that the current political climate has allowed extremist interpretations of faith to migrate from the fringes of society into the halls of power.
The book was released in the summer of 2026 to provide a framework for understanding how these movements operate, and how they can be countered to preserve democratic norms [1].
“"I wrote the book to ‘expose’ what I call the country’s ‘most dangerous political movement.’"”
Huffman's critique highlights a growing tension in U.S. politics between secular governance and the rise of faith-based nationalist movements. By framing Christian nationalism as a systemic threat rather than a theological disagreement, he is positioning the debate as a matter of national security and constitutional integrity, particularly regarding the First Amendment.
