On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump was sworn in as the 47th President of the United States, marking a significant moment in American political history. However, the inauguration ceremony sparked controversy when Trump did not place his hand on the Bible while taking the oath of office. This deviation from tradition has drawn ire from some of his supporters, who are now directing their frustrations towards Chief Justice John Roberts, who administered the oath.
Traditionally, U.S. presidents have placed their hand on a Bible during the inauguration, a practice that dates back to George Washington in 1789. While the U.S. Constitution does not mandate the use of a Bible, it has become a deeply ingrained custom. In Trump’s first inauguration in 2017, he adhered to this tradition, making his decision to forgo the Bible this time all the more striking. Instead, he raised his right hand while his wife, Melania Trump, held two Bibles, one of which was the Lincoln Bible, used by previous presidents.
The decision not to place his hand on the Bible has led some MAGA supporters to blame Chief Justice Roberts for allegedly rushing the ceremony. Critics have taken to social media to express their disappointment, claiming that Roberts did not allow Trump sufficient time to position himself correctly before administering the oath. Christian conservative podcast host Coleton Furlow was among those who voiced their disapproval, stating that Roberts’ actions were “absolutely disgraceful.”
Pastor Carl Williams echoed these sentiments, suggesting that the Chief Justice’s haste deprived Trump of the opportunity to honour the tradition properly. This sentiment was further amplified by radio host Terry Meiners, who remarked that Roberts began reciting the oath before the first family was fully prepared, thus compromising the solemnity of the moment. Such criticisms have prompted discussions about the role of the Supreme Court in presidential inaugurations and the expectations surrounding these significant events.
Despite the uproar, legal experts assert that Trump’s omission of the Bible does not undermine the legitimacy of his oath. The U.S. Constitution only requires the president to take the oath as specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, without stipulating the manner in which it must be done. Historical precedents show that various presidents have taken the oath in different ways, with some opting for non-traditional texts. This variability suggests that while customs are important, they are not legally binding.
As the dust settles on this year’s inauguration, the incident has reignited conversations about the evolving nature of presidential traditions. The debate over the necessity of using a Bible highlights broader discussions about the balance between symbolism and constitutional adherence in American politics. As future presidents take office, their choices in these ceremonial matters will likely reflect their values and public expectations, continuing to shape the tradition in new and unexpected ways.
