By Gloria Ogbonna
During Friday’s broadcast of 11th Hour on MSNBC, The New Yorker staff writer Susan Glasser argued that recent rhetoric from prominent U.S. political figures reflects what she described as a troubling contradiction in America’s approach to religion and foreign policy.
Appearing alongside host Stephanie Ruhle, Glasser weighed in on escalating tensions with Iran and the broader political messaging surrounding the conflict. She suggested that while the United States positions itself in opposition to Iran’s theocratic government, certain domestic political language appears to embrace religious themes in a way she finds concerning.
“We’re going to war against one theocracy in Iran,” Glasser said, “while appropriating the language of a different kind of theocracy for our own country.”
The discussion followed comments regarding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who, according to Ruhle, had compared the rescue of a U.S. airman to the resurrection of Jesus. Ruhle also noted that Hegseth has faced recent criticism for allegedly promoting Christian nationalist themes within the military.
Glasser responded by asserting that such concerns are not abstract. “He explicitly has done it,” she said, referencing reports that Hegseth hosted a religious service at the Pentagon featuring a pastor who advocates what she characterized as an extreme form of Christian nationalism.
The conversation expanded beyond Hegseth to examine the broader ideological influences shaping the current administration’s messaging. Glasser pointed specifically to Vice President JD Vance, describing him as “a very interesting character” in the discussion about religion and governance.
She referenced Vance’s past visit to Hungary, where he had campaigned in support of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Orbán has frequently framed his political agenda around the concept of defending “Christian Europe” and preserving traditional cultural identity in the face of immigration and globalization.
Glasser argued that American political leaders who express admiration for Orbán’s approach are aligning themselves with rhetoric centered on the revival of “Christendom” and warnings about demographic and cultural change. According to her, such language risks promoting a form of religious exclusion that conflicts with America’s constitutional traditions.
“They talk about the return of Christendom, and that it’s being polluted by immigrant hordes,” Glasser said. “What you’re seeing is a grotesque caricature of basically an extreme form of religious intolerance.”
She emphasized what she sees as a fundamental contradiction: the United States condemns Iran’s government as a theocracy — a political system in which religious authorities hold ultimate power — while, in her view, elements within American politics increasingly blur the lines between faith and state authority.
The Iranian government, officially known as the Islamic Republic, is governed under a system where ultimate political authority rests with a Supreme Leader who is also a religious cleric. American leaders across party lines have long criticized Iran’s structure as incompatible with democratic principles.
However, Glasser suggested that the rhetoric emerging from some U.S. political figures reflects a parallel shift toward fusing religious identity with national policy debates. She warned that invoking religious symbolism in state matters, especially within the military or executive branch, raises questions about the separation of church and state.
Her comments underscore a broader national debate over the role of religion in public life, particularly during times of international conflict. As tensions with Iran continue to evolve, discussions about the ideological framing of U.S. policy — both abroad and at home — appear likely to remain at the forefront of political discourse.