A rare break from presidential tradition unfolds during Donald Trump's inauguration ceremony at the U.S. Capitol.
According to Newsweek, the former president failed to place his hand on the Bible while taking his oath of office on January 20, 2025, prompting his supporters to criticize Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts for allegedly rushing the ceremony.
The incident occurred as First Lady Melania Trump held two historically significant Bibles - the Lincoln Bible, previously used by Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama, and a family Bible given to Trump by his mother in 1955. Visual documentation shows Trump's left hand remained at his side throughout the oath-taking process while Melania stood beside him, holding both books.
Conservative figures and MAGA supporters quickly took to social media platform X to express their displeasure with Chief Justice Roberts. Christian conservative podcast host Coleton Furlow voiced his criticism through a strongly worded post. Radio host Terry Meiners suggested the incoming first family was rushed during the ceremony, preventing Trump from properly placing his hand on the Bible.
Law professor Jonathan Turley addressed the growing online speculation about the oath's validity with the following statement:
Chief Justice John Roberts appears to have taken the view that 'Justice delayed is justice denied' by jumping forward to start the oath before Trump could put his hand on the Bible. The Internet is alive with speculation that it might not count...it is wishful thinking for some and angst for others that the Bible-lite oath might not satisfy the standard under Article II. It is time to move on to other more important things to worry about...like who will be the next coach for the Chicago Bears.
The controversy sparked discussions about constitutional requirements versus traditional practices. Legal experts emphasize that while using a Bible during the presidential oath is a long-standing tradition started by George Washington in 1789, it is not mandated by the U.S. Constitution.
Previous presidents have demonstrated various approaches to the inauguration ceremony. Franklin D. Roosevelt consistently used a family Bible across all four of his inaugurations. Lyndon B. Johnson took his oath using a Catholic missal found aboard Air Force One following President John F. Kennedy's assassination.
John Quincy Adams notably chose to take his oath on a book of law rather than a Bible, emphasizing his dedication to constitutional principles. This historical precedent demonstrates the flexibility permitted in the oath-taking process.
Democratic strategist Keith Edwards and political commentator Adam Schwarz highlighted the uniqueness of Trump's ceremony. Schwarz noted that after reviewing decades of presidential inaugurations, he could not find another instance where a president did not place their hand on the Bible.
The incident has sparked renewed discussions about the evolution of presidential traditions and their relevance in contemporary times. While some view the Bible ceremony as an essential symbolic gesture, others emphasize the constitutional requirements as the only necessary component.
The debate extends beyond mere ceremonial aspects, touching on broader questions about the relationship between religious symbolism and civic duty in American politics. Constitutional scholars note that Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 only requires the president to take the oath without specifying any additional ceremonial elements.
Future presidential inaugurations may continue to reflect changing attitudes toward traditional practices while maintaining constitutional compliance. The incident demonstrates how even well-established customs can evolve or be modified without affecting their legal validity.
Donald Trump's decision not to place his hand on the Bible during his 2025 inauguration ceremony marked a significant departure from historical practice at the U.S. Capitol. The incident sparked immediate criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts from MAGA supporters who blamed him for rushing the ceremony. While the Constitution does not require the use of a Bible during the oath of office, the break from this 234-year tradition has initiated discussions about the future of presidential inauguration customs and their significance in modern American democracy.
