(RNS) — In two separate lawsuits, religious organizations are pushing back against the Trump administration’s attempt to open the way for immigration raids at “sensitive locations,” such as houses of worship. On Capitol Hill, Democratic lawmakers are joining with several religious groups to pass the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act, which would restrict immigration enforcement actions at various “public religious ceremonies.”
But the fact is, faith-based organizations are already among the most equipped institutions to resist Trumpian fascism. To resist I.C.E. raids, they only need to adapt a form of direct action known as civilian-based defense, which uses non-violent means to protect vulnerable groups.
Before explaining civilian-based self-defense, it’s worth noting not only how, but also why houses of worship are the right institutions to assume this responsibility.
The first reason is simply because ICE is knocking at their doors. While no raids have entered a house of worship to detain migrants at prayer, at least two people have been held outside their churches. A Guatemalan man with a standing deportation order was arrested in the parking lot of the family’s Everson, Washington, church in early March, and in late January a registered asylum seeker from Honduras was summoned and taken away by ICE outside Fuera de Vida Church in Atlanta after his ankle bracelet buzzed.
Second, the Trump administration has shown a disregard for the law, meaning such incidents may continue, despite any legislative or legal wins religious organizations may achieve. No cavalry is coming to protect their sacred spaces; they’ll have to do it themselves.
Since Trump’s administration relies heavily on claims of divine mandate, public confrontations with religious organizations could deepen its crisis of legitimacy, which ultimately would weaken its ability to terrorize immigrants and disrespect houses of worship.
A sign regarding the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is posted on the window of a corner store on the day of President Trump’s Inauguration, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025, in the predominantly Latino Little Village neighborhood of Chicago. (AP Photo/Erin Hooley)
Lastly, and most importantly, they should do it because they have the resources to do so. They have buildings where people can plan and train for direct action; spiritual frameworks to activate and sustain their people in nonviolent struggle; and established collective fundraising to support nonviolent campaigns and communication networks. They have trusted leaders who can recruit and motivate movement participants, who are generally sympathetic characters in the local community.
Such resources can be mobilized for civilian-based self-defense.
Civilian-based defense is a form of nonmilitary national defense used to resist an invasion or government overthrow. It’s essentially a nation’s complete refusal to comply with the program of its invaders. The late nonviolence scholar Gene Sharp even theorized that nonviolent civilian-based defense could be organized to replace the military to provide national security, a theory based on historical examples.
During World War II, Norwegians blocked their Nazi occupiers from fully overtaking the educational system through this method: refusing to join the fascist teachers’ union, teaching classes in their homes when the Nazis shut down the schools, writing tens of thousands of letters in protest of the Nazi regime when teachers were jailed and sending teachers the equivalent of their salaries while imprisoned. Their neighbors, the Danes, established 10 commandments of non-cooperation, including refusing to work for the Germans, work slowdowns, strikes, sabotage, boycotting Nazi businesses and even providing slow transport to their occupiers.
During the 1968 Prague Spring, Czechoslovakians pulled down, swapped and altered street signs to confuse their Soviet invaders, staying the threat of takeover for several months.
These spontaneous reactions were in response to foreign invasion, but their successes — however limited — convinced Gene Sharp that civilian-based resistance could be made more effective with planning, training and organization.
Religious organizations might think together about how Trump’s campaign against immigrants depends on their compliance and determine in advance specific ways they can refuse to cooperate. Some houses of worship have taken to posting signs declaring that they are private property and locking their doors once a service has begun. There is nothing illegal in video recording or livestreaming raids to preserve accountability.
Churches may refuse to provide records on possible undocumented members. Local houses of worship may want to organize a teach-in on I.C.E. tactics and strategies and the community’s resources and how the community’s resources can be used to protect immigrants, including distributing information on their rights.
To be sure, lawsuits and legislation have long been vital in the struggle against American racism. But legal battles for a more equitable America have always been part of a larger movement that included nonviolent direct action. The same is true today.
Religious communities have always been on the frontlines of confronting systemic injustice, from Gandhi’s Jainism-inspired freedom movement to the Quakers’ opposition to slavery to the Black Church’s Civil Rights activism. This moment demands they hold the line again.