An Evangelical Christian group that led a pro-Kamala Harris campaign in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election has removed a series of ads that contrasted the words of renowned evangelist the Rev. Billy Graham with those of President Donald Trump.
“Rev. Graham aimed to win a hearing for the Gospel with all people, whether they were Americans who identified as Democrats, Republicans, or something else, or simply people from another country who had no context for American politics,” the political action committee Evangelicals for America said in a statement released July 8 (Tuesday).
Led by evangelical minister and climate advocate the Rev. Jim Ball, the group said it had believed use of the clips for the $1 million ad campaign was acceptable under the Fair Use doctrine of the Copyright Act, which allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission. One of the ads, which compared segments of a 1988 Graham sermon with clips of Trump using violent language, claiming to be “the chosen one” and talking about kissing women without their consent, racked up over 30 million views.
In October, following a series of letters warning that the group was using its copyrighted work without permission, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, a Charlotte, North Carolina-based nonprofit that supports the ministries of Billy Graham’s son and grandson, threatened to sue Evangelicals for Harris (now Evangelicals for America) on the basis of copyright infringement. BGEA’s president and CEO, Franklin Graham, also turned to the social platform X to voice his displeasure at the pro-Harris campaign’s use of his father’s sermons.
“The liberals are using anything and everything they can to promote candidate Harris. They even developed a political ad trying to use my father @BillyGraham’s image. They are trying to mislead people,” he wrote. “Maybe they don’t know that my father appreciated the conservative values and policies of President @realDonaldTrump in 2016, and if he were alive today, my father’s views and opinions would not have changed.”
Your tax-deductible gift supports our mission of reporting the truth and restoring the church. Donate $50 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you can elect to receive “Gods of the Smoke Machine” by Scott Latta, click here.
In its new statement, Evangelicals for America affirmed the Billy Graham Evangelical Association’s intellectual property rights, agreed not to use content “as to which BGEA claims copyright or other legal interests” in electoral advocacy without written permission, and said it has removed and will not report the ads in question.
“Our intent was not to infringe on BGEA’s copyright or to give the impression that Rev. Graham would have taken a side in publicly supporting one political candidate or another in an election, so we apologize to BGEA,” Evangelicals for America wrote. The group also said it “affirms” BGEA’s position that Rev. Graham’s purpose was to share the Christian gospel. “He never politicized the Gospel of Jesus Christ or the works he created through BGEA,” it said in the statement.
BGEA told media the apology from Evangelicals for America “speaks for itself,” as does Franklin Graham’s original response to the ordeal. “We are grateful for the outcome,” the group said.
Kathryn Post is a reporter for Religion News Service based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
English 
Spanish 
28 Responses
Ahh so American evangelical of them. Not forgiving not turn the other cheek not come together and pray as sisters and brothers. Not none of that. But sue them until they know you don’t mess with us American evangelicals who we all know are Gods favorites and remember to tithe or god will get you. I’m not a bitter Christian. I just don’t trust any of these evangelicals anymore. I’m 71 yo and have seen when all this started as the Jesus movement of the seventies into a, I’m right your wrong and I heard the voice of the lord say so. They put on a good show and well the politicians know who to support. Matt 7:21-23
What fellowship has light with darkness? Those who support people like Kamala, who fully support all baby murder ( AKA abortion), have abandoned the true faith. They claim they love the immigrants, but they HATE the baby in the mothers womb. What hypocrites.
It makes me sad to see Franklin Graham cozy up to the convicted felon and adjudicated rapist who is once again disgracing the office of the president and making the United States the laughing stock of the world. He is the complete opposite of everything Jesus preached. He can’t name a single Bible verse. He has gone on record saying he has never prayed and asked for forgiveness. He has sold overpriced blasphemous Bibles with United States government documents added in. He’s autographed Bibles, for crying out loud! I pray for him regularly, but I don’t support him, I have never voted for him, and if I live to be a million years old, I will never understand how my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ have been tricked into thinking that this serial adulterer who has listed after his own daughter is a Christian.
It doesn’t matter what you think about Donald Trump or any politician. It was unethical and ill-conceived to think you could use the image of Rev. Graham in your advertising. It shows very poor judgment on their part. It is highly possible that the legal system was used to end the marketing campaign because a private approach by the Graham organization went unheeded
Evangelicals for Harris? No such thing. Their name should be “Baby killers who also support turning boys into girls and girls into boys, trying to claim they are Christians.”
I am an evangelical who voted for Harris, and what you wrote was little more than an accusatory generalization anchored in strawman arguments.
But I bet you’d be defensive and upset if I said “evangelicals for Trump” are little more than “racists who also support adultery, criminal behavior, and defunding programs that aid the poor, trying to claim they are Christians.”
How about we treat others the way we’d want to be treated – listening without labeling, debating without accusing, seeking to understand without prejudice – as scripture says?
And BTW, I don’t “try to claim I’m a Christian.” I am one, as evidenced by my faith in Christ as my Savior – NOT how I vote in elections.
Marin:
Your words:
“But I bet you’d be defensive and upset if I said “evangelicals for Trump” are little more than “racists who also support adultery, criminal behavior, and defunding programs that aid the poor, trying to claim they are Christians.”
The problem you have here, Marin, is quite simple: EVERYBODY has sinned. That means we cannot claim (on either side) to be the sinless party. Instead, we have to use discernment as believers to detect who is actually acting biblically and who isn’t.
Transgenderism is not Biblical, nor is it supported by the Bible. Instead, one could look at it objectively and with compassion and come to the conclusion that those who engage in such behavior and seek to promote it (particularly in the young) are mentally ill.
Abortion on demand is not Biblical. God is clear about the sanctity of human life. Again, one can step back and look at it objectively and conclude that women who kill their children must be both emotionally bankrupt and desperate for a solution to their unwanted pregnancy.
Racism is not Biblical. Jesus himself tried to convince his disciples of this fact when he included Samaritans and other “outcasts” in his ministry. He loved all.
I could go on, but I am certain you know all of this. I would be interested to know how you (and others) can conclude that President Trump is a racist? I don’t see that. He has never stated he supports adultery, either. I also don’t believe he supports criminal behavior. So, perhaps, our starting definitions for these behaviors do not coincide or, perhaps, you don’t believe voting in elections has anything to do with your faith in Christ?
I was being facetious to make a point: the SAME people who say “I’m tired of being accused of being racist based on voting for Trump” turn around and hurl similar accusations at those who voted for Harris. Plain, simple, BIBLICAL: do unto others as you’d have done unto you.
I’ve been clear about how I’m compassionate yet don’t agree with transgenderism (based on my limited understanding of it) – yet because of my vote, I was accused of “supporting turning boys into girls and girls into boys.”
I’ve been clear that I’m pro-life (I would not have an abortion), but am not in support of the current pro-life policies as I see the need for more nuanced provisions and conversations – yet I was called a “baby killer” because of how I voted.
Such accusations – whether hurled at the right or left – are the result of binary thinking, oversimplification, and correlation fallacy. And they are UNTRUE. It is problematic when believers are hurling false accusations, ESPECIALLY at one another.
But, since you asked: You’ve repeatedly posted about “not paying attention to words but actions” (scripture says both matter, but I digress). Well, Trump has been fined for refusing housing to Black people in NYC. How is that NOT racist behaior? And no, he hasn’t SAID he “supports” adultery, but he’s repeatedly committed it in 3 marriages to date. And it’s not far off to wonder where one stands on “supporting” criminal behavior, when one has repeatedly committed it.
Do I think all Trump supporters are ok with all of these things? No. Because I know it’s not that binary, simple, or correlated.
Why isn’t that same thinking extended in the opposite direction?
Marin:
Your words indicate you agree with my point: Neither political party is sinless. We had a choice between two evils, and that seems to always be the case in our political system. It came down to choosing the LEAST objectionable side, which is why many voted for President Trump instead of Harris and why many voted for Harris instead of President Trump. For some believers, abortion in the 9th month is a bridge too far. For other believers, committing serial adultery is too hard to swallow.
Again, as I previously mentioned, it comes down to discernment. I look at President Trump’s personal life separately from his actions as President. I look at Harris’s personal life separately from her actions as a Senator. In comparison, I stopped even considering Harris after she tried to destroy Justice Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing. I stopped listening to her when I learned she supported using taxpayer dollars to get criminals out of jail. My choice had nothing to do with her personal moral failings but rather with her actions and the actions she planned to take after becoming President. My choice in support of President Trump had to do with his actions and what he planned to do after becoming President, not his personal moral failings.
If we as believers seek to apply a moral measuring rod to all presidential candidates, we will never find a candidate that measures up to Christ, but we might find one that more closely aligns with our own moral beliefs and values than the other. Perhaps, for you, a potential President’s personal life is the deciding factor when it comes to your voting choice.
Yes, Cynthia, I agree everyone has different deal breakers.
I respect that; I have rarely criticized anyone’s deal breakers unless they are rooted in misinformation, exaggerations, or strawman arguments (like “pro-choice advocates are baby killers”). I DO criticize inconsistent application of said deal breakers (example: Clinton was caught in adultery, and conservatives went on about “moral failure making him unfit for office”; Trump has been caught in adultery multiple times and conservatives claimed “moral failure is separate, we are looking for a POTUS not a pastor”)
IMO there are some personal sin patters that indicate such a deep character flaw that, unless addressed, make me concerned with putting that person in such a position as POTUS. That includes adultery, bullying, lying, refusal to apologize, and prejudice. Even if I agreed with a candidates positions, if they exhibited these behaviors, I wouldn’t trust them to do as they promise.
I despise both the mixing of religion and politics AND the notion of using the image and words (that can easily be taken out of context) of a person who is deceased and cannot clarify.
I say this as both an “evangelical who voted for Harris” and someone who also denounces when conservatives do this with the image and words (taken out of context) of MLK every January.
It’s distasteful when ANYONE does it.
“ I despise both the mixing of religion and politics…”
Marin, have you ever considered that the belief in politics as a solution to the governance of a group of people is a religion, and has all the facets of one?
Ha. great point, Kenly. We can definitely have a whole other conversation about that!
Nice try Marin but at one of Harris’ rallies, the two young guys who shouted ‘Jesus is King’ got scolded by Harris (she said they were at the wrong rally –even SHE knows but not you!) while at a Vance rally, he affirmed that truth of who our King is. So you voted for the Godless party.
Not that I attend or watch rallies, but what’s that have to do with me and what I believe about Christ? Or do you ASSUME that I must agree with absolutely everything that the candidate I voted for believes, says and does? By that same notion, do you agree with absolutely everything that the candidate you voted for believes, says and does? (But let me guess, when I call out some of the godless, unBiblical things Trump and Vance have believed, said and done, THEN you’ll extend grace and do the pious ‘we are all sinners’ dance.)
Again, binary “all or nothing” thinking leads to nothing but stereotyping, labeling and accusing – all root causes of division. Folks, there are people of all faiths, colors and creeds on both sides of the aisle – and they all had THEIR reason(s) for voting the way they did. Hurling accusations and assumptions at them rather than asking and listening to them just adds to the division. It does nothing to persuade or win over, nor does it create any opportunity to reflect or share the gospel with those who do need it.
Now, if you’re TRULY interested in WHY I voted the way I did and want to have a productive, respectful conversation, I’m more than happy to share….but if you just want to hurl accusations at me and feel “morally and spiritually superior” based on your political vote, I’m not interested.
“We are all sinners” is not a dance, Marin. It is a simple fact you seem to find unpalatable. Why is that?
You love to play “We are all sinners” card for people on your team, but not extend the same courtesy to those who are not. Your and W Scott Moyer’s hypocrisy is noted.
It is a simple fact. I have never disputed that.
As Charles pointed out, my dispute is with the inconsistent application (or selective memory) of this when it comes to political party.
Example: Conservatives weren’t saying “all have sinned” when Clinton was caught with his pants down. They also don’t say “all have sinned” when speaking of the Obamas, Bidens, Harris, Pelosi or anyone “left leaning”.
Why is that? Perhaps there’s a reason I’m missing….
Hi Marin,
Good questions. Perhaps the reason lies in the difference between acting immorally while in office and acting immorally on one’s own time. Does this make sense? Stated differently, those in office (elected officials) are often held to a higher standard than those not in office when it comes to moral failings. If one becomes a public official, one cannot get away with immoral behavior as easily as a person not in the public spotlight. When Clinton was caught “with his pants down,” he was our President. We expect much more from our Presidents while they are in office. Afterwards, we tend to forget them unless the media brings them to our attention.
The reason former President Obama is now under investigation is not because of moral failings outside of office but because he committed immoral, illegal acts while in office.
First of all, for over 30 years I’ve known Jim Ball, who started Evangelicals for Harris. He is not pro-abortion, quite the contrary. Although I did not get involved in his movement, and myself voted for a “third-party” candidate, my hypothesis is that the push for Harris was more of an anti-Trump push.
In election season summer 2000, Ron Sider (close associate of Jim Ball) edited a book titled, “The Spiritual Danger of Donald Trump: 30 Evangelical Christians on Justice, Truth, and Moral Integrity.” A common theme was how Trump fandom was weakening the integrity and witness of evangelical Christians.
Thanks for sharing, Allen. Yet another example of how and why it’s dangerous to blindly label those who supported Harris.
Part of critical thinking means means correctly understanding those you disagree with. Sadly in these times it becomes common practice to downright lie about an opposing point of view or to generalize.
The golden rule should apply to everyone.
And thanks for mentioning Ron SIder’s work. I respect him deeply.
Cynthia Norbeck I’m not sure why there is often no reply button with your posts.
Here is a collection of immoral actions taken by the president in his first 6 months. There’s more but space is limited
Deportations – Removed immigrants, including Venezuelans, with minimal evidence; defied court orders; conducted ICE raids at schools, churches, and hospitals.
Detention Conditions – Detainees held in overcrowded, unsanitary facilities like “Alligator Alcatraz,” often without charges, facing poor food, hygiene, and mental health stress.
Oversight & Accountability – Removed inspectors general and defunded oversight offices, weakening checks on executive power.
Justice & Opponent Targeting – Used DOJ and law enforcement to target political opponents; purged 40+ prosecutors and 200+ federal agents.
Political Retaliation Against Law Firms – Sued or threatened legal firms that represented clients in cases opposing administration interests, to chill legal advocacy and punish dissent.
Personal Profit & Conflicts – Promoted Trump-branded crypto and held events benefiting family businesses, blurring public and private interests.
Ethical Norms & Lobbying – Revoked ethics rules and reopened lobbying pathways, allowing special interests back into regulatory roles.
Social Justice & Promises Broken – Cut Medicaid and aid for low-income, disabled, and rural Americans—despite campaign promises.
Transparency & Media – regularly sued media outlets over critical coverage.
Rule of Law – Pardoned political allies and corporate offenders; scaled back enforcement of white-collar crime.
Allies & Global Leadership – Undermined NATO and other alliances, favoring authoritarian regimes.
Tricia Russell,
Your definition of “immoral actions” appears to be based solely upon your interpretation of “immoral.”
For me, every single item on your list cannot be construed as “immoral,” but rather as a conscious policy choice intended to clean up our government and the media and our nation.
For example, deportations of illegal aliens should not be necessary in a nation as powerful as ours. Had Biden (and others) simply enforced laws already on the books, we would not be in this situation now. So, sorry, but deporting people who should not be here is, in my opinion, fully justified under the law. Indeed, it’s a very moral choice.
Detainees are given three square meals a day and are housed at our expense. I am wondering why you think that is immoral? I would counter this with the observation that Americans are not obligated to do anything at all for illegal immigrants. We do so only because we are a moral nation that treats people with kindness. In other nations (China, for example), illegals are imprisoned and treated horribly.
I won’t review each one of your points, but I will mention just one more: You claim Medicaid was cut.
Actually, it was simply improved so that people can no longer pretend to need it when they are able-bodied and able to work. Those who truly need it are still receiving it.
It seems that “immorality” in your world rests on the belief that wealth should be shared equally and life should be easy. Am I right? You also seem to ignore what the Bible says about poverty and justice.
Having a problem with HOW our immigration policy is being enforced does NOT mean one is for NO deportation at all. Do I think people here illegally should be deported? Yes. Do I think that should involve skirting due process (which is promised to ALL who arrive here), racially profiling anyone who “looks” like an immigrant, police/ICE brutality and the like? No.
Are Americans obligated to do anything for illegal immigrants (aside from due process)? No. But are CHRISTIANS obligated? That should be our priority, right? And I’d say that YES, we are obligated, with scriptures to back it up (Lev 19:33-34; Ex 22:21; Deut 10:19; Matt 25:35-40). It’s clear God will judge those who deny hospitality, compassion, and justice to immigrants/foreigners. It’s important we look to Him for guidance on what that looks like, not our own opinions on who “deserves” what.
Tricia never said “wealth should be shared equally and life should be easy”. I’ll let her clarify what she believes, yet will say being against cutting Medicaid does NOT mean one believes “everyone should share in wealth and life should be easy” (a binary strawman argument). But shouldn’t we ask what scripture says about wealth? How are we to use it – especially when we see others in poverty? Luke 6 comes to mind.
As for Medicaid, my question is twofold: how many people are really “pretending” to use it? (Data shows “scamming” is quite a small percentage of overall aid). And are we willing to risk negatively impacting those who REALLY need it in order to “get” those who don’t? (And as the daughter of a mom with kidney disease and a seizure disorder who needs Medicaid, I can tell you her aid is being cut.)
Hi Marin,
I don’t want to personalize my comments, so I’ll be brief. First, if your Mom is over 65, she should be on Medicare.
Second, I was speaking with Tricia. As you alluded to in your comments, it is up to her to respond to my questions if she wants to.
And, of course I agree believers should help those in need. The Bible is crystal clear about that. Medicaid is a government-run program that was established to help those in need, like the elderly, the young, the disabled. It is not meant as a crutch for those who don’t want to work even though they can. The Bible is equally clear about this, as in II Thessalonians 3:10:
“If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.”
“And, of course I agree believers should help those in need”. Great. Let’s just remember Americans are not the only ones in need. Many immigrants came here because they are in need.
“It is not meant as a crutch for those who don’t want to work even though they can.” I wasn’t disagreeing with you; I was asking questions to better understand the basis of your argument, as it is often the first brought up to defend cutting aid. From my perspective, your argument can lead to a “cutting off our nose to spite our face” result, so I’m asking to hear your perspective. Perhaps I’m missing something.
I was getting to the nuance of this, as I don’t think there’s an easy “one size fits all”/ this side is “right” and this side is “wrong” answer to it.
Greetings, Brothers and Sisters in Christ. Debate is the way to share opinions, ideas with one another. 2 Timothy 2 ;24- 25 ” The Lords servant must not quarrel, but be gentle towards all, able to teach, patient, in gentleness correcting those who oppose him, perhaps God may give them repentance leading to a full knowledge of the truth. Please be patient with one another. A citizen can vote for for there preferred candidate. But, the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Romans 13 1-2 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed God. Therefore whoever resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgement on themselves. Blessings