Midterms 2026: The former neo-Nazi pastor speaking out against Trump

Caleb Campbell is a pastor who has become an unusual voice within white evangelical Christianity. He is speaking against Donald Trump because he believes the administration’s actions and politics have moved far from the Bible’s teachings. His position stands out in a community that strongly supported Trump in 2024.

Campbell’s criticism began during Trump’s first term. He objected to plans to put immigrant children in “cages” as part of an immigration crackdown. He says the backlash was intense: people told him he was possessed by a demon. That reaction shows how closely political loyalty and religious identity can overlap.

As the 2026 midterms approach, Campbell remains concerned about the direction of US politics. His dissent gives voters a visible example of disagreement inside evangelical communities. It may also force religious supporters of Trump to consider whether government policies match the biblical values they claim to uphold.

US midterm elections are elections held about halfway through a president’s four-year term. Voters choose members of Congress, including the House of Representatives and some senators. They do not choose the president. The article identifies the 2026 midterms as the approaching political test, though it does not explain the electoral system in detail.

The key mechanism is congressional control. A president needs cooperation from Congress to pass laws, approve spending, investigate officials, and advance major priorities. If the president’s party gains seats, the administration may find its program easier to pursue. If opponents gain control, they can block legislation and increase scrutiny.

For Trump’s administration, the midterms provide a measure of political support after his return to office. Campbell fears current politics have moved away from biblical teachings, so the campaign may also expose divisions among religious voters. The article does not predict the result or identify specific races.

According to the poll cited in the article, 82 per cent of white evangelical Protestants voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 US presidential election. That is a very large majority, not a narrow split. It establishes the political environment in which Caleb Campbell is dissenting.

The figure matters because it provides context for Campbell’s position. He is an evangelical pastor who has criticized Trump since the president’s first term. His objections include Trump’s plans to put immigrant children in “cages” during an immigration crackdown. The poll helps explain why the article describes Campbell as a significant outlier.

The number also suggests that Trump has strong support within this religious voting group. However, it does not mean every white evangelical Protestant supports him, and it does not measure views about every policy. The article gives no further details about the poll, such as its sample size, method, or margin of error.

Evangelical Protestants are Christians within the Protestant tradition who commonly emphasize personal faith, conversion, the authority of the Bible, and sharing the Christian message. These are broad tendencies, not identical beliefs held by every member. The article does not define the term, so this explanation draws on established religious knowledge.

The group matters politically because religious beliefs can shape views on immigration, family life, justice, and government. Churches and religious networks can also help people discuss issues and participate in elections. The article gives one clear measure of political weight: a cited poll found that 82 per cent of white evangelical Protestants voted for Trump in 2024.

That support makes internal disagreement highly visible. Campbell is a pastor and outspoken evangelical critic of Trump, so his opposition challenges the idea of a unified religious bloc. As the 2026 midterms approach, his warnings highlight how faith, political identity, and judgments about government conduct can pull believers in different directions.

The article describes Trump’s plans to put immigrant children in “cages” as part of an immigration crackdown. It does not provide operational details about the facilities, the children’s legal status, or how long they would be held. The phrase conveys the central controversy: children were to be confined while the administration pursued stricter immigration enforcement.

Campbell objected because he believed the policy conflicted with the moral responsibilities expressed in the Bible. The article does not quote every critic, but it shows that his opposition provoked a fierce response. He remembers being told that he was possessed by a demon. That reaction illustrates how divisive the issue became within evangelical circles.

The episode helped make Campbell an outspoken critic during Trump’s first term. As the 2026 midterms approach, he argues that US politics and the current administration are farther than ever from biblical teachings. The article does not say whether similar detention plans remain active.

When a prominent religious leader rejects the candidate favored by most of the community, the break can make hidden disagreement visible. It can show that religious identity does not automatically determine political loyalty. Such a leader may encourage followers to judge policies against moral or biblical principles rather than simply follow the group’s political preference.

Campbell provides the article’s concrete example. A cited poll found that 82 per cent of white evangelical Protestants voted for Trump in 2024, yet Campbell has remained an outspoken critic. He opposed plans to put immigrant children in “cages.” The response he describes—being told he was possessed by a demon—shows the social cost of challenging a powerful consensus.

The political effect can cut both ways. Campbell may persuade some voters or deepen debate within evangelical communities, while opponents may dismiss him and reinforce group loyalty. The article does not report measurable electoral consequences. It does show that his dissent is significant as the 2026 midterms approach.

The United States has no official government religion, but religious beliefs can still shape public life. Citizens and leaders may use moral or biblical ideas when forming political views. The government, however, must operate through constitutional institutions rather than officially adopting one faith. The article illustrates this tension through Campbell’s religious criticism of Trump.

The mechanism is democratic participation. Evangelical voters can support a candidate because they believe his policies match their values. Other believers, including Campbell, can reach the opposite conclusion and publicly challenge that candidate. A cited poll found that 82 per cent of white evangelical Protestants voted for Trump in 2024, while Campbell became an outspoken critic.

This arrangement permits both religious influence and religious disagreement. It also means no pastor or religious community has automatic authority over every voter. Campbell’s warning that politics has moved away from biblical teachings shows how faith can become a standard for judging government. The article does not discuss constitutional law directly.