By Elket Rodriguez
Sensitive locations, religious freedom and the cost of ambiguity.
There are omissions that weigh more than an entire paragraph.
In negotiations to unlock funding for the Department of Homeland Security, the White House put several partial concessions in writing: expanding the use of body cameras, strengthening visible identification requirements for agents, increasing congressional oversight of detention centers and limiting certain immigration enforcement activities in “certain sensitive locations.”
In the public offer conveyed by letter to Republican Senators Susan Collins and Katie Britt, the White House explicitly mentioned schools and hospitals. It did not mention churches or houses of worship.
At this moment, that omission is not a minor detail. It is the moral center of the debate.
This matters not only because of what it says about the current legislative moment, but because of what it reveals about the country’s spiritual and political moment. Because when an administration negotiates protections for “sensitive locations” and names schools and hospitals, but leaves out churches, it is saying something — even if it does not want to say it openly.
It is saying that, when the time comes to turn values into actual protections, religious freedom can be left in the realm of aspirational language, political slogan and institutional decoration.
This is not an abstract discussion. For decades, the federal government limited immigration enforcement actions in houses of worship and other sensitive spaces, recognizing that entering those places could inhibit access to worship and undermine fundamental rights. That protection was reversed at the start of this administration, and since then the dispute has ceased to be theoretical and has become something lived, feared and documented.
That is why vagueness does not reassure me. It alarms me.
Because “certain sensitive locations” is not the same thing as a clear, specific, enforceable protection. When the government speaks in vague terms, the burden of interpreting safety falls on the most vulnerable:
- the immigrant mother deciding whether or not to attend Sunday service
- the pastor who does not know whether his parking lot or Bible school will be considered protected space
- the congregation that begins to gather in fear
The broader context also leaves no room for naiveté.
The White House proposal does not fully resolve key demands: the requirement of judicial warrants —not merely administrative ones— to enter private spaces and clear limits on the use of masks by agents. In other words, even where concessions have been offered, critical issues remain unresolved.
That is why it is not enough to say there will be limits in some sensitive locations.
The question is: which ones, exactly?
If the answer names schools and hospitals, but not houses of worship, then there is an absence that cannot be glossed over.
Especially when the White House itself created a Religious Liberty Commission by executive order in May 2025, with the stated mission of safeguarding religious freedom.
If that freedom is truly so central, where was that clarity when it came time to write concrete protections for churches? Was the commission consulted when this proposal was put forward?
Because religious freedom is not measured by how often it is invoked. It is measured by how much it protects.
A freedom that does not appear explicitly when it is most needed runs the risk of becoming nominal, cosmetic and performative.
I do not say that lightly. I say it because I see the contrast between rhetoric and reality.
The legal battle confirms it.
In February 2025, a federal court granted an order protecting churches affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) and other plaintiffs, limiting immigration enforcement actions without a judicial warrant. Although CBF asked that this order cover all houses of worship in the nation, that request was not granted.
Therefore, that protection is partial. More recently, other denominations and faith traditions have joined the growing chorus of houses of worship seeking judicial protection for their properties. Faithworks, for example, has pursued similar legal remedies but has not yet received an injunction, underscoring how uneven these protections remain.
Even so, it still does not cover all houses of worship. And that is the moral point.
CBF could choose to be satisfied with its own protection. It has not. Because religious freedom either belongs to everyone, or it becomes a selective privilege.
Meanwhile, the evidence continues to accumulate.
Cases in California, Wyoming, Georgia, North Carolina and other states show a pattern: detentions in church parking lots, operations during food ministries, arrests near children’s programs.
We are not defending against a remote possibility. We are responding to a reality. That is why advocacy matters.
CBF and Faithworks have been working on this issue for more than a year. Since February 2025, they have been pressing for transparency at DHS, ICE and CBP. In recent weeks, that effort has intensified: visits to Congress, coalitions with Latino leaders, meetings with lawmakers and coordination with faith-based organizations.
The churches have not remained silent. The question is whether those in power are listening. Because it is one thing to talk about faith. It is something very different to protect it when it matters.
Hospitals and schools, yes. Of course. But churches too. Because if the hospital cares for the body and the school forms the mind, the church sustains the soul. And leaving that space in ambiguity is not neutrality. It is a decision.
I cannot celebrate as a victory language that leaves churches at the margins. I cannot call an ambiguous phrase protection. But I can say this clearly: there is still time to correct it.
Call to Action
Congress must:
- Explicitly include churches in the negotiations over DHS funding
- Maintain protections for schools and hospitals
- Demand real transparency: cameras, visible identification, limits on masks, and respect for the Fourth Amendment
- Pass the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act (S.455/H.R.1061)
We must act.
- You can take action by using this advocacy tool to send emails or make calls directly to your Senators and Representative —what matters most is that your voice is heard.
- Tell them vagueness is not enough.
- Tell them houses of worship must be named.
Because sometimes, in Washington, the most important thing is not what is written.
It is what is left unsaid.
Find the article in Spanish here.