During his inauguration on January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump raised eyebrows by not placing his hand on the Bible while taking the oath of office, a departure from a long-standing presidential tradition. This has led to widespread discussion regarding the significance of such gestures in American political ceremonies. ABC News reported that while First Lady Melania Trump held two Bibles – one gifted to Trump by his mother and the historic Lincoln Bible used during Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration – Trump opted to keep his left hand by his side while raising his right hand to affirm the oath administered by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Traditionally, U.S. presidents place their hand on the Bible as part of the swearing-in process, a practice dating back to George Washington in 1789, although the U.S. Constitution does not mandate this. Article VI of the Constitution states, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” emphasizing that the oath itself is what is legally binding, not the act of placing a hand on the Bible. This points to a broader conversation about the symbolism versus the requirements of the presidency, as detailed by CBS News.

Trump’s decision to forgo the traditional gesture sparked criticism among his supporters, some of whom blamed Chief Justice Roberts for not allowing Trump enough time to take his position properly. Social media erupted with comments highlighting this perceived oversight, arguing that the oath was rushed at the moment. Speculation among Trump supporters suggested that the omission reflected poorly on the inauguration ceremony, despite there being no legal implications regarding the absence of the Bible. According to the Newsweek article, the incident reignited discussions about presidential traditions and the potential evolution of such ceremonies.

Interestingly, during his inaugural address, Trump did mention divine intervention, saying, “I was saved by God to make America great again,” in reference to an assassination attempt he faced in 2024. This remark signified his acknowledgment of faith, even while deviating from the customary Bible oath-taking moment. As the tradition of using a Bible continues to be a topic of debate, future presidents may find themselves under scrutiny for their choices during this significant ceremonial procedure.

In conclusion, while many have traditionally viewed the Bible as integral to the inauguration process, Trump's choice to omit it serves as a reflection of his complicated relationship with longstanding political rituals.