“I don’t know this woman. But this is just sad. She has been fed lies,” Cruz says as Trump religious liberty panel fight spills onto X

A public clash over President Donald Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission spilled into open view this week after conservative activist Carrie Prejean Boller posted a lengthy statement on X disputing claims that she had been “removed” from the commission — and blaming Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who chairs the body, for what she called an improper power play.

Prejean Boller wrote in a “Dear Chairman Patrick” message that she was responding to Patrick’s public statement that she had been removed from the commission. She argued that the commission “is President Trump’s … not yours,” and said Patrick did not appoint her and therefore had no authority to remove her. She also claimed the commission was created by executive order and that members are presidential appointees.

Patrick, in his own posts and public comments, has pushed back on that framing. Reporting on the dispute describes Patrick as saying he did not “fire” Prejean Boller, and that she was no longer serving after a presidential decision — a key factual point that Prejean Boller contests in her statement.

The dispute quickly drew in Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who used X to criticize what he characterized as antisemitic rhetoric tied to the controversy. In a post that circulated widely, Cruz wrote, “I don’t know this woman. But this is just sad,” and added, “Let’s be clear: it was President Trump who fired her,” before arguing that people who chant “I hate Zionists” are expressing hatred toward Jews and defining Zionism as support for Israel’s existence.

The back-and-forth has been fueled by deeper tensions around the commission’s work and public hearings, including allegations — raised by Prejean Boller — that the process was “hijacked” by what she called a “Zionist political framework.” Her statement also included a broader defense of her role on the panel and a demand that Patrick retract the claim that she had been removed.

Supporters of Patrick have framed the episode differently, portraying the commission as dealing with disruptive conduct and arguing that leadership needed to maintain order during proceedings. Coverage of the dispute notes Patrick publicly rejected the idea that commission members can unilaterally dictate the panel’s direction, and it recounts his position that staffing decisions ultimately sit with the White House.

What is clear is that the fight has become a proxy battle over two combustible issues at once: who controls the commission’s agenda and how accusations of antisemitism are handled when pro-Israel and anti-Israel rhetoric collides in conservative politics.

For now, neither side appears to be backing down — and the commission’s work, meant to project unity around religious liberty priorities, is instead playing out in real time as a messy, public intraparty dispute.

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *