President Donald Trump was sworn in for his second term as president in the Capitol rotunda, raising his right hand but declining to place his left hand on the two Bibles presented by First Lady Melania Trump.

This departure from customary practice raised questions, as the use of a Bible or other symbolic text has long been part of the ceremonial tradition for U.S. officeholders.

Trump 2017 hand on the bible.

Trump 2025 no hand on the bible.

What changed? pic.twitter.com/eHeCyE9hrl

— Decentralise Party (@DecentraliseP) January 20, 2025

There is no constitutional requirement for an oath of office to involve a Bible or any other text. Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that members of Congress, state legislatures, and executive and judicial officers take an “oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution.

The same clause specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

This provision ensures that the oath is inclusive of all individuals, regardless of their religious beliefs or affiliations.

Historically, most U.S. presidents have chosen to use a Bible when taking the oath of office, often selecting one with personal or historical significance.

Some officials, however, have opted for alternatives. Non-religious officeholders have sometimes sworn their oaths without any text or have used documents such as the Constitution itself.

Trump’s decision to forgo placing his hand on the Bibles is notable given his public expressions of Christian faith.

During his first term, Trump publicly supported the rollout of a special edition of the Bible bearing his name.

For this ceremony, two Bibles were present: the Trump family Bible and the so-called Lincoln Bible.

The latter, used by President Abraham Lincoln during his 1861 inauguration, was also famously used by former President Barack Obama during his 2009 and 2013 inaugurations.

The reason for Trump’s decision not to place his hand on the Bibles during the ceremony remains unclear.

Neither Trump nor his representatives have publicly addressed the matter, leaving room for speculation.

Historically, such actions have been interpreted in various ways, but in this instance, no formal explanation has been provided.

While Trump’s choice may diverge from tradition, it aligns with the constitutional principles that allow flexibility in how an oath is taken.

The lack of a requirement for a religious text underscores the separation of church and state, a cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution.

This moment serves as a reminder of the diversity of practices that have been embraced throughout American history in administering the oath of office.

It also highlights how personal or symbolic decisions made during such ceremonies can carry broader cultural and political implications.