In a notable deviation from tradition, former President Donald Trump did not place his left hand on a Bible during the oath of office ceremony. This event occurred on January 20th, with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts administering the oath. The absence of this customary gesture sparked discussions about the traditions surrounding presidential inaugurations. While it is common for presidents to place their hands on a Bible, it is not constitutionally mandated. Vice President J.D. Vance, however, adhered to the traditional practice by placing his right hand on the Bible held by his wife.
Ceremonial Details and Historical Context
In the grand setting of the U.S. Capitol rotunda, on a historic day in late January, Donald Trump was sworn in as president without placing his left hand on a Bible. Standing beside him was First Lady Melania Trump, holding two Bibles—one a personal family heirloom from Trump's childhood and the other the Lincoln Bible, used by President Abraham Lincoln in 1861. Despite the meticulous preparation, the ceremony experienced a slight disruption when Chief Justice John Roberts began the oath while Melania was still positioning herself. Consequently, Trump raised his right hand but opted not to place his left hand on either Bible.
This moment highlighted a significant departure from the usual protocol. According to Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution, while officials must take an oath to support the Constitution, there is no requirement for using a religious text. Interestingly, during Trump's first inauguration in 2017, he did follow the tradition by placing his hand on the Bibles held by his wife. In contrast, Vice President J.D. Vance, sworn in by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, adhered strictly to tradition, placing his right hand on the Bible held by his spouse.
Following the swearing-in, Trump delivered a lengthy speech, addressing his vision for the country. He criticized the previous administration's handling of domestic and international affairs and promised swift changes. Emphasizing unity and peace, he expressed his desire to be remembered as a peacemaker and unifier.
From a journalistic perspective, this event underscores the importance of tradition versus constitutional requirements in political ceremonies. It also invites reflection on how deeply ingrained customs can sometimes overshadow the actual mandates of public service. The choice to forego the traditional gesture may signal a shift in how future inaugurations are perceived and conducted, challenging long-held practices while respecting the constitutional framework.