Donald Trump’s second inauguration was a significant event, but recent discussions have brought attention to a traditional element he might have overlooked.
Initially perceived as a standard swearing-in ceremony, the event is being scrutinized now, with observant individuals highlighting a deviation from a long-standing presidential custom.
During the inauguration in Washington on January 20, some were distracted by Melania Trump’s prominent hat, while others noticed that the 47th President of the United States appeared to bypass a significant tradition.
Unlike his predecessors, Trump did not rest his hand on the Bible during the oath, a practice that has been followed since George Washington’s time.
As Trump lifted his right hand to ‘solemnly swear’ to uphold his duties and ‘serve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States’, his left hand did not rest above the two Bibles held by his wife.
Trump had with him a family Bible, a gift from his mother, and a Bible used by Abraham Lincoln during his 1861 inauguration. However, it seems that Trump avoided contact with either of them, unlike during his first inauguration in 2017.
The customary practice of placing one’s hand on the Bible during the oath serves as a symbolic act of faith and accountability. Despite his bold campaign promises, Trump skipped this gesture in 2025. Now, as he progresses through his second term, many feel he continues to fall short of presidential expectations.
The reason behind Trump’s decision to not place his hand on the Bible remains unclear. Nonetheless, physically touching the Bible is neither a mandatory nor a legal obligation, and Trump remains in office as President.
This action has sparked a wave of critical comments on X regarding Trump’s inauguration choice.
An X account shared an image from the ceremony with a caption: “Just a reminder that Trump didn’t put his hand on the Bible when swearing in for a second term.”
One user replied: “It doesn’t matter… not like he abides by it anyway,”
Another user humorously remarked: “God would strike him dead the second he did such a thing.”
A third joked: “He knew he would catch on fire if he did.”
A fourth commented: “For someone who sells his own Bibles, that is suspicious. Makes me wonder if the oath is binding.
Despite the comments, a University of Texas history professor and presidential scholar clarified that there is no practical consequence if a president chooses not to swear on a Bible or historical document.
Jeremi Suri, speaking to Reuters during the inauguration, explained: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president has to connect this to God in any way. The oath is to the Constitution.
“I don’t think it has any bearing on him taking the oath.”
Suri also mentioned that the Constitution permits an incoming president to either swear or affirm, allowing flexibility for those who may not hold religious beliefs.