Practicing parrhesia can become a necessary political virtue in the face of emerging powers that seem impossible to resist.

Many people have seen a video from Trump’s first days in office in which a bishop asks for “clemency” for migrants and LGBTQ+ people from the recently inaugurated President Donald Trump. Her name is Mariann Edgar Budde. In front of the cameras, she used an ancient form of classical Greek rhetoric–also present in the Old Testament–known as “parrhesia” (παν=all+ρησις/ρημα=locution/speech). Parrhesia involves speaking freely and openly, using the truth to benefit the common good. According to the ancient Greeks, those who practiced parrhesia had to risk something on an individual level. As such, it was understood that this sort of rhetoric was directed at people with more power than the speaker.

Trump Demands Public Apology

Trump responded harshly to Edgar Budde via his social media platform, Truth Social, calling the bishop “not smart” and demanding a public apology. He wrote: “The so-called Bishop who spoke at the National Prayer Service on Tuesday morning was a Radical Left hard line Trump hater. She brought her church into the World of politics in a very ungracious way. She was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart. She failed to mention the large number of illegal migrants that came into our Country and killed people…It is a giant crime wave that is taking place in the USA. Apart from her inappropriate statements, the service was a very boring and uninspiring one. She is not very good at her job! She and her church owe the public an apology!”

What Exactly Did the Bishop Say?

At the National Cathedral in Washington, the Episcopal bishop, under the uncomfortable gaze of the US President, pontificated, “Let me make one final plea, Mr. President. Millions have put their trust in you and, as you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving God. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. There are gay, lesbian and transgender children in Democratic, Republican, and Independent families, some who fear for their lives. The people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings; who labor in poultry farms and meat packing plants; who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shifts in hospitals. They…may not be citizens or have the proper documentation. But the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals.”

In addition, the bishop said, “I ask you to have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away. And that you help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their lands to find compassion and welcome here. Our God teaches us that we are to be merciful to the stranger, for we were all once strangers in this land.”

Parrhesia as a Political Virtue

Mariann Edgar Budde’s intervention was applauded for its courage. It is rare to hear a priest openly criticize a president through the sacred scriptures of a religion that, to a large extent, articulates a set of supposedly untouchable national symbols. Others, however, have called the intervention “opportunistic” and “misplaced,” arguing that the bishop should have kept her political opinions to herself. Still others have viewed her criticism as mild, suggesting that instead of the request for “clemency”, she should have resolutely demanded that Trump abandon his plans for migrants and LGBTQ+ people.

What is certain is that the bishop used her sermon to speak her mind, fully aware of the potential consequences. She spoke from her interpretation of Christianity as a religion of mercy and solidarity with others, wherever they come from. In this situation, it is clear that a self-proclaimed advocate for “racial equality, gun violence prevention, immigration reform, and the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ people” took the opportunity to speak her mind. 

But perhaps the real question is: Shouldn’t everyone who has the ability to speak the truth do so?

The fundamental problem may be that the world is living at a time when the roaring voice of the most powerful, seeks to silence all voices that rise against injustice. Faced with this apparent reality, many today prefer to remain silent, watching in astonishment as acts of bravery are recycled by a system that seems indifferent to any criticism.

However, nearly 2500 years ago, the poet Euripides, who wrote about strong women and brilliant slaves, taught us that it is not only possible to speak the truth in a world dominated by political reaction and the most recalcitrant conservatism, but that every worthy person must practice this attitude, known in Ancient Greece as parrhesia. In other words, parrhesia is not only a rhetorical strategy but a political virtue that carries with it a certain personal risk, despite the grace with which it is presented.

In this regard, the French philosopher Michel Foucault thought that “[when] someone uses parrhesia [they are] facing a danger or a risk for themselves”; this does not necessarily mean risking one’s life, although it does imply risking something important of oneself to tell power a truth or two. This is why, however much the most powerful entrepreneurs may want to appear to be courageous, their declarations do not involve a real act of courage, for they risk nothing essential to themselves. This is why Foucault insists that the king or the tyrant cannot use parrhesia “since they risk nothing.”

Ultimately, parrhesia implies speaking the truth without manipulation, offering a kind of light in moments of darkness. Those who practice parrhesia do so because many others are afraid to speak. It is a discursive alternative based on certain moral values, including the obligation to speak the truth as an attitude toward others. Therefore, it is a political virtue.

It is arguable that Mariann Edgar Budde’s speech could have been more radical, or that she should not have used the word “clemency” to make a direct request to Trump. However, in the world of Christian moral values that governed that ritual, the request for clemency sought to show that there is no logical consistency between declaring oneself a Christian and supporting the forced expulsion of hundreds of thousands of migrants, nor the attacks against LGBTQ+ communities. In the end, that was the public message that got through to Trump and that is why it caused such a strong reaction.

However, beyond the specific details of the case, the bishop’s act seems to encourage an entire country to practice parrhesia as a political attitude. This implies recognizing the courage of the speaker (i.e. also recognizing his or her capacity to act), the importance of telling the truth clearly and publicly, and recognizing the speaker’s position in relation to the most powerful.

As the philosopher and theorist Judith Butler reminds us, parrhesia is not necessarily a purely individual act, as Foucault suggested, it can be built collectively, through the solidarity that emerges when people act together. It should be added that it is in collective action–when voices that once seemed unheard begin to speak in unison through concrete action–that parrhesia reaches its fullest expression. At that point it is no longer just words; it becomes the transformation of concrete reality. Parrhesia will always be uncomfortable for those in power, and therefore it is unwise to abandon it. However, for it to become something more than a discomfort, parrhesia must be understood beyond its purely discursive dimension. Only then can it rise to a form of political transformation, present in every act of the social life of political groups that seek to resist their destruction.


This article was first published in Peoples Dispatch.