California Rep. Laura Friedman has joined the Congressional Freethought Caucus
The group, which champions reason-based policies and opposes discrimination against atheists, now stands at 22 members
This newsletter is free, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can use the button below to subscribe to Substack or use my usual Patreon page!
The Congressional Freethought Caucus has just added another member: Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA).
Friedman was just elected in November from California’s 30th District, the same one previously represented by Rep. Adam Schiff, who is now a U.S. senator. Before entering Congress, she was a member of the Glendale City Council, the mayor of Glendale, and a member of the California State Assembly. While in the legislature, she co-authored a reproductive freedom amendment to the state constitution that voters overwhelmingly approved in 2022. She also believes “LGBTQIA+ rights are fundamental human rights and that we can not have a free and equitable society until we protect the rights of all.”
The caucus now includes 22 members, all of whom are Democrats. (After the recent election, two members of the CFC are not returning to Congress: Rep. Dan Kildee retired and Rep. Susan Wild lost her re-election bid.)
Like most of her colleagues in the CFC, Friedman is religious. The Pew Research Center, in their 2025 roundup, listed her as Jewish. That doesn’t prevent her, of course, from supporting church/state separation and protecting freedom of religion for everyone (including the non-religious).
As of this writing, Friedman hasn’t made any public announcement about her affiliation, and the CFC’s website doesn’t list her as a member, but the office of CFC co-chair Rep. Jared Huffman confirmed her membership with me. The website just hasn’t been updated yet, they said.
In case you need a refresher, the CFC was first announced in 2018 by Rep. Huffman, a Humanist (and fellow Californian) and currently the only openly Humanist member of Congress.
The 22 members now include:
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) (Co-chair)
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) (Co-chair)
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI)
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL)
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.)
Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA)
Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-CA)
Rep. Julia Brownley (D-CA)
Rep. Kevin Mullin (D-CA)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX)
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA)
Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL)
Rep. Becca Balint (D-VT)
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)
Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX)
Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA)
To be clear, this isn't an “atheist club” for Congress, as some critics have suggested. This is just a group of lawmakers dedicated to promoting reason-based public policy, keeping church and state separate, opposing discrimination against non-religious people, and championing freedom of thought around the world. There’s really no reason anyone should be against this. That’s why there’s nothing hypocritical about the fact that nearly every member of the Caucus is religious.
The hope is that the membership continues growing—making the Caucus more influential—while the stigma of being an atheist (or even being associated with non-religiosity) decreases across the country. Those two things are more closely linked than we might imagine. Keep in mind that the Congressional Prayer Caucus, which typically promotes a version of conservative Christianity, is much larger and has members from both major parties. By that metric, the Freethought Caucus has a long way to go.
As I’ve said before, perhaps the most shocking thing about the Caucus is that, based on the relative lack of media interest, people don’t seem to care who the members are… which is to say, no one—not even in right-wing media—thinks it’s a big deal for sitting House members to align with a group defending atheists.
That also means none of these lawmakers believes the Caucus will be a concern for them during the second Trump administration. That may come as a shock to anyone who remembers a time when aligning (even remotely) with atheism was considered one of the biggest taboos in politics.
(Portions of this article were published earlier)
It's telling that no Republicans want to join a group that champions reason-based policy, church-state separation, and freedom of thought. One would think they are against such things.
Good news, especially in the light of all the religious craziness going on on the other side of the aisle. Welcome, Ms. Friedman! We're glad you joined us!