Antichrist theory – A political AI image of Donald Trump depicted as Jesus on Truth Social has reignited an old strand of American end-times belief. In a discussion of how Antichrist theology took root—from the late 1800s through World Wars and modern evangelical politics—a Unive
When President Donald Trump posted an AI image of himself depicted as Jesus on Truth Social, it didn’t just spark a social-media argument—it sent many of his Christian followers into a fresh round of alarm.
The uproar quickly spilled into a familiar, if startling, corner of American political discourse: whether Trump was the Antichrist.
Trump later claimed that the AI image was meant to show him as “supposed to be a doctor. ” but the damage had already been done. Once the image circulated. prominent far-right advocates including Marjorie Taylor Greene. Tucker Carlson. and Nick Fuentes began openly wondering if Trump—at least in the logic of their end-times framework—could be the Antichrist.
It is not the first time that idea has surfaced in American politics. or the first time it has attached itself to the country’s most turbulent moments. Matthew Sutton. a history professor at the University of Washington and the author of the book Chosen Land: How Christianity Made America and Americans Remade Christianity. argues that the way Americans talk about the Antichrist in public life takes shape as far back as the 1880s.
Sutton traces the shift to a changing world. In the late 1800s and 1890s. as the modern nation-state rose alongside global militarization and a new world order. Americans who had once been optimistic about building “the kingdom of God on Earth” were forced to confront the Civil War and its deep divide over slavery. Sutton says once Christians started killing other Christians, it became much harder to sustain an optimistic, forward-looking politics.
Apocalyptic ideas then began to move out of rarefied theology and into everyday church life. The Industrial Revolution brought waves of immigrants—many of them Catholics and Jews—into American cities. For Protestants who had long been the ones “calling the shots. ” Sutton says a small group began to rethink the end-times story itself: maybe the project wasn’t to build a utopia. but to prepare for Armageddon and the Antichrist.
From there, Sutton describes a pipeline from belief to organization. Believers held conferences. wrote books. and debated what the Antichrist would look like. where he might appear. and how they could tell how close the end times were. Sutton says by World War I. the movement had gained a name—fundamentalism—and later rebranded in World War II as evangelicals.
The theology also came with signals believers claimed to look for. Sutton describes a handful of signs that were talked about in ways that could be hard to prove. including the “falling away from true Christianity. ” which. he says. could be argued in almost any generation. There was also the recurring claim of immorality—“the kids today just aren’t following the rules like their parents.”.
But Sutton points to a more consequential “blinking red light” in evangelical prophecy: the return of Jews to Palestine and the reconstruction of Israel as a nation-state. He says fundamentalists began predicting this in the 1880s and 1890s. As Zionism took off and then Israel was formed in the late 1940s. Sutton says the movement treated the sequence as confirmation that its reading of scripture was lining up with events.
War was another major cue. Jesus, Sutton says, had told disciples to expect wars and rumors of wars. Sutton describes World War I as a moment for believers to claim they had been right—and World War II as another. He adds that the creation of the League of Nations and later the United Nations were also folded into the prophecy story. because they were seen as offering a mechanism through which the Antichrist could take power.
That kind of framework also shaped how people pointed fingers at particular leaders. Sutton says believers developed two approaches. One was to try to identify the actual Antichrist. even though the Bible describes the Antichrist as a deceiver. making identification difficult. Even so, Sutton says figures were repeatedly proposed across generations.
In the 1930s, Mussolini seemed to fit for some because he appeared to be trying to resurrect the Roman Empire. In the 1990s. Saddam Hussein became a candidate for some because he was seen as trying to rebuild Babel. the ancient biblical city. Sutton also describes an ongoing shift toward thinking about American leadership: because biblical authors did not imagine the United States. many believers assumed the Antichrist might not be American. but that American leaders could be complicit.
Within that logic, Sutton says liberals and internationalists were often suspected—Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama among the examples. The claim. Sutton says. was that such leaders might help facilitate the rise of the Antichrist. usually “unwittingly” rather than intentionally. by setting the stage for Americans to lose sovereignty to a global “new world leader.”.
Sutton says the most important question isn’t just who believers claim is the Antichrist. but whether the interest in the figure has reshaped American politics—turning religious expectation into political pressure. He links that to the rise of the religious right and, in particular, to Ronald Reagan.
Sutton says Reagan became a natural partner for many believers because he seemed to be obsessed with end-times ideas and the Antichrist. Sutton adds that critics attacked Reagan for being too close to evangelical supporters and for being too focused on those themes. even if Sutton says it was not shaping his policy.
In Sutton’s view. the relationship between apocalyptic theology and politics becomes especially important when it is tied to mobilizing people for action. He describes a chain of events in the belief system: if the rise of the Antichrist is imminent. then the next act is the return of Jesus and the Second Coming. That, Sutton says, creates urgency about being ready—and being ready means getting to work rather than waiting passively.
Sutton puts it bluntly: people who believe this theology instead of treating it like a distant story are expected to get out and do what they can, because Jesus is coming and will “expect” faithful preparation. In that sense, Sutton says, believers end up “fighting the Antichrist.”
When asked where this leaves evangelical communities now. Sutton describes the Antichrist as something that “works for every generation.” Each era. he says. produces a different candidate. a different placement of history’s trajectory. and a different version of the same story. But Sutton argues the engine remains the same: political mobilization. expectations about change. and then second-guessing when events do not unfold exactly as predicted.
Sutton’s warning is direct. He says turning policy disputes into spiritual tests fuels polarization. In his telling. a debate that might otherwise be about whether a decision is good for the greatest number of people can become a question of whether supporting the United Nations means supporting the Antichrist. Once that happens, Sutton argues, it becomes much harder to talk across lines, find middle ground, or work with adversaries.
In the end, the Antichrist debate isn’t just a theological argument bouncing around churches. It’s a way of assigning meaning to the public world. And once that frame takes hold. a single image—like a President appearing as Jesus—can quickly become more than content. It can become a test of identity, loyalty, and what many believers fear is already happening.
Donald Trump Truth Social AI photo Jesus image Antichrist evangelicals end times Marjorie Taylor Greene Tucker Carlson Nick Fuentes Matthew Sutton Chosen Land