Access, independence and responsibility
The Armenian Revolutionary Federation Eastern United States welcomes meaningful engagement between the leadership of the United States and the spiritual institutions of the Armenian people. Armenian religious leaders should meet with the president and other senior American officials. Such access can deepen understanding of Armenia and the Armenian people and provide an important forum for moral concerns affecting Armenia, Artsakh, and Armenian communities worldwide.
Our concern regarding the Sept. 16 White House meeting is therefore not that Armenian spiritual leaders were present, but the framework in which they participated. The gathering was initiated by the Embassy of the Republic of Armenia in cooperation with the White House Faith Office, with Armenia’s ambassador participating alongside the clergy. American-Armenian churches are American institutions serving an American constituency. Their leaders should engage Washington as independent spiritual stakeholders, with meaningful agency over their participation, agenda, and message, not as part of a delegation organized and politically framed by any foreign government, including the government of Armenia.
That distinction matters because the moral authority of our churches rests in their independence from transient political power. An embassy represents the government that appointed its ambassador; our churches represent communities, convictions, and national concerns that transcend any current administration. When a government organizes, convenes, and participates in such an encounter, there is a risk that independent ecclesiastical authority is incorporated into the government’s diplomatic narrative.
The official presentation of the meeting emphasized peace, U.S.-Armenia relations, Christian ties, and President Trump’s role in the Armenia-Azerbaijan diplomatic process. Those are legitimate subjects. Yet equally central concerns were not comparably reflected publicly: the continuing detention of Armenian hostages in Azerbaijan, the rights of the forcibly displaced Armenians of Artsakh, the protection of Armenian churches and cultural heritage under Azerbaijani control, and unresolved security and human rights concerns. Access to the White House is most valuable when it creates room to speak difficult truths, not merely to provide ceremonial affirmation.
Engagement with clergy must also never become a substitute for substantive engagement with American-Armenian civic and advocacy organizations. Spiritual leaders and civic institutions have different responsibilities: clergy speak to faith, morality, human dignity, and communal welfare, while civic organizations engage in legislation, foreign policy, security, human rights, accountability and the long-term interests of the Armenian people. Neither should be used in place of the other.
This issue is especially serious amid the ongoing attack by the state authorities on the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin. The Armenian government should exercise particular restraint before presenting itself as the organizer and intermediary for Armenian ecclesiastical leaders abroad, while the leadership and independence of the national Church are under intense state pressure at home. Ecclesiastical legitimacy cannot be welcomed when it is useful for diplomacy in Washington, while ecclesiastical independence is attacked in Yerevan.
This principle applies to institutions under both the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin and the Holy See of Cilicia. Each must preserve its spiritual and institutional independence and approach political power with its own voice, priorities, and moral authority. The lesson of Sept. 16 is not that our clergy should avoid the White House. They should go, confidently and frequently, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, but as independent leaders of American-Armenian institutions, not as instruments of any government’s diplomatic agenda. A seat at the table is valuable; what matters most is what one chooses to say once seated there.
