Walt Disney’s 1937 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs wasn’t just an animation milestone, it was a modern retelling of a timeless fairy tale with moral clarity and spiritual resonance. Based on the Grimm brothers' 1812 version (Sneewittchen), the story drew deeply from the Christian worldview that shaped Europe for centuries. Though softened for mass appeal, the 1937 film retained core values: innocence, sacrifice, love, and resurrection.

Fast forward to the recent 2025 remake, and we’re no longer just watching an updated fairytale; we're watching an ideological revision. The shift is dramatic: from a Christ-centered allegory of redemption to a secular manifesto preaching autonomy, class struggle, and collectivist ideals.

This is not accidental. It is part of a broader cultural movement to replace biblical truth with secular humanism, and to reshape the moral imagination of an entire generation.

The Original Tale: Rooted in Christian Symbolism

The Grimm version, and even Disney’s 1937 film, reflects a world where God, sin, death, and redemption still meant something.

Biblical Symbolism in Snow White:

• Snow White’s Appearance — Her skin “white as snow, lips red as blood, hair black as ebony” echoes Isaiah 1:18 KJV: “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.” Her image embodies purity, sacrifice, and death which are core gospel themes.

• The Three Deaths and Resurrection — Snow White "dies" three times: bodice, comb, and apple. This mirrors temptation, bondage, and spiritual death (Genesis 3:6; Romans 6:23 KJV), followed by resurrection, a shadow of Christ’s Passion.

• The Dwarfs as Monastic Figures — Seven laboring men, living apart from society in ordered community, caring for a "sacred" woman; they resemble monks or the early church caring for the body of Christ (Acts 2:42–47 KJV).

• The Evil Queen as Satanic Archetype — Driven by vanity and envy, she reflects Lucifer's fall: “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God…” (Isaiah 14:13 KJV). Her end is just and mirrors divine judgment.

• The Prince as Christ — He awakens Snow White with a kiss: life restored by love. “I am the resurrection, and the life…” (John 11:25 KJV). He represents not a mere romantic interest but a redeemer-king figure.

Enter the 2025 Remake: From Resurrection to Revolution

Instead of preserving these themes, the 2025 remake (based on cast interviews, production leaks, and previews) strips the story of its moral clarity and spiritual resonance. What remains is not a tale of virtue overcoming evil but one of class struggle, autonomy, and empowerment divorced from truth.

This remake is not a simple modernization—it’s a reprogramming.

The Woman at the Well vs. the New Snow White: A Tale of Two Messages

There’s no better biblical counterpoint to the 2025 Snow White than the woman at the well in John 4. She, like modern Snow White, lived outside the boundaries of traditional virtue. She was assertive, independent and empty. Jesus doesn’t applaud her autonomy. He confronts her sin and offers living water, eternal life through Him (John 4:14 KJV).

“Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst…”
— John 4:13–14 KJV

She doesn’t “find herself.” She meets the Messiah. She doesn’t overthrow oppressive systems. She abandons her jar (John 4:28 KJV) and tells others about Christ (John 4:29 KJV).

Today’s Snow White is being rewritten to preach a secular gospel: “You are enough. You define truth. You don’t need saving.” But the woman at the well shows us the real gospel: “You are not enough, but Christ is.”

Secular Humanism, Collectivism, and the Gospel of Self

The 2025 remake aligns with the rising tide of secular humanism, where man is god, morality is fluid, and salvation comes through political revolution or self-actualization. Instead of sin, we’re told we’re victims. Instead of redemption, we get redistribution. Instead of a Savior, we get a slogan.

This isn’t just misguided storytelling, it’s theological subversion.

As Dr. Jason Lisle teaches, when you reject the absolute authority of Scripture, you lose the foundation for truth itself. Ken Ham has shown how evolution and humanism displace God from the cultural conversation. Gary Habermas reminds us that the resurrection is not just a doctrine, it’s a worldview. And Lee Strobel has demonstrated that if you remove Christ from history, you remove hope from humanity.

The 2025 Snow White is a case study in all of this. It’s not just “woke.” It’s a moral and spiritual inversion.

What We Lose When We Trade the Prince for the Proletariat

This remake doesn’t just remove the Prince, it replaces him. With what? A vague message of empowerment, wealth sharing, anti-hierarchy, and collectivist virtue. It exchanges love for labor. It dethrones the Savior and enthrones the self.

But in doing so, it teaches children that there is no rescue. No grace. No sin to repent of, and no heaven to hope for. Just struggle, identity politics, and perpetual dissatisfaction.

It’s not Snow White. It’s a fable rewritten in the language of Marx.

In the end... We Don’t Need a New Snow White; We Need the Old Gospel

The 1937 Snow White still points upward: to beauty, to sacrifice, to love that triumphs over death. The 2025 remake turns inward, downward, and backward. What began as a tale of resurrection now ends in a revolution of self.

But we don’t need another story telling us to save ourselves. We need the truth that Christ alone saves.

Just like the woman at the well, our culture is thirsty. Disney offers them polluted water. Christ offers living water.

And like Snow White in her glass coffin, this generation lies poisoned and asleep and waiting for a Prince not of this world.

In a move that has sent shockwaves through Washington, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education (DOE)—a federal agency that has long overstepped its constitutional boundaries and failed the American people. Critics are panicking, but the reality is this: education was never meant to be controlled by Washington, and the DOE was never about the kids.

A Department Built on Politics, Not Education

The Department of Education was created in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter not because of any urgent need for federal oversight, but to secure support from the teachers' unions in his re-election bid. It was a political maneuver, not an educational reform. In fact, the Department of Education Organization Act explicitly states:

"The establishment of the Department of Education shall NOT increase the authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish the responsibility for education, which is reserved to the States and the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States."

The Act also claims that the Department was meant to:

"PROTECT the rights of State and local governments and public and private educational institutions...and improve the control of such governments and institutions over their own educational programs and policies."

Yet, since its creation, the DOE has done the exact opposite. It has centralized power, dictated curriculum, and manipulated funding to push ideological agendas, stripping states, parents, and local communities of the authority that was promised to them.

Federal Control Has Failed Students

Since the DOE took control, test scores have plummeted, student achievement has stagnated, and spending has skyrocketed. The U.S. spends more per student than almost any other country, yet American students rank embarrassingly low in math, reading, and science compared to their international peers.

The DOE has poured billions of taxpayer dollars into programs that have done nothing to improve education. Instead, the department has used its funding power to push radical leftist ideologies like Critical Race Theory (CRT), gender theory, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, turning schools into Marxist indoctrination centers rather than places of learning.

Education or Activism? What the DOE Has Really Done

Former professor C.S. Lewis warned in his book The Abolition of Man that modern education would stop teaching students how to seek truth, wisdom, and virtue. Instead, it would train them to be activists, loyal only to the state and its latest ideological obsession.

This is exactly what has happened under the DOE’s reign. Instead of focusing on math, science, reading, and history, our schools have been transformed into factories that churn out students who know more about intersectionality and protest tactics than basic U.S. civics.

The DOE and its allies in academia have erased classical education, which once taught students to seek truth, beauty, and goodness. They have replaced it with a system that teaches children to hate their country, distrust their families, and worship government control.

Restoring Power to Parents and the States

By dismantling the DOE, Trump is doing exactly what Congress originally intended, returning education to the states and local communities.

Some critics argue that without the DOE, federal funding might be withheld from certain states if they teach things the government disagrees with. But this argument ignores reality: the federal government has already been using funding as a weapon to control states. The DOE has dictated everything from testing standards to curriculum choices, forcing states to comply with leftist agendas or risk losing funding.

If states truly want control over their education, they should fund their own schools instead of relying on federal money with strings attached. That is what real educational freedom looks like.

The Left’s True Fear: Losing Their Money Machine

The real reason the Left is panicking is not because they fear losing education quality (which they’ve already destroyed), but because the DOE is a massive money-laundering operation for the Democratic Party.

Here’s how it works:

1. Your tax dollars fund the DOE.
2. The DOE sends billions to universities and public schools (particularly for DEI, CRT, and left-wing initiatives).
3. University faculty, who overwhelmingly donate to Democrat politicians, receive this money.
4. That money cycles right back into Democrat campaigns, securing their power.

By dismantling the DOE, Trump is cutting off one of the biggest financial pipelines that fuels left-wing politics. That’s the real reason they are terrified.

In other words...

Trump’s executive order to dismantle the Department of Education is a victory for the Constitution, for parents, and for the future of America’s children. The DOE has spent decades failing students, undermining local control, and turning schools into activist factories.

By restoring power to states, parents, and local communities, this move will allow schools to focus on real education again not political indoctrination. It is time to raise a generation of children who seek knowledge, truth, and excellence, rather than one trained to blindly serve the state.

This is not just about education; it’s about saving the future of America.

A recent article titled "Trump’s Deportation Play: Right Goal, Wrong Move" argues that President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is legally and strategically flawed. However, this argument misunderstands the constitutional authority of the executive branch, the validity of the AEA, and the role of the judiciary in national security matters. Let’s break it down point by point.

The Alien Enemies Act Is Not a Stretch, It’s the Law

The claim that the AEA is meant only for wars between nations ignores the text of the statute itself. The law grants the President the power to act against foreign nationals during times of conflict or invasion not just in declared wars. The article dismisses the idea that Tren de Aragua qualifies under this law, but that argument ignores the evidence that Venezuela’s government facilitated their entry into the U.S.. When a criminal force enters the country with state backing or direction, it meets the criteria for a “predatory incursion” under the AEA.

Furthermore, the argument that the AEA is "outdated" is legally meaningless. The U.S. Constitution itself is older than the AEA; does that mean it’s no longer valid? A law remains enforceable unless repealed, and the AEA has never been struck down or repealed by Congress. It is still part of the legal framework for national security.

Judicial Overreach Is the Real Issue

The article claims that Trump’s use of the AEA gave activist judges an easy legal excuse to block him. But the bigger issue is judicial overreach. Federal courts do not have unlimited power to interfere with executive national security decisions. The President, not unelected district judges, is responsible for national defense. The judiciary’s role is to interpret the law, but courts cannot seize executive powers that the Constitution explicitly grants the Commander-in-Chief.

The courts did not stop the Biden administration from mass-releasing illegal aliens, yet they now block a president from removing dangerous foreign criminals. This double standard is a constitutional crisis, and Trump is addressing it by using laws that Congress has already passed.

Existing Immigration Laws? Not a Better Option

The article argues that Trump should have relied on existing immigration laws instead of invoking the AEA. But immigration courts are already overwhelmed, and activist judges often block deportations on technicalities. Waiting for years of litigation is not a real solution; it’s an excuse for inaction.

The suggestion that Trump should have sent Tren de Aragua members to Guantanamo Bay instead does not solve the legal issue. If judges are willing to block deportations now, they would also find ways to challenge Guantanamo detentions. The President’s approach of invoking a clear, existing statute that does not require endless court battles is legally sound and ensures immediate action.

Trump Is Following the Law, Not Bending It

The article suggests that Trump is setting a dangerous precedent by using a national security law for deportations. But this argument is backwards. The real danger is allowing courts to override the President’s constitutional authority to defend the country.

Trump’s move is not about political optics. It is about restoring executive authority that has been eroded by activist judges and bureaucratic delays. The Constitution does not give federal judges command over immigration enforcement. The President is acting well within his authority to remove foreign threats without having to litigate every single case for years in immigration courts.

In other words...

Tren de Aragua must be deported, and President Trump has the legal and constitutional power to do so under the Alien Enemies Act. The judicial overreach that has stalled deportations for years is the real crisis, and Trump’s actions are a direct challenge to a broken system that has failed to protect American citizens.

Ignoring the clear text of the AEA, misrepresenting the President’s constitutional role, and claiming that existing immigration laws would have made this easier are flawed arguments that do not hold up to scrutiny. If the courts continue to interfere with the President’s national security decisions, Congress has the power to check the judiciary through impeachment, defunding, or restructuring lower courts. The separation of powers must be restored, and enforcing the law as written is the only way to do it.

Legal Precedents & Laws That Support Trump’s Authority

1. Alien Enemies Act of 1798 – Grants the President power to detain or deport nationals of hostile nations during times of invasion or conflict. Still valid and in effect today.

2. Haig v. Agee (1981) – Supreme Court ruled that the President has broad authority in national security matters, including actions against foreign threats.

3. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) – While limiting executive power in domestic matters, the ruling affirmed that the President has greater authority in foreign affairs and national security.

4. Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950) – The Supreme Court held that the executive branch has plenary power over the admission and exclusion of aliens, and that courts should not interfere with national security decisions.

5. Trump v. Hawaii (2018) – The Court reaffirmed that the President has broad discretion to exclude foreign nationals from the U.S. when national security is at stake.

6. Congress’s Power Over the Judiciary – The Constitution gives Congress the ability to remove lower courts, limit their jurisdiction, defund them, or impeach judges who abuse their authority. This is a legitimate constitutional check when courts overstep their bounds.

President Trump is enforcing a law written by the Founding Fathers, not twisting legal boundaries. The real constitutional crisis isn’t his enforcement of immigration laws. It’s the judiciary’s overreach into executive national security decisions. The Commander-in-Chief has the authority and obligation to protect the nation from foreign threats, and Congress has the power to rein in activist judges when they obstruct that duty for political reasons.

As Stephen Miller laid out in his recent interview (watch here), the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 gives the President clear and unquestionable authority to remove foreign threats without interference from unelected judges. In the interview, Miller obliterates a CNN reporter, exposing their misrepresentation of the law and refusal to acknowledge the President’s constitutional powers. When pressed, the reporter couldn’t even answer basic legal questions about whether a district judge has the right to direct troop movements, because they do not.

This is not a legal gray area; the Constitution is clear. Allowing a single judge to override the President’s national security decisions is not law and order—it’s legal chaos.