IRS Reverses Decades-Old Policy, Allows Churches to Endorse Political Candidates
Tax agency's court filing signals major shift in religious freedom law, ending 71-year prohibition on pulpit politics
The Internal Revenue Service formally agreed in a court filing Monday that churches can endorse political candidates without risking their tax-exempt status, marking a dramatic reversal of a decades-old policy that has governed the intersection of faith and politics since 1954. The decision, outlined in a joint settlement document filed in federal court in Texas, effectively creates a religious exemption to the Johnson Amendment, which had previously prohibited all nonprofit organisations from engaging in political campaigning, according to The New York Times.
The IRS reached this agreement as part of a lawsuit settlement with the National Religious Broadcasters, Sand Springs Church, First Baptist Church Waskom, and Intercessors for America, who had challenged the agency's enforcement of political speech restrictions. The tax agency now argues that when houses of worship communicate with their congregations about electoral politics through their usual channels during religious services, such communications constitute internal discussions comparable to "family conversations" rather than prohibited political campaigning.
What the IRS Actually Said
In the court filing, the IRS made a crucial distinction about how it interprets political speech within religious contexts. The agency stated that communications from a house of worship to its congregation "in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted," according to Fox Business.
"Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates."
The IRS further clarified that when a house of worship "in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith," it neither participates nor intervenes in a political campaign in the traditional sense.
This interpretation represents a significant departure from how the agency has historically viewed political speech by religious organisations, even though legal experts note that the IRS had rarely enforced the Johnson Amendment against churches in practice.
Seven Decades of Separation
The Johnson Amendment, named after then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, was enacted in 1954 as part of the federal tax code. The provision prohibits all 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, including churches, charities, and educational institutions, from "participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office," according to NBC News.
The amendment was originally designed to prevent tax-exempt organizations from becoming vehicles for political campaigning while maintaining their privileged tax status. For seven decades, this provision has served as a cornerstone of American nonprofit law, maintaining a clear separation between tax-exempt charitable work and political advocacy.
Churches and other religious organizations have long been automatically classified as 501(c)(3) entities, meaning they receive tax-exempt status without having to apply for it, unlike other nonprofits. This automatic classification has made the Johnson Amendment particularly relevant to religious institutions, as they have historically been subject to its restrictions without having chosen their tax-exempt status.
The Lawsuit That Changed Everything
The legal challenge that led to this policy shift began in August 2024, when the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) and several Texas churches filed suit against the IRS in federal court. The plaintiffs argued that the Johnson Amendment violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, as well as the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
NRB President and CEO Troy Miller stated that the organization believes "that all nonprofits should have the constitutional right to freely express their point of view on candidates, elections, and issues on the ballot," according to the Catholic News Agency. Miller added that "our challenge to the Johnson Amendment is about securing the future of free expression for all Americans, particularly those standing in the pulpit."
The lawsuit specifically alleged that the IRS "acts in an arbitrary and capricious manner vis-Ã -vis electoral statements by nonprofit organizations" and "operates in a manner that disfavors conservative organizations and conservative, religious organizations" in its enforcement of the tax code.
Rather than seeking an expedited ruling before the 2024 election, the plaintiffs made clear they were focused on long-term policy change. The NRB emphasized in a press release that they were "making no attempt to obtain a decision prior to the 2024 election" and did not expect any hearings before that time.
Trump's Promise and Presidential Politics
This development fulfils a long-standing promise made by former President Donald Trump, who repeatedly vowed to eliminate or weaken the Johnson Amendment during his previous term. At the 2017 National Prayer Breakfast, Trump declared: "I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution," according to ABC News.
In 2017, Trump signed an executive order directing the Treasury Department to disregard the Johnson Amendment, though that order had limited practical effect. The current IRS position goes further than Trump's previous executive action by formally establishing a legal framework for religious political speech.
The timing of this settlement, coming during Trump's second term, reflects the broader political context in which religious freedom issues have gained prominence. The administration's approach to religious liberty has consistently favored expanding the rights of faith-based organizations to engage in activities that might have been previously restricted.
What This Really Means
Legal experts in nonprofit law have noted that while this ruling appears significant, it largely codifies what had already been the IRS's informal enforcement practice. According to The New York Times, experts indicated that the IRS stand "could lead to a big increase of politics being espoused in churches, even though the filing put in writing what already was pretty much an unspoken IRS policy".
The IRS has historically been reluctant to enforce the Johnson Amendment against religious organizations, making this formal policy change more symbolic than practically revolutionary. However, the explicit nature of the new guidance provides churches with much clearer protection and could indeed lead to more open political advocacy from pulpits across the country.
"The IRS rarely enforced the rule"
This reality, as reported by NPR, meant that many churches had already been engaging in political speech without facing consequences. The new formal policy simply removes the theoretical threat that had previously existed.
Where the Lines Are Drawn
The IRS's new position comes with important limitations that religious organizations must understand. The policy specifically applies only to communications made "in connection with religious services through [the house of worship's] usual channels of communication on matters of faith," according to Reuters.
This means that while pastors can endorse candidates from the pulpit during regular services, churches cannot engage in broader political campaigning activities such as distributing campaign materials, hosting candidate events, or making financial contributions to political campaigns. The exemption is narrowly tailored to internal religious communications rather than general political activity.
The distinction between internal religious communication and external political campaigning remains crucial. Churches must still avoid activities that would constitute traditional political campaigning, such as organising voter registration drives specifically for certain candidates or using church resources for campaign activities.
Congressional and Political Reactions
The IRS decision has generated mixed reactions from political leaders and advocacy groups. Religious freedom advocates have praised the move as a victory for First Amendment rights, while church-state separation groups have expressed concern about the erosion of longstanding nonprofit law principles.
The timing of this announcement, coming just months after the 2024 election, has raised questions about the political motivations behind the settlement. Critics argue that the IRS capitulated to political pressure rather than defending established legal principles.
Supporters, however, view the decision as a correction of government overreach that had unnecessarily restricted religious speech. They argue that the Johnson Amendment had created an unfair burden on religious organizations compared to other forms of political speech.
Impact on Religious Communities
The practical implications of this policy change will likely vary significantly across different religious communities. Some churches may embrace the newfound freedom to engage in explicit political advocacy, while others may continue to maintain traditional boundaries between religious teaching and political endorsements.
Evangelical Christian communities, who were prominently represented in the lawsuit through the National Religious Broadcasters, are likely to be among the most immediate beneficiaries of this policy change. These communities have historically been more comfortable with the intersection of faith and politics.
Other religious traditions may be more cautious about embracing political endorsements, preferring to maintain their focus on spiritual rather than political matters. The policy change provides permission rather than requiring political engagement.
Legal Precedent and Future Implications
This settlement establishes important legal precedent for how the First Amendment's religious freedom protections interact with tax law. The IRS's acceptance that religious political speech constitutes internal communication rather than public political campaigning could influence future cases involving religious liberty and government regulation.
The decision also raises questions about the broader future of the Johnson Amendment. While this ruling only creates a religious exemption, it could provide a foundation for broader challenges to political speech restrictions on nonprofit organizations.
Legal scholars will likely study this case as an example of how religious freedom claims can successfully challenge longstanding government policies. The settlement demonstrates that agencies may be willing to reinterpret established rules when faced with First Amendment challenges.
The Enforcement Reality Check
Despite the formal policy change, the practical enforcement landscape may not change dramatically. According to multiple news sources, the IRS has "generally not enforced the Johnson Amendment against houses of worship for speech related to electoral politics," making this more of a formal acknowledgement than a practical revolution.
The rarity of Johnson Amendment enforcement has meant that many religious organizations were already operating under the assumption that they could engage in political speech without serious consequences. This formal policy change simply removes the theoretical legal risk that had previously existed.
However, the explicit nature of the new guidance may encourage more churches to engage in political advocacy, knowing they have clear legal protection for their activities. The psychological effect of formal permission may be more significant than the practical legal change.
The Future of Faith and Politics
The IRS decision represents a significant moment in the ongoing evolution of the relationship between religious institutions and political engagement in America. As churches gain explicit permission to endorse candidates, the 2026 midterm elections and beyond may see increased political activity from religious organizations.
This development occurs within a broader context of increasing political polarisation and the growing influence of religious considerations in electoral politics. The formal removal of restrictions on religious political speech may accelerate these trends.
The long-term implications of this policy change will depend largely on how religious communities choose to exercise their newfound freedom. Whether churches embrace political advocacy or maintain traditional boundaries will shape the practical impact of this legal development.
The IRS's reversal of decades-old policy represents more than a simple regulatory change—it signals a fundamental shift in how American law balances religious freedom with political speech restrictions. As houses of worship across the nation consider how to respond to this new legal landscape, the intersection of faith and politics in America enters a new chapter that will likely influence elections and religious practice for years to come.