Pastors Who Endorse Political Candidates Shouldn't Lose Tax-Exempt Status, IRS Says in Filing
In a joint court filing intended to end an ongoing case against the IRS, the tax collection agency and the National Religious Broadcasters Association–an Evangelical media consortium–and other plaintiffs have asked a federal court in Texas to stop the government from enforcing the Johnson Amendment against the plaintiffs. The Johnson Amendment is a 1954 amendment to the US tax code that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. The Christian media group and others filed suit against the IRS last August, stating that the amendment violates their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, among other legal protections.
On Monday, the IRS and plaintiffs wrote that the Johnson Amendment should be interpreted so that it 'does not reach communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith.' The New York Times was first to report the news of the court filing. The IRS has generally not enforced the Johnson Amendment against houses of worship for speech related to electoral politics.
President Donald Trump has said he wanted to get rid of the Johnson Amendment and signed an executive order in 2017 directing Treasury to disregard the rule. '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,' Trump said at a National Prayer Breakfast in 2017, which is a high-profile event bringing together faith leaders, politicians, and dignitaries.
Representatives from the IRS and the National Religious Broadcasters Association did not respond to an Associated Press request for comment. Earlier this year, Republican lawmakers introduced legislation to remove the Johnson Amendment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
33 minutes ago
- Al Arabiya
Independent Dan Osborn Launches New US Senate Bid to Challenge Nebraska Republican Pete Ricketts
A former labor union boss who drew national headlines last year as an independent candidate challenging Nebraska Republican US Sen. Deb Fischer is again entering the political arena–this time to challenge Nebraska's junior senator, Republican Pete Ricketts, in 2026. 'I'm running for Senate because Congress shouldn't just be a playground for the rich,' Dan Osborn said in a video released Tuesday to announce his candidacy. He criticized Ricketts, a former two-term Nebraska governor and multimillionaire who is the son of billionaire TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts, as a lawmaker who bought his Senate seat. Ricketts' campaign responded by touting his voting record to secure the border and cut taxes for Nebraska workers and painted Osborn as beholden to Democrats. 'Dan Osborn is bought and paid for by his liberal out-of-state coastal donors,' Ricketts' campaign spokesman Will Coup said in a written statement. That was a reference to the nearly $20 million Osborn received last year from political action committees, including those that tend to support Democratic candidates. As he insisted last year, Osborn said he would serve as an independent if elected and has no plans to caucus with either Democrats or Republicans. He pointed to Ricketts' vote for Republicans' massive tax cut and spending bill last week that contains $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and cuts Medicaid and food stamps by $1.2 trillion. 'Congress spends their time bickering about how much we should cut taxes for billionaires and multinational corporations. We're just an afterthought,' Osborn said. 'My kids and yours deserve an American dream, too.' It's a familiar refrain from Osborn, who centered his campaign last year on representing working families he says are being steamrolled by an ever-growing wealth gap and policies that favor the rich over the middle class. Osborn was known in labor union circles as the Omaha industrial mechanic who successfully led a labor strike at Kellogg's cereal plants in 2021, winning higher wages and other benefits. He was a political newcomer when he challenged Fischer, outraising her by more than $1 million and coming within 6 percent of the two-term senator, who was used to winning by wide margins. Osborn acknowledged that it would be difficult to pose a campaign finance threat to Ricketts, one of the richest members of the US Senate. Federal campaign finance reports show Ricketts' campaign had more than $800,000 cash on hand at the end of March. But Osborn believes his populist message appeals more to Nebraska voters than campaign war chests. 'I think if you throw $100 million of your own money into Nebraska, I don't know that that moves the needle any more than $30 does,' he said. 'I think we're going to win this the old school way: Go out to where people are. Just hold town hall after town hall and talk with the good people in Nebraska.' Ricketts is seeking reelection next year after winning a special election last year to finish out the term of former Sen. Ben Sasse, who resigned in 2022. Ricketts was appointed to the seat by his successor, fellow Republican Gov. Jim Pillen, to fill the vacancy–a move widely panned as having the appearance of backroom dealing, as Ricketts had heavily supported and donated more than $1 million to help elect Pillen.
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
What will the world look like in November 2026?
Listening to the speeches of US President Donald Trump leaves one with the impression that the man is convinced he can change realities he does not like. Theoretically, this conviction could be well-founded. He is the absolute ruler of the most powerful country in the world. I use the word 'absolute' deliberately; over the past few months, since assuming office on Jan. 20, Trump has managed to seize control of institutions through executive orders, marginalized the opposition and personalized the national interest. He has diminished international relations in ways that remind us of the famous phrase 'L'Etat, c'est moi' ('I am the state'), widely attributed to France's Louis XIV, who ruled from 1643 to 1715. Since he came to shape the course of events, everyone (rivals before allies) has acquiesced to playing the role of mere spectator. Among them are the major competing powers: China and Russia, NATO and other countries that have long convinced themselves they are 'friends' of Washington. So far, everyone has engaged with Trump's beliefs, actions and statements depending on their priorities, but the outcome is always the same. To this day, people rightly have the sense that confronting a US president who enjoys a clear and fresh popular mandate is futile. Thanks to that mandate, he has monopolized all the levers of governance: An absolutely loyal inner circle has been appointed to run all the agencies and departments of the executive branch. His party has a majority in Congress that is bolstered by a populist wave. An ideologically conservative judiciary that shares the administration's views and interests. A tamed media, either by owners or outside pressure. Even digital and 'smart' media alternatives and those who are 'too clever for their own good' have been brought to heel. A billionaire elite that find themselves completely unshackled. Indeed, they have been empowered to do whatever serves their interests and to crush any challenge to those interests. Accordingly, unless something wholly unforeseen occurs, this 'adaptation' to Trump will continue, at least until the midterm elections. His trial-and-error approach to both domestic and international issues will persist. And this brings us back to the question of Trump's ability to change the realities that bug him. Are the states' considerations not shifting? Are there not lessons to be learned from a gamble here, a misadventure there and a disappointment somewhere in between? Are there not unforeseen circumstances that have not been accounted for, such as natural disasters? Moreover, the global reach of the Trumpian experiment might well be a double-edged sword. While Washington's policies may be bolstered by the experiences of certain governments (whether in Europe or Latin America), the emergence of 'Make America Great Again' clones and the posturing of those who pretend to belong to the MAGA camp could aggravate contradictions in countries whose societies are less resilient or flexible than the US — societies that might not accept what the US public has been accepting. Whether Trump succeeds or fails between now and the midterm elections scheduled for Nov. 3, 2026, the implications will be global. Raising the stakes (especially in global hot zones like Ukraine, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and Taiwan), the American president is a 'dealmaker' who relies more on instinct and public relations than on long-term strategic planning. That is why absolute loyalty, personal friendships and financial partnerships have largely determined his appointments of aides, advisers and Cabinet members. That is a break with the approach of most of his Republican and Democratic predecessors. This has meant that many critical responsibilities have been handed over to figures who are widely seen as controversial or underqualified. In fact, some of them are now beginning to lose the trust of even the hardcore ideological MAGA base, including media figures and activists like Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes. The emergence of MAGA clones could aggravate contradictions in countries whose societies are less flexible than the US. Eyad Abu Shakra As for the Middle East, particularly the question of Palestine, Trump's handling of both Iran and Israel has begun to impose itself on political discourse, at least in the media and online. Strikingly, the white Christian right in America has publicly criticized Benjamin Netanyahu's policies. Chief among their complaints is the accusation that both Netanyahu and the American Jewish right are pushing Washington into war with Iran to serve the Likud and Israel's agenda. While they may differ on the details, several European countries, especially the UK, may be entering a phase of reassessment in their party politics. In Britain, where the current Labour government stands unapologetically with Israel, the political left has begun to shake things up. It was last week announced that a new left-wing party is in the pipeline, led by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and MP Zarah Sultana, both of whom are vocal supporters of the Palestinian cause. This was followed by early signs of a reconfiguration on the political right, with a new far-right party, Restore Britain, emerging. It is even more right-wing than the hard-line, anti-immigrant Reform UK. For this reason, I believe that between now and November 2026, Washington could, given the lack of real solutions to international crises, lay the groundwork for significant transformations outside the US. I believe that the fodder for these shifts will largely be: religious extremism, racial hatred and socioeconomic hardship.
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Trump Administration Pulls Back on Plans to Rewrite Biden-Era Asbestos Ban
The Trump administration is dropping plans to allow continued use of the last type of asbestos legally allowed in US manufacturing after an outcry from asbestos opponents. The Environmental Protection Agency said in a court filing Monday that it will now defend the Biden administration's ban of chrysotile asbestos, which is used in products like brake blocks and sheet gaskets. The carcinogenic chemical has been mostly phased out in the US, but last year the agency under former President Joe Biden sought to finish the decades-long fight with a comprehensive ban. The EPA in 2024 said exposure to asbestos is known to cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, ovarian cancer, and laryngeal cancer, and it is linked to more than 40,000 deaths in the US each year. The EPA had said in a federal appeals court filing last month that parts of the ban may have gone beyond what is necessary to eliminate the unreasonable risk and that other options, such as requiring workplace protection measures, might eliminate that risk. The agency said it planned a roughly 30-month process to write new rules. But industry associations have already filed suit against the Biden administration's ban. So has the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, which fights asbestos-related diseases and believes the ban isn't as airtight as it needs to be. The nonprofit opposed pausing the case so the EPA could revisit the rule, arguing that any new proposal would likely be met by lawsuits too. 'All the work that's gone into the current litigation shouldn't be wasted,' the nonprofit said. 'And a pause would also mean a delay in the rule's implementation.' Lynn Ann Dekleva, the agency's deputy assistant administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said in a Monday filing that the EPA won't go through a process to rewrite the rule. The EPA now says the Biden administration failed to adequately protect chemical industry workers from health risks posed by chrysotile asbestos. 'To remedy the previous Administration's approach, we notified the court that we intend to reconsider the applicability of interim workplace protection requirements during the replacement of asbestos gaskets for all workers,' EPA Press Secretary Brigit Hirsch said in a statement. Linda Reinstein, president and CEO of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, said she was elated the EPA isn't going to reconsider the Biden administration's ban. She speculated that the EPA didn't like public reaction to its position. But she said the EPA's new statement doesn't make sense–the EPA should be talking about a ban, not workplace protections, and it should be protecting all workers, not just those involved with gaskets. The New York Times was first to report the development. Chrysotile asbestos is found in products such as brake blocks, asbestos diaphragms, and sheet gaskets and was banned under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which was broadened in 2016. The Biden administration said it moved forward with a ban after decades of inadequate protections and delays in setting better standards. The EPA's previous move to reconsider the ban had been among dozens of deregulatory actions in the first months of the Trump administration. 'This is just the beginning of the public backlash against the Trump administration's plans to roll back thirty-one standards that protect the air we breathe and the water we drink,' said Michelle Roos, executive director of the Environmental Protection Network. 'Public health is not up for negotiation.'
