IRS says churches can now endorse political candidates. Miami faith leaders weigh in
Earlier this month, the IRS sided with the National Religious Broadcasters, an evangelical media group, and two Texas churches in a court filing intended to settle a lawsuit that challenged a ban on most nonprofits from endorsing political candidates in elections.
While most Americans, according to multiple public opinion polls, want to keep politics out of the pulpit, many conservative Christian groups, including the ones named in the lawsuit, have been pushing for more freedom for faith leaders to voice opinions — a view repeatedly advocated by President Donald Trump throughout his time in office.
Many advocates and faith leaders in South Florida who spoke with the Miami Herald remain strongly opposed to the decision, fearing raising such issues threaten to create rifts within individual congregations. But while conservative Christian groups have been most outspoken in support of the move, it also could work both ways, allowing more freedom for progressive churches and leaders to advocate for issues that straddle the line of religion and politics.
The lawsuit argues that the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 measure named after its author, former President Lyndon B. Johnson, restricts churches from exercising freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It also contends that the amendment is not enforced fairly — allowing some nonprofits, such as newspapers, to endorse candidates while others are banned.
During President Donald Trump's first term in 2017, he vowed to 'get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.'
While, the IRS didn't go that far, it did suggest that when a house of worship 'in good faith' speaks to its congregation through 'customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services concerning electoral politics,' it did not constitute participation or intervention in politics, as the Johnson Amendment prohibits.
In a proposed consent judgment between the tax agency and religious groups, the IRS said those types of communications are akin to 'a family discussion,' and 'do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,' according to the proposed settlement filed in U.S. District Court in Texas.
The IRS, in its court filing, also admitted that the Johnson amendment has not been consistently enforced since it was enacted, despite the fact that churches throughout the country violate it on a regular basis, according to a 2022 investigation from the Texas Tribune and ProPublica.
The proposed settlement could have broad implications for political rhetoric in places of worship. WhiIe it applies specifically to plaintiffs in the lawsuit, advocacy groups and faith leaders who spoke with the Miami Herald are concerned it sets a precedent that will embolden other houses of worship to engage in partisan endorsements.
'It's a slippery slope and I feel like this is crossing the line. This is definitely crossing the line,' said Rabbi Gayle Pomerantz, senior rabbi at Temple Beth Sholom, a Reform synagogue in Miami Beach.
'Endorsing a candidate outright from the pulpit can lead to divisiveness and alienation within our congregations,' said Rev. Keny Felix, the senior pastor of Bethel Evangelical Baptist Church in Miami Gardens.
'Weaponizes religious freedom'
Interfaith Alliance, a nonprofit that advocates for religious freedom and against Christian Nationalism, said the lawsuit 'weaponizes religious freedom.'
'They talk about free speech and religious freedom, when in reality what keeps our houses of worship free for religious communities is the separation of church and state,' said Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, vice president of programs and strategy at Interfaith Alliance.
'Imagine if every church in Florida was just an outpost of the GOP or the DNC, that would be a complete denial of religious freedom. It would destroy institutions that are sacred to so many Floridians.'
Graves-Fitzsimmons, who is also an ordained Baptist deacon, pointed out that current law already allows houses of worship to engage with politics in many ways.
For example, faith leaders can invite candidates to speak with their congregations as long as they provide equal opportunity to all parties. Many houses of worship host events encouraging members to vote — Souls to the Polls is an important event in many Black churches, for example — and some churches are polling places themselves.
Nonprofits and churches are even allowed, under current law, to donate to campaigns on certain issues or ballot questions that align with their mission, as long as it is not a partisan race. The Catholic Church donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-abortion efforts to defeat a recent ballot question in Florida, for example.
Local faith leaders weigh in
'I am absolutely taken back by that ruling,' said Rev. Laurie Hafner, lead pastor at Coral Gables Congregational United Church of Christ.
Hafner's church has been on the front lines of advocating for issues some might see as political. In 2023, the church partnered with local bookstore, Books & Books, to organize a protest march against Florida's recent efforts to ban certain books in public schools. In recent years, she made national news for suing the state of Florida over its abortion ban on the grounds of religious rights.
Hafner said after a close call with the IRS at her past church in Cleveland, she's been careful about how she speaks about political candidates from the pulpit. Still, she said, most of her congregants know where she stands politically, due to her strong stances on issues.
'I have never from the pulpit endorsed a particular candidate, although I think I make it very clear what side I'm on,' Hafner told the Miami Herald. 'And that's the side of the oppressed, the hungry, the homeless, the folks who are in prison, the immigrant … and certain candidates are a reflection of those values.'
'I don't know if this is going to change my position about endorsing the candidate from the pulpit, but it does give me a little more freedom, I think, to express myself if need be,' she said.
Others expressed their disapproval over the IRS statements.
'I am strongly opposed to abolishing the Johnson Amendment,' said Rabbi Pomerantz, who was also the first female president of the Rabbinic Association of Greater Miami.
'I think it's helped to preserve the separation of church and state, and we at Temple Beth Sholom have always been very careful about promoting our Jewish values in non-partisan ways,' she said, referring to the Johnson Amendment.
Pomerantz said her synagogue does not endorse candidates or advocate for issues in the name of Democrats or Republicans. She said, however, Temple Beth Sholom may take a position on an issue — like reproductive rights for example — informed by Jewish tradition and Jewish texts.
'We'll always have members of the congregation who don't agree with the position the synagogue has taken. But we feel it is our right and our duty to take positions on meaningful issues, in a non partisan way.'
Concerns about endorsement
Miami Gardens pastor Felix said he agrees with encouraging members to participate in the political system but draws the line at candidate endorsements.
'We have to be careful to not conflate God's kingdom with any one political party or candidate. If we do, our efforts will eventually prove to be misguided,' said Felix in an email to the Herald.
Felix said he believes that pastors are responsible for 'providing moral leadership and clarity' on issues impacting the community — which may sometimes include advocating for justice and speaking 'on behalf of the marginalized and the underrepresented.'
'What unifies a diverse congregation is our common faith, not our political affiliation,' said Felix.
Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said one of his main issues with the IRS ruling is that it potentially can 'corrupt' institutions that have always remained non-partisan.
'Part of what makes them spiritually pure is that they stay non-partisan,' Pesner said. 'They're about values, morals, deeply held beliefs … but when money starts flowing into religious institutions to win partisan battles and elect individual candidates, it corrupts those institutions.'
Pesner's concern about the potential for the decision to interfere with campaign finance was also echoed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
'Weakening this law would undermine houses of worship and nonprofits by transforming them into political action committees, flooding our elections with even more dark money,' the group wrote in a statement.
Faith leaders 'can move the needle'
One advocacy group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, took steps last week to reverse the decision in the lawsuit by filing a motion to intervene. The nonprofit, which advocates for the separation of church and state and religious freedom, said the decision 'would grant favor and privilege to religious organizations and treat them differently than secular nonprofits.'
'The Trump administration's radical reinterpretation of the Johnson Amendment is a flagrant, self-serving attack on church-state separation that threatens our democracy by favoring houses of worship over other nonprofits and inserting them into partisan politics,' said AU President and CEO Rachel Laser in a statement.
Laser went on to say that the Johnson Amendment 'protects the integrity' of elections and nonprofit organizations, including houses of worship.
Many who spoke with the Herald pointed to recent polling that shows that most Americans want to leave politics out of the pulpit.
According to a 2022 poll from Pew Research Center, 77 percent of U.S. adults said churches and other congregations should not make political endorsements. Majorities in both the Democratic and Republican parities and every religious group that was polled also said churches should avoid political endorsements.
On the other hand, the National Faith Advisory Board, a faith coalition founded and led by Paula White Cain, senior advisor to President Trump in the newly established White House Faith Office, celebrated the move by the IRS, calling it a 'tax clarification' that was 'born out of faith leaders advocating for their God-given rights.'
'It is a crucial reminder that faith leaders can move the needle when it comes to influencing the law of the land. Our collective voice matters,' the organization wrote in a weekly newsletter.
The newsletter also went on to advise its readers to avoid 'paid ads, public rallies hosted by your church and using church resources to endorse a candidate to the public.'
The faith advisory board was founded during Trump's first presidency by White and says it communicates with over 70,000 faith leaders across the country.
This story was produced with financial support from Trish and Dan Bell and from donors comprising the South Florida Jewish and Muslim Communities, including Khalid and Diana Mirza, in partnership with Journalism Funding Partners. The Miami Herald maintains full editorial control of this work.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
TACO not on the menu: Howard Lutnick says tariffs start August 1 with no extensions
Tariffs are coming on August 1 and there will be no more extensions, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said. President Donald Trump imposed his 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April, causing a rollercoaster stock market. A week later, he announced a 90-day pause, which has now expired, with many set to take effect Friday. Although the world may have gotten used to Trump announcing sweeping levies before backing out of them shortly thereafter, this time, there's no risk of TACO — the shorthand for "Trump Always Chickens Out" — the commerce secretary suggested. "No extensions. No more grace periods. August 1, the tariffs are set. They'll go into place," Lutnick said on "Fox News Sunday.' World leaders are still more than willing to talk to Trump after the August 1 deadline. 'Between now and then, I think the president's going to talk to a lot of people. Whether they can make him happy is another question, but the president is definitely willing to negotiate and talk to the big economies,' Lutnick continued. Lutnick's announcement of the hard deadline contrasts with the message of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent days earlier, when he suggested the tariff deadlines were flexible. 'The important thing here is the quality of the deal, not the timing of the deals,' Bessent told CNBC on Monday. The hard deadline comes months after the president earned the TACO acronym after he backed out of his sweeping tariff plan. On April 2, which he's dubbed Liberation Day, Trump declared the day would 'forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America's destiny was reclaimed, and the day that we began to make America wealthy again.' Stock market turbulence ensued. The NASDAQ broke a record with its largest single-day point drop in the market's 50-year history as investors responded to Trump's tariff plan. Just one week after Liberation Day, he walked back on his grand plan and the stock market surged. That's when the acronym TACO emerged. Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong coined the term to describe the president's pattern of implementing trade policy threats, which investors predicted would cause the market to tumble, before he walks back on that policy, leading to a market rebound. Last month, he delayed the July 9 tariff deadline to August 1. Trump is meeting with European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday to try to avoid a potential trade war. "We're working very diligently with Europe, the EU," Trump told reporters before he left for Scotland on Friday. "I would say that we have a 50-50 chance, maybe less than that, but a 50-50 chance of making a deal with the EU." Lutnick also commented on Sunday's meeting. Speaking on 'Fox News Sunday,' he remarked: 'The question is, do they offer President Trump a good enough deal that is worth it for him to step off of the 30% tariffs that he set.' Trump has announced trade deals with several countries, including Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and the United Kingdom. He's said letters had been sent out earlier this month to dozens of countries with tariff rates. 'We'll have a straight, simple tariff of anywhere between 15 percent and 50 percent," Trump said this week. "We have 50 [percent] because we haven't been getting along with those countries too well." Economic experts have warned that consumers could pay the price for the new levies. "Now that the Trump administration is concluding deals that would see the tariff rate facing most trading partners settling at between 15% and 20%, with even higher rates levied on Chinese imports, we suspect retailers will be forced to finally raise the prices paid by consumers,' Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist with Capital Economics, said in a research note, CBS News reported. Some companies have preemptively taken action. Trump has threatened a 50 percent tariff on Brazil. The steep levy threats against the country have prompted a New Jersey-based orange juice manufacturer to sue the Trump administration, arguing that the 50 percent tariff could result in a $70 million hit to its business. Sign in to access your portfolio


Newsweek
16 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Thailand and Cambodia to Meet for Ceasefire Talks
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Leaders of Thailand and Cambodia are scheduled to sit down in Malaysia for ceasefire talks on Monday, the Associated Press reported. Newsweek has reached out to the Cambodian and Thai foreign ministries for comment via email on Sunday. Why It Matters Border fighting between the two countries over the past four days has drawn international calls for a ceasefire, as 34 people have been killed and more than 168,000 have been displaced, according to the AP. The fighting erupted Thursday after a land mine explosion killed five Thai soldiers, with each country accusing the other of starting the war. The conflict is part of a decades-long border dispute. President Donald Trump played a role in the lead-up to the ceasefire talks, speaking separately with both leaders on Saturday. In recent months, the administration has also been engaged in diplomatic efforts between India and Pakistan, as well as Israel and Hamas. What To Know Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim invited Thai and Cambodian leaders for talks on Monday, and both sides have accepted. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet and Acting Thai Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai are expected to attend, according to the AP. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister/Foreign Minister Prak Sokhonn on Sunday in a call to deescalate tensions. "The United States is prepared to facilitate future discussions in order to ensure peace and stability between Thailand and Cambodia," State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a Sunday statement. Trump spoke with both leaders separately on Saturday, writing in Truth Social posts that he pushed them for a ceasefire and noting the U.S. is negotiating trade deals with both countries. Earlier this month, the president informed them that the U.S. would levy a 36 percent tariff on their goods starting on August 1. In a Sunday update, the Royal Thai Armed Forces said that "a total of seven key areas of engagement were reported, representing a decrease of three areas from the first day of the conflict." The update continued: "Cambodian attacks remain irregular and may constitute violations of rules of engagement, posing further risk to border communities. The situation remains highly tense, and it is anticipated that Cambodia may be preparing for a major military operation prior to entering negotiations." At least 21 people in Thailand and 13 Cambodians have been reported dead, according to the AP. The Thai Armed Forces reported there have been 51 civilian casualties and 111 military casualties. More than 131,000 people have evacuated in Thailand, while over 37,000 have fled parts of Cambodia. The latest Thailand-Cambodia border dispute dates back to 1907, when a map drawn during French colonial rule in Cambodia marked a boundary still cited by Cambodian officials today. Thai officials dispute this demarcation and claim territory beyond it, including ancient Khmer-era Hindu temples, such as Preah Vihear, despite two International Court of Justice rulings favoring Cambodia's claims. Local villagers help unloading supplies donated by a charity for refugees from a truck, as they take refuge in Wat Phnom Kamboar, Oddar Meanchey province, Cambodia on July 27 amid the fighting between Thailand and... Local villagers help unloading supplies donated by a charity for refugees from a truck, as they take refuge in Wat Phnom Kamboar, Oddar Meanchey province, Cambodia on July 27 amid the fighting between Thailand and Cambodia. More AP Photo/Heng Sinith What People Are Saying Jairam Ramesh, an Indian politician in the Indian National Congress, wrote in an X post on Saturday: "President Trump is now mediating between Cambodia and Thailand and is using the opportunity to make the claim - for the 26th time - on a US-brokered ceasefire between India and Pakistan." President Donald Trump wrote in a Saturday Truth Social post: "I just had a very good call with the Prime Minister of Cambodia, and informed him of my discussions with Thailand, and its Acting Prime Minister. Both Parties are looking for an immediate Ceasefire and Peace. They are also looking to get back to the "Trading Table" with the United States, which we think is inappropriate to do until such time as the fighting STOPS. They have agreed to immediately meet and quickly work out a Ceasefire and, ultimately, PEACE! It was an Honor to deal with both Countries. They have a long and storied History and Culture. They will hopefully get along for many years to come. When all is done, and Peace is at hand, I look forward to concluding our Trading Agreements with both!" Sophal Ear, associate professor at Arizona State University, told Newsweek on Friday: "This crisis represents a critical test of American and Chinese influence in Southeast Asia. For the U.S., Thailand is a key strategic partner, essential to sustaining American military and diplomatic presence in the region. For China, Cambodia is a central player in its regional ambitions under the Belt and Road Initiative, serving as a strategic foothold." Secretary General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres wrote in an X post Saturday: "I remain available to assist in efforts towards a peaceful resolution of the dispute." Cambodia's Ministry of Information wrote in an X post: "Despite repeated commitments to ceasefire, Thailand continues to violate its own promises. After initially agreeing to halt attacks following discussions with the Malaysian Prime Minister on 24th July 2025, Thailand resumed firing. Last night, 26th July, even after reaching another ceasefire agreement with U.S. President Donald Trump, the Thai military launched heavy weapon attacks on Cambodian territory. Moreover, Thailand is breaching its agreement with the United States, the very supplier of its weapons, by using these arms under false pretenses and in inappropriate conditions." Thailand's Government Public Relations Department wrote in an X post: "Cambodia attacked civilian homes in Surin on 27 July, 4:30 AM, followed by a disinformation campaign. Thailand condemns this violation of international law, calls for cessation, & reserves the right to self-defense. International community is asked to condemn these inhumane acts."

Wall Street Journal
16 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
America Should Travel Fast
Regarding Allysia Finley's 'California's Bullet Train Is a Model of Progressive Governance' (Life Science, July 21): Every highway and airport in America is subsidized—by billions more than we've ever given to high-speed rail. The $6 billion private line in Florida isn't high-speed, which costs more. But the benefit of true high-speed rail is that more people ride it because it's more convenient than driving or flying. Dozens of other countries, even those with far fewer resources than America, such as Morocco, build it because it's a better return on investment. I conducted a financial analysis of the California high-speed rail with some Harvard Business School colleagues more than a decade ago, and we came to two conclusions: It will cost more than they say, and it will still cost less than expanding highways or airports. The rail project should be reformed, not tanked.