IRS says churches can endorse political candidates without losing tax exemptions
The IRS made the statement in a court case challenging the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 U.S. tax code provision that prohibits all 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations — including churches — from formally endorsing or opposing political candidates.
In a filing Monday aimed at resolving a lawsuit between the National Religious Broadcasters and others against the IRS, the parties jointly agreed that churches can endorse candidates without fear of losing their tax-exempt status. The agreement likens such endorsements to a "family discussion concerning candidates."
'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 'participate[s]' nor 'intervene[s]' in a 'political campaign,' within the ordinary meaning of those words,' the parties wrote in the filing in federal court for the Eastern District of Texas, which was first reported by The New York Times.
'Thus, 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.'
The joint motion for a 'consent judgement' in the case must be approved by a judge before the lawsuit is formally resolved.
A spokesperson for the IRS and a lawyer for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The amendment was named after Lyndon B. Johnson, who sponsored it in the Senate. Johnson had pushed for the rule in response to conservative nonprofits that supported a political rival.
The amendment has rarely been enforced when it comes to churches. The Washington Post reported in 2017 that more than 2,000 pastors had publicly defied the Johnson Amendment in organized demonstrations. Only one of the pastors was investigated, and none were punished, the paper reported.
President Donald Trump has been a vocal opponent of the amendment. He vowed to "get rid of and totally destroy" it at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2017, adding that doing so would "allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution."
While the IRS action doesn't go that far — getting rid of the amendment would require an act of Congress — it does target the specific provision Trump complained about.
Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, said that if approved, the joint motion would technically apply only to the churches that filed suit, but the language in it "is basically giving the green light for churches to endorse candidates from the pulpit and not have to worry about IRS enforcement while President Donald Trump is in office."
He predicted the move will have two major ramifications.
"The first is that churches that maybe were hesitant to endorse candidates have less of a reason to be hesitant" and are "going to feel freer to support candidates from the pulpit," Mayer said.
"The second ramification is even church leaders who don't want to get involved will feel pressure to do so, from political candidates and members of their congregation," potentially putting pastors "in an awkward position."
That pressure could include financial incentives from congregants who could try to sway churches with donations, Mayer said.
The religious groups' suit argued a change was necessary because churches were unfairly targeted by the amendment, and they sought to have the entire amendment declared unconstitutional.
"The IRS operates in a manner whereby the Plaintiffs are in jeopardy of punishment if they forthrightly say that a candidate's positions are unbiblical; or that another candidate's positions are consonant with biblical teaching," their suit says. "The Plaintiffs' speech is clearly chilled in this regard because they are not free to proclaim their views on the issues of the day and then compare their views with the views of the candidates on these same issues."
As part of the joint motion, the religious groups agreed to drop their constitutionality claims against the amendment as a whole, so it would still apply to other 501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations, including charities and universities.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
24 minutes ago
- Associated Press
A look at details of the settlement between Columbia University and the Trump administration
A deal between Columbia University and the Trump administration calls for the Ivy League school to pay more than $220 million to resolve multiple federal investigations into alleged violations of federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement announced Wednesday clears the way for the school to keep billions of dollars in federal research money, including more than $400 million in grants canceled earlier this year. In return, the deal calls for a number of reforms in areas such as admissions, campus protests policies and its curriculum, including a number of changes the school agreed to previously in March. It is a document President Donald Trump's administration is calling a road map for settlements with other colleges accused of not doing enough to address campus antisemitism. Columbia University's acting president, Claire Shipman, said it protects the school's values and autonomy. Here's what's in the settlement: Financial payout The university will pay the federal government $200 million over three years. It will also pay $21 million to settle alleged civil rights violations against Jewish employees that occurred following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. A pledge to end diversity programs The university agreed to end programs 'that promote unlawful efforts to achieve race-based outcomes, quotes, diversity targets or similar efforts.' Columbia, as part of the agreement, must also issue regular reports to an independent monitor assuring that its programs 'do not promote unlawful DEI goals.' The agreement pushes Columbia to limit the consideration of race even beyond the Supreme Court's 2023 decision ending affirmative action. That decision left open the possibility that universities could consider an applicant's discussion of how their race affected their life, including in college application essays. The agreement says: 'Columbia may not use personal statements, diversity narratives, or any applicant reference to racial identity as a means to introduce or justify discrimination.' Faculty and curriculum changes Columbia agreed to review its Middle East curriculum and appoint new faculty to its Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies who will 'contribute to a robust and intellectually diverse academic environment.' To further support Jewish students on campus, the agreement calls for a new administrator to serve as a liaison on antisemitism issues. Reporting on international students Columbia University agreed to new vetting for prospective international students. The agreement calls for introducing 'questions designed to elicit their reasons for wishing to study in the United States' and establishes processes to make sure all students are committed to 'civil discourse.' The university also promised to provide the government with information, upon request, of disciplinary actions involving student-visa holders resulting in expulsions or suspensions. 'In several instances, the agreement codifies other practices or policies already in existence, or reviews already underway. We must always comply with government regulations regarding the international student visa program, for example,' Shipman said. The agreement says Columbia also will 'examine its business model and take steps to decrease financial dependence on international student enrollment.' International students make up about 40% of the enrollment at Columbia. Abiding Trump's interpretation on sex discrimination The agreement requires full compliance with the administration's interpretation of Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in education. Trump officials have used the law to force the removal of transgender athletes from women's sports. Campus protest policies The deal calls for Columbia to abide restrictions it agreed to on campus protests, including a ban on face coverings used to conceal demonstrators' identity. It says protests inside academic buildings are not acceptable under the university's code of conduct. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Washington Post
24 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Public broadcasting is for MAGA, too
Congress approved President Donald Trump's request to cancel $1.1 billion in government funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Trump's executive order Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media said that neither PBS nor NPR 'presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.' As a former PBS producer, I take exception to his claim. Like my colleagues at PBS stations nationwide, I covered controversial stories from a wide variety of perspectives, including interviews with subjects of opposing political viewpoints, with respect and empathy. Public broadcasting is for MAGA, too. To illustrate: PBS put my documentary, 'Battle at Weber Creek,' on YouTube. It focuses on the dispute between Alaskan gold miner Joe Vogler and the National Park Service over transport of heavy mining equipment along a historic trail through the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve. Vogler had used the trail for years before the preserve was established in 1978 as part of the National Park System. His armed confrontation with the preserve's superintendent at remote Weber Creek raised serious issues for environmentalists, gold miners, National Park Service officials, elected representatives and local landowners, all of whom expressed diverse opinions to inform a national audience. The documentary was balanced to appeal to local as well as national viewers, and the response was overwhelmingly positive from a wide and highly diverse audience, including Alaska's gold-mining community. To present contrasting viewpoints on issues of interest to broad audiences around the United States is what public broadcasting does best. Its funding must be restored. Robert A. Hooper, San Diego The writer is a former producer at PBS member station KUAC in Fairbanks, Alaska. The Post's July 16 interview with PBS president and chief executive Paula Kerger, 'PBS faces 'existential' threat, its chief says,' missed an opportunity to press for facts about the impact of funding reductions to public broadcasting. The questions focused almost exclusively on the politics of the proposed cuts. Kerger characterized PBS as 'an aggregation of local stations,' to which most of the organization's funding is directed. She cited the Smoky Hills, Kansas, station, which airs 'a call-in medical show' and gets 54 percent of its money from the federal government. The Post's follow-up question: 'Will rural stations be hit hardest?' Kerger responded by mentioning PBS's 'great stations everywhere' — in D.C., New York and Boston, as well as in the small towns of Cookeville, Tennessee, and Granite Falls, Minnesota. The interviewer should have pressed Kerger on the number of viewers in rural markets; on the federal dollars spent per viewer; on whether PBS could redirect dollars from richer, big-city markets with more broadband options; whether state governments could kick in some money; or even the basic policy question of whether the federal government should be helping fund this service at all given the plethora of sources of information. Instead, the interviewer focused on whether the proposed budget cuts are 'specific to PBS and NPR and the CPB' or 'part of a larger salvo from this administration against media.' The issue of federal funding for public broadcasting is much more complicated and nuanced than presented in this interview. Taxpayers have been bombarded with 'the sky is falling' arguments over nearly every aspect of the federal budget process. Journalists can help by giving us facts instead of amplifying rhetoric. Joseph A. Capone, Oakton In 1993, a group of people, some of them refugees from countries with authoritarian regimes, were in my apartment watching David Letterman. Letterman was making various hard-hitting jokes about 'Tubby.' We were all laughing until one person in the group asked, 'Who is Tubby?' I told them it was a reference to President Bill Clinton. Suddenly, I saw shock on the faces of my guests. They thought Letterman would be off the air in minutes and dead by the next day. I explained to them that this is America. Some people are well paid for making fun of the president. Letterman went on to make fun of America and other presidents for decades to come. Today I wonder if the refugees were onto something. Charles Plushnick, New York What do good companies do when faced with declining audiences and revenue? They analyze options and make adjustments. CBS has said it was losing money on 'The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.' Is CBS different from any other company? Sometimes the simplest answer is the truth. Steve Henry, Springfield When CBS chief executive George Cheeks announced the cancellation of 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,' he called it 'purely a financial decision.' Cheeks has built his career on being genial, nonconfrontational and operationally smooth. But leadership isn't about being agreeable in times of turbulence. It's about taking a stand when the stakes are cultural, not just financial. Colbert wasn't just a talk show host. He was, for millions, a moral compass cloaked in comedy. And that's the real reason he's gone. There were other options. Cheeks could've shortened the production week, trimmed the budget or renegotiated Colbert's contract. George Cheeks didn't make a tough call. He made a weak one. Jeffrey Barge, Cleveland Ryan Zickgraf's July 18 Friday Opinion essay, 'The scroll never stops. Will we?,' captures Neil Postman's prescient warning that democracy is being overentertained rather than overthrown. But although the argument about tech's grip on our attention is right, it misses the deeper issue: We are not just distracted; we are reprogramming our very understanding of truth. Zickgraf points to Gen Z's retreat into more 'analog' pursuits as a sign of hope, but this is a passive rebellion, walking away from problems instead of confronting them. This opt-out mentality isn't enough. The real crisis is a society that no longer demands critical thought. Instead, we have substituted spectacle for reason, performance for debate and outrage for reflection. If democracy is to survive this digital haze, it's not enough to just delete apps or 'go back to basics.' We need a resurgence of reasoned, intentional discourse — something that challenges the very algorithms shaping our worldview. If Zickgraf's two tribes of Gen Z offer a glimpse of a future, it's one where we'll need to do more than retreat: We'll need to actively reclaim the spaces where thought can flourish, beyond the scroll. Regina Nappo, Triangle, Virginia Issues such as the Jeffrey Epstein case, though of ethical, moral and perhaps legal concern, are no more than distractions and deflections. They won't motivate people to vote in 2026 or beyond. Though titillating and potentially capable of increasing the audience share for news networks, at the end of the day, they likely will not significantly impact the outcome of the election. Notes Dan Rather: 'It is easy to stay swept up in the Epstein tsunami. … If the story is having an effect on Trump's political viability, then it is worth reporting on and reading about. But not at the expense of life-and-death stories with global consequences.' As someone who studied political communication for 45 years, I am convinced that the Epstein case is essentially a 'not Trump' message and therefore will remain rhetorically ineffective. So, let me say it again: While talking about this issue is fair game, Democrats must offer vivid and compelling reasons why their vision and concrete plans for America are in the best interests of voters. After that, they can contrast their message to the policies of President Donald Trump and his Republican acolytes. Democrats must be disciplined and their messages tightly focused. Richard Cherwitz, Carmas, Washington Hunter Biden's claim that George Clooney and other high-profile Democrats undermined his father's bid for reelection does not hold up to scrutiny. On the contrary, President Joe Biden and his enablers undermined their own campaign by attempting to conceal Joe Biden's diminished mental acuity from voters. Voters deserve to know the truth about their leaders so they can make informed decisions. When George Clooney spoke the truth about Biden's mental capabilities, he was speaking truth to power. If only more high-profile Democrats had done the same. A few months ago, Joe Biden went on 'The View' to claim he would have beaten Donald Trump. Polls show otherwise. Now, Hunter is peddling his father's same misguided blustery machismo. If they would take the advice, please, of the legendary 'Mini-Me' character of Austin Powers movie fame, this Democrat and so many other Democrats would be happy. 'Zip it.' Bruce Kirby, Rockville Post Opinions wants to know: What would you add to a time capsule to represent America today? Share your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor.
Newsweek
26 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump's Approval Rating Hits Second Term Low, New Poll Shows
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. President Donald Trump's approval rating has dipped to its lowest during his second term in office, a new Gallup poll shows. The president received an approval rating of 37 percent in the poll. This number approaches Trump's 34 percent approval rating before leaving office at the end of his first term, on the heels of the January 6 insurrection. Why It Matters Trump has routinely touted positive approval ratings and polling while speaking at news conferences and campaign rallies. Declines in these numbers could hinder his political clout in an already highly polarized climate as the 2026 midterms approach. When Trump returned to the White House in January, he coasted in with high approval figures. But after months marked by economic uncertainty and criticism the administration has faced over policies like his handling of immigration and his recently passed tax bill, Trump has seen a dip. The up and down nature of approval polls can paint a picture of the landscape heading into 2026 elections where Democrats hope to regain control of the House and the Senate. Newsweek reached out to political analysts via email Thursday for comment. President Donald Trump can be seen delivering remarks during a meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the Oval Office at the White House on July 22, 2025, in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump can be seen delivering remarks during a meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the Oval Office at the White House on July 22, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Photo byWhat To Know Since taking office in January, the president's Gallup approval rating has fallen 10 points overall and 17 points with independents—a critical group the president needs in hopes of securing midterm election wins for the Republican Party. The president's previous low this term was 40 percent in a June survey. Thursday's survey was conducted between July 7 and July 21 among 1,002 U.S. adults with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent. The president has also seen a decline in approval ratings across key issues since February including immigration, the economy, the situation in the Middle East involving Israelis and Palestinians and foreign trade. The president did secure a high approval rating from Republicans overall and broad approval among the party on each issue the poll shows. What People Are Saying CNN data analyst Harry Enten on X on Wednesday: "A new low for Trump, as the USS Donald Trump takes on a lot of water. His net approval has dropped 17 pt since January to -11 pt now. Underwater on all major issues from immigration (-5 pt) to Epstein (-37 pt). Only presidency with worse ratings at this point? Trump term 1." Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, on X on Thursday: "Gallup reports that Trump is at a net -22%(!) approval rating on immigration (38% approve, 60% disapprove). That is the second lowest rating they've ever recorded for him, just behind -23% in August 2018 (38% approve, 61% disapprove)." Gallup in their poll: "Trump closes out the second quarter of his second term in office having accomplished much of what he said he would do if elected. Yet, outside of his Republican base, relatively few Americans are pleased with his performance. His rating has fallen to the lowest point of his second term, essentially matching where he was at the same time in his first term, which is not much higher than his all-time worst rating. He also gets generally poor marks for handling key issues, including immigration and the economy, which were major focuses of his campaign." President Donald Trump on Truth Social over the weekend: "My Poll Numbers within the Republican Party, and MAGA, have gone up, significantly, since the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax was exposed by the Radical Left Democrats and, just plain 'troublemakers.' They have hit 90%, 92%, 93%, and 95%, in various polls, and are all Republican Party records. The General Election numbers are my highest, EVER! People like Strong Borders, and all of the many other things I have done. GOD BLESS AMERICA. MAGA!" What Happens Next The trajectory of Trump's approval ratings suggests a volatile outlook as political attention shifts toward the 2026 midterms. The president's party tends to lose seats in midterm elections. During Trump's first term, Democrats picked up 40 seats in the House in the 2018 midterm election. Significant approval declines among independents, women, men, and younger voters could compromise Republican chances of retaining control in Congress.
