Latest news with #NationalReligiousBroadcasters
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
IRS says churches can now endorse political candidates. Miami faith leaders weigh in
The Internal Revenue Services is reversing a long-standing policy and will now allow religious institutions to endorse political candidates without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status — a move that has divided faith leaders and advocacy groups. 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.
Miami Herald
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
IRS says churches can now endorse political candidates. Miami faith leaders weigh in
The Internal Revenue Services is reversing a long-standing policy and will now allow religious institutions to endorse political candidates without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status — a move that has divided faith leaders and advocacy groups. 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.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Pulpits unleashed: Churches no longer bound by IRS gag rule on politics
Florida houses of worship can now endorse political candidates in some cases, an exception created by the IRS recently that reversed decades of legal precedent preventing churches from involvement in politics. The Internal Revenue Service's position came from a July 7 filing meant to end a lawsuit from the National Religious Broadcasters association last year, who argued that a provision in the U.S. tax code infringed on First Amendment rights to speech and religious expression. That provision, known as the Johnson Amendment and covering what are called "501(c)(3)" nonprofits, banned tax-exempt organizations from political participation, like issuing endorsements or opposing candidates. The IRS's joint filing with the religious groups instead says political discussions "from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services" isn't interfering with political campaigns, but instead is similar to a "family discussion concerning candidates." This decision empowers churches in Florida to endorse political candidates, although that is not entirely new in the state's faith landscape. Often, political candidates would speak at churches and would mobilize religious groups to get involved in campaigns related to important issues to their congregation. In 2024, former Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign aimed to mobilize Black churchgoers to turn out to vote in "Souls to the Polls" initiatives in battleground states. Before last year's election, Gov. Ron DeSantis also turned to faith groups to stir opposition against ballot initiatives that would have enshrined abortion rights and recreational marijuana in the state's constitution. The governor turned to his faith and community initiative to mobilize religious groups, and his administration worked with Mat Staver to oppose the abortion amendment. Staver is chairman of Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit law firm and Christian ministry that advocates for religious freedom of expression. Staver lauded the president in a statement following the joint ruling, saying President Donald Trump "pledged to eliminate the Johnson Amendment and allow our pastors and churches to speak freely and without fear of retribution." "The Trump administration has now agreed to unshackle the pulpit from the chains of the Johnson Amendment," Staver said. It's not unusual for churches to get involved in discussions about contentious policy issues, namely abortion. When DeSantis campaigned against the abortion amendment, he went to City Church Tallahassee, which says on its website that it maintains a "conservative theological position." Thomas Wenski, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Miami, said many churches, despite these rules about political endorsement, would endorse candidates and wouldn't have a problem. The Archdiocese of Miami wouldn't do that, however, Wenski added. Although the church says its opinions on contentious topics in ballot amendments, Wenski said it wouldn't endorse political candidates because "a Catholic would feel homeless in either party at this point." Earlier this year, Wenski spoke at a Catholic mass in Tallahassee attended by the governor and reminded those in attendance that even "the migrant is not a stranger," quoting Jesus, and he thanked DeSantis for speaking out against the proposed constitutional amendment on abortion. He added: "The church doesn't endorse political leaders. That's a fool's errand to do that." This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@ On X: @stephanymatat. This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: In Florida & elsewhere, churches can now endorse political candidates
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Maryland churches could openly endorse candidates from the pulpit, under IRS proposal
Churches could make political endorsements without fear of losing their nonprofit status, if a recent IRS settlement agreement is approved by a federal judge in Texas in a lawsuit brought by churches. (Photo by Capt. Joe Bush/U.S. Army) The Rev. L.K. Floyd believes church leaders should have the liberty to speak to their congregations and support certain political candidates, especially when it comes to improving their communities. Floyd, pastor at Heart Changers Baptist Church in Silver Spring, said Friday some people may believe that allowing that only helps evangelical Christians, pointing to white evangelicals like the late Rev. Jerry Falwell Sr. who established the Moral Majority in 1979 as a political organization pushing a 'pro-family' agenda. 'Not allowing the Black church, in particular, to be able to speak from the pulpit their political views, and also to be able to endorse their candidates and focus and support their agendas, I believe would be dangerous and problematic,' Floyd said. 'When there is something that is unjust … we must speak truth to power.' Now, the Internal Revenue Service agrees. In a proposed settlement filed last week, the IRS agreed with the National Religious Broadcasters that churches and other houses of worship should be allowed to formally endorse political candidate without endangering their nonprofit status under the tax code. A U.S. District Court judge in Texas still has to approve the agreement, which would settle a lawsuit by two Texas churches, the Intercessors for America and the National Religious Broadcasters that challenged the 'Johnson Amendment' to the Internal Revenue Code. That 1954 amendment was introduced by then-Texas Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson, and said that nonprofit organizations can maintain tax exempt status if they refrain from political campaigning. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE There's no specific deadline for the judge to make a decision. A lawyer with the IRS didn't respond to an email for comment. A lawyer for the plaintiffs declined to comment Thursday. The seven-page court filing states the amendment violates the plaintiffs' First and Fifth Amendment rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, as well as their rights to equal protection under the law. It said merely speaking from the pulpit does not violate the Johnson Amendment rule against participating in or intervening in a political campaign. '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 proposed settlement says. '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,' it says. The settlement also acknowledged the IRS 'has not enforced the Johnson Amendment against houses of worship for speech concerning electoral politics in the context of worship services.' University of Notre Dame law Professor Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer said in an interview Thursday that the IRS hasn't been enforcing the so-called Johnson amendment for at least the past 20 years. 'Many religious leaders have become bolder and bolder in inviting candidates to come speak at their church, calling them up to get praised, or saying other things that clearly indicate support of a candidate and not have the IRS open up an audit or threaten their types of status as a result,' said Hitoshi Mayer, whose areas of research include election and tax law and political activity by churches and other religious organizations. 'It gives churches that perhaps were hesitant to engage in this activity because they were worried about the IRS a green light to do so,' he said. Even if the judge decides not to approve the settlement, and asks both parties to go back and try again, Hitoshi Mayer said the IRS acknowledges 'we are not going to enforce the Johnson amendment' against churches and other houses of worship. At least it wouldn't happen during the Trump administration, he said, because President Donald Trump (R) said during his first term in office he wanted to repeal the amendment. Under shadow of deportation, Latinos find light at Hyattsville church On Wednesday during a lunch with African leaders, Trump said, 'I love the fact that churches can endorse a political candidate. If somebody of faith wants to endorse, I think it's something that I'd like to hear. Those people were not allowed to speak up. Now they're allowed to speak up. I think it's terrific.' Jeff Trimbath, president of the nonprofit Maryland Family Institute, called the IRS court filing 'a watershed moment.' 'For too long, many pastors have operated under the chilling belief that the law prevented them from equipping their congregations on how to think biblically about civic engagement, candidates, and public policy,' Trimbath said in a statement Tuesday. 'The IRS made it clear: there is no such prohibition. Let's pray this leads to pulpits that are once again unafraid to preach the whole counsel of God — including His truth for the public square.' Not all religious groups are on board. Ashley Hildebrand, senior adviser with Catholics for Choice based in Washington, D.C., hopes the judge rejects the settlement, especially given what it could mean for the separation of church and state. 'If the church can endorse a political candidate, it is just one more way that priests could preach from the pulpit and further alienate people in the pews,' Hildebrand said Thursday. 'If we allow the pulpit to be weaponized or put into service of a political agenda more so than it already is, we are essentially allowing a very well-organized religious force to mobilize its base in pursuit of a partisan agenda,' she said. 'That is inherently dangerous.' No matter what the judge decides, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said it plans to maintain its stance of not endorsing or opposing political candidates. 'The IRS was addressing a specific case, and it doesn't change how the Catholic Church engages in public debate,' the conference's spokesperson Chieko Noguchi said in a statement Tuesday. 'The Church seeks to help Catholics form their conscience in the Gospel so they might discern which candidates and policies would advance the common good.'
USA Today
11-07-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
IRS lifts ban on churches getting involved in politics and endorsements: What to know
The IRS reversed decades of legal precedent in a July 7 court filing by saying that churches and other religious 501c(3) organizations can endorse political candidates in certain circumstances. The filing creates a narrow exception to the so-called Johnson Amendment, which has barred churches and other charitable organizations from getting involved in politics since 1954. While advocates have said the change boosts religious organizations' First Amendment rights, others are skeptical about churches having more sway in politics and argue the new rule violates the First Amendment by favoring religious organizations over their secular counterparts. Here's what to know about the new policy: What is the Johnson Amendment? The rule was introduced by former President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954 when he was serving as the U.S. Senate majority leader. It banned all tax-exempt organizations like churches and charities from 'directly or indirectly' participating in politics, specifically in endorsement or opposition of candidates. Who was behind the lawsuit? The July 7 filing stems from a lawsuit filed in Texas in September 2024 on behalf of the National Religious Broadcasters, an international association of evangelical Christian communicators, as well as Intercessors for America, a conservative Christian prayer advocacy group. Two Texas churches also joined as plaintiffs: First Baptist Church Waskom in Waskom, Texas, and Sand Springs Church in Athens, Texas. Why are some people concerned? The Freedom From Religion Foundation, whose membership is comprised of nearly 40,000 "atheists, agnostics and skeptics of any pedigree," was 'stunned' by the reversal of the decades-long policy, foundation legal counsel Chris Line told USA TODAY. The foundation has reported dozens of pastors and churches to the IRS over the years for engaging in what it viewed as prohibited political speech, Line said. It reported the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association in September 2024, for example, over its election guide that it said had a 'clear bias and preference for Donald Trump and Republicans.' It also reported New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Georgia after former Vice President Kamala Harris was invited to speak at a worship service in October 2024. Pastor Jamal Bryant made comments that suggested the church was 'urging its congregants to vote for Kamala Harris in the upcoming election in violation of the law,' the foundation's letter to the IRS said. He referenced the narrow nature of the IRS' July statement and said it appears that 'a lot of the worst actions would still be impermissible' under the tax code. There is, however, room for questions about where the line between prohibited and acceptable political involvement will fall in practice. 'Churches shouldn't necessarily feel 100% safe based on this to go out and start violating the Johnson Amendment,' he said. Dan Mach, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, also told USA TODAY the exemption 'raises serious constitutional concerns' by 'favoring religious viewpoints over nonreligious ones when handing out tax subsidies and benefits.' Line also expressed concern over the "disparity" between tax rules for religious organizations and other charitable entitites. "We're in a situation now where churches are allowed to violate this law, but all other groups, including the Freedom From Religion Foundation, were not given that same carve out," he said. The American Humanist Association said it was 'discouraged, but ultimately not surprised' by the decision in a July 8 statement. 'The Johnson Amendment, though weakened over the years by lax enforcement, is the small but mighty dam standing in the way of a torrent of dark money influencing our elections,' executive director Fish Stark said. Now, 'all bets are off.' 'There will be little to stop billionaires from funneling money through churches to buy our elections – and they will get a tax write-off for doing it, all subsidized by American taxpayers,' Stark said. It said the ruling is ultimately a boost for the religious right and Christian nationalists, whom they said now 'have the megaphone they've been waiting for for decades.' Who's celebrating the decision? Trump called it a "terrific" move by the IRS. "I love the fact that churches could endorse a political candidate," Trump told reporters at the White House, according to Reuters. "If somebody of faith wants to endorse, I think it's something that I'd like to hear." Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, said the change "would never have happened without the strong leadership of our great President Donald Trump" in a July 9 X post. "Government has NO BUSINESS regulating what is said in pulpits!" he wrote. The Freedom From Religion Foundation also reported Jeffress to the IRS for his overt support of Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence in 2020. What previous actions have been taken to remove the Johnson Amendment? Trump pledged in his first term to 'totally destroy' the Johnson Amendment and later claimed to have 'gotten rid of' the provision, but the law has remained part of the tax code. Trump did, however, direct the Treasury Department to avoid penalizing religious organizations for speech about 'moral or political issues from a religious perspective' in a May 2017 executive order. Rep. Mark Harris, R-NC, and Sen. James Lankford, R-OK, introduced the Free Speech Fairness Act in March that sought to allow charitable organizations – which would include churches and other houses of worship − to make political statements 'if such statements are made in the ordinary course of carrying out its tax-exempt purpose.' U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, co-sponsored Lankford's bill, while more than a dozen Republican representatives including Rep. Barry Moore, R-Alabama, and Abe Hamadeh, R-Arizona, co-sponsored the House bill. 'For too long, the Johnson Amendment has silenced pastors, churches and non-profits from engaging on moral and political issues of our day for fear of losing their tax-exempt status,' Harris said in a March news release. 'This attempt to muzzle people of faith must end – the Constitution is clear: Americans' right to free speech shall not be infringed.' Is this a popular idea? According to a 2024 survey conducted by Lifeway research, a Southern Baptist Convention research organization, only three in 10 U.S. adults (29%) believe pastors publicly endorsing candidates for public office during a church service is appropriate. Three in five (60%) disagree, including 42% who strongly disagree and 11% who aren't sure. When asked directly in the survey if churches that endorse political candidates should lose their tax-exempt status, around 48% of respondents agreed, 31% disagreed and 21% weren't sure. But the percentage of Americans who see pastors endorsing a candidate in church as appropriate has risen steadily over the past 16 years, according to the organization. In the first survey of the topic in 2008, only 13% saw political endorsements during a church service as acceptable. The number rose steadily in the second survey conducted in 2015, before rising to its current 29% in 2024. Has the Johnson Amendment been challenged before? Previous court rulings have upheld the Johnson Amendment over the years. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the 1970s that a nonprofit religious organization was not entitled to a tax exemption because its actions, according to the court, sought to influence legislation and 'attack(ed) candidates and incumbents who were considered too liberal.' The ruling said the government has an 'overwhelming and compelling' interest in keeping the 'wall separating church and state ... high and firm.' Decades later, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that a religious organization that had its tax-exempt status revoked had 'failed to establish a First Amendment violation' in the case. Notably, speakers at the inaugural meeting of Trump's Religious Liberty Commission in June also supported challenges to the Johnson Amendment and expressed a belief that the First Amendment doesn't prevent the government from promoting religion as a social good. BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@ USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
