IRS Says Religious Groups Can Discuss Politics During Services (2)

Churches can speak about political campaigns and candidates to their congregations without losing their 501(c)(3) status, the IRS said in seeking to settle a constitutional challenge to rules surrounding religious organizations’ political speech.

“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 agency and religious groups said Monday in a joint filing in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

The proposed consent decree, which needs a judge’s approval, says it reflects the current IRS interpretation of the Johnson Amendment, an Internal Revenue Code provision added in 1954 that prohibits churches and other nonprofits from endorsing or opposing political candidates or engaging in political activities if they want to maintain their tax-exempt status.

Critics of weakening the Johnson Amendment say it could create an avenue for tax-deductible political contributions, distract religious groups from their mission, and make groups targets during campaigns.

“The decree could open the floodgates for political operatives to funnel money to their preferred candidates while receiving generous tax breaks at the expense of taxpayers who may not share those views,” said Diane Yentel, President and CEO of the Council of Nonprofits, in a statement.

Religious organizations historically haven’t been taxed as a way of avoiding the government entangling itself with religion while still encouraging the group’s work. However, the reelection of President Donald Trump has signaled the lines between separation between church and state becoming increasingly blurred. He has also tried to flex IRS influence over tax-exempt organizations and their status, threatening to revoke the status of Harvard University and considering changing the rules for colleges that consider race in student admissions.

Trump in his first administration signed an executive order to stop enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, though only Congress and the Supreme Court could overturn it. Legislation to weaken the amendment has regularly been introduced in Congress, most recently by Rep. Mark Harris (R-N.C.) and Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.).

“This issue has been a red herring for the IRS for many years and I think, strictly from tax administration standpoint, it’s a smart move,” said Terry Lemons, a former IRS communications officer. “The reality is the IRS hasn’t taken much action in this area. There are a lot bigger issues out there.”

Boundary-Pushing Moves

The IRS generally hasn’t enforced the provision against religious organizations that speak about politics in the context of worship services, the filing said. Doing so “would create serious tension” with the First Amendment, as it would treat organizations that don’t speak about politics to their congregations more favorably than those that do, the agency said.

If approved by Judge J. Campbell Barker, the proposed consent decree would settle a 2024 lawsuit by the National Religious Broadcasters and other religious organizations challenging the Johnson Amendment as a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The organizations argued they were unfairly hamstrung in their ability to speak about politics, whereas other nonprofits could freely endorse political candidates without losing their tax-exempt status. They also asserted that the IRS “operates in a manner that disfavors conservative organizations and conservative, religious organizations” when enforcing 501(c)(3).

University of Pittsburgh law professor Philip Hackney said he is concerned about how far groups will push the boundaries—such as through advertisements and moving endorsements online—when supporting political campaigns and candidates. Whether the IRS’s enforcement will erode as religious groups get more aggressive is also an open question, he said.

Although the lawsuit sought to void the entirety of the Johnson Amendment as unconstitutional, the settlement stops short of that by interpreting it in a way that the parties agreed would be in accordance with the First and Fifth amendments.

“The doctrine of constitutional avoidance counsels in favor of interpreting the Johnson Amendment 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 proposed consent decree says.

Therefore, “the Johnson Amendment does not reach speech by a house of worship to its congregation, in connection with religious services through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith,” it said.

National Religious Broadcasters, Kallman Legal Group PLLC, Citizens for Self-Governance, and Ramey & Flock PC represent the organizations. The Justice Department represents the IRS.

The case is Nat’l Religious Broadcasters v. Long, E.D. Tex., No. 6:24-cv-00311, joint motion for entry of consent judgment filed 7/7/25.