How do IRS rules and denominational bylaws govern churches making political endorsements in the United States?
Executive summary
The IRS historically enforced the Johnson Amendment, which bars 501(c) charities and churches from participating in political campaign activity on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office [1]. In 2025 the IRS signaled a major policy shift—via a court filing and proposed guidance—that communications from a house of worship to its own congregation in connection with religious services generally will not trigger enforcement of that ban, creating a limited carve-out for pulpit endorsements while leaving the statutory text intact [2] [3].
1. The legal baseline: the Johnson Amendment and IRS authority
Congress added the Johnson Amendment to the Internal Revenue Code in 1954 to prohibit tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from intervening in political campaigns; the IRS administers and enforces that statutory ban for 501(c) entities [1]. The longstanding interpretation treated explicit endorsements, contributions to campaigns, or public statements on behalf of the organization in favor of or against a candidate as disqualifying political campaign activity [4].
2. The 2025 IRS move: a policy shift, not a repeal
In litigation brought by religious broadcasters and churches, the IRS filed documents and proposed a settlement that said the agency would not treat internal communications “in connection with religious services” as violating the Johnson Amendment—effectively permitting certain endorsements from the pulpit without revoking tax-exempt status [2] [3]. Legal observers emphasize that the IRS action is an administrative interpretation or settlement posture rather than Congress amending the statute itself [2] [5].
3. Scope and limits the IRS describes: narrow, situational, and enforcement-focused
The agency framed the exception tightly: it applies to customary, internal channels of religious communication tied to services and does not amount to carte blanche for all political activity by houses of worship, a caveat emphasized by legal analysis and summary reporting [2] [5]. Multiple outlets and nonprofit groups warn the carve-out could be exploited or expanded in practice, and they stress that the Johnson Amendment’s statutory prohibition remains on the books even if enforcement is now limited [6] [5].
4. Denominational bylaws and internal controls: churches still govern themselves
Denominations and individual congregations retain their own rules and bylaws about political engagement; some traditions already discourage pulpit endorsements and others have permitted them in practice, so internal governance will determine whether a particular pastor or church actually endorses candidates even if the IRS is unlikely to revoke tax status [7] [8]. Advocacy groups and denominational leadership can and do issue guidance—some urging restraint to preserve public trust and mission focus, others welcoming clearer freedom for partisan speech [6] [8].
5. Practical consequences and competing viewpoints
Supporters of the IRS shift and sympathetic clergy argue the move clarifies what many churches were already doing and removes fear of IRS penalty for religiously grounded political speech [9] [10]. Critics—including nonprofit coalitions and watchdogs—fear it will invite partisan pressure on congregations, erode public trust, and create incentives for politicized fundraising at tax-exempt entities [6] [5]. Reporting notes that enforcement historically has been rare and that only a handful of churches faced punitive action, but commentators worry that a formal non-enforcement posture could change the scale and visibility of endorsements [11] [12].
6. What remains uncertain and what to watch next
The precise boundaries—such as whether widely broadcast sermons or newsletters cross the line, or how denominational rules interact with local election laws—remain contested and fact-dependent; several sources advise caution because the IRS filing is not a statutory repeal and litigation and regulation could further refine or reverse the policy [5] [2]. Observers should watch court rulings, any formal IRS rulemaking, and how denominations update bylaws or pastoral codes in response to the agency’s stance [2] [7].