How have Franklin Graham’s organizations (Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse) changed their public political activities since 2016?
Executive summary
Since 2016 Franklin Graham and the organizations he leads—the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) and Samaritan’s Purse—have moved from the private, pastor-to-politician influence that characterized his father’s era toward far more public, overt political engagement: explicit praise and visible alignment with Donald Trump, high-profile prayers and appearances at partisan events, and evangelistic tours that double as political messaging [1] [2] [3]. That shift has produced both organized pushback—from advocacy groups and petition drives—to institutional changes around transparency and accountability that critics say reduce barriers between ministry and partisan politics [4] [3] [5].
1. Visible partisan alignment: from counsel to endorsement
Beginning in 2016 and repeatedly afterward, Franklin Graham publicly framed Donald Trump’s election as part of God’s plan and aligned himself with the Trump presidency, a stance he has reiterated in interviews and public remarks and that has signaled a more partisan posture for his ministries [1] [2]. That alignment culminated in controversial moments such as a prayer at the 2020 Republican National Convention that prompted mass petitions calling for his removal from Samaritan’s Purse leadership—illustrating how his public prayers and appearances are now read as political interventions rather than purely spiritual acts [3].
2. Mobilizing evangelical politics through public tours and rallies
Graham has used large public campaigns—like the Decision America tour and later border-focused “Frontera” events—to urge Christians into political activity and to highlight contemporary policy issues, notably immigration, which critics warn risks turning evangelistic events into political campaigning that could imperil tax-exempt status under the Johnson Amendment [2] [4]. These tours function as dual-purpose platforms: evangelism on the surface, and public political messaging that draws both supporters and formal objections from civic watchdogs [4] [2].
3. Institutional moves that change the political footprint of the organizations
Observers have pointed to organizational and financial decisions that affect how the BGEA and Samaritan’s Purse engage politically and how transparent they are—most notably reporting that the BGEA changed tax classification in 2016 to an “association of churches” and that the organizations later quit financial accountability membership groups, moves critics say reduce public financial transparency and potentially broaden political latitude [5] [6] [7]. Reporting on executive compensation and organizational scale underscores that these are wealthy, influential institutions whose public political posture has material consequences for donors and beneficiaries [8] [9].
4. Global and domestic backlash reframes their public political activity
The organizations’ amplified political posture has provoked organized resistance and reputational fallout: petition drives by Faithful America and thousands of Christians demanding leadership change after partisan-facing actions, cancelled international venues for Graham’s tours over his public comments on LGBT and Muslim communities, and critical journalism labeling his posture as Christian nationalist—evidence that the shift since 2016 has cost influence in some quarters and intensified scrutiny in others [4] [3] [9] [10]. At the same time, supporters argue these moves protect religious liberty and mobilize evangelical voters, a defensive framing the organizations themselves have offered in public statements [3] [2].
5. What the reporting does—and does not—establish
Available reporting establishes a substantive, observable change: more direct political engagement, public alignment with specific politicians, and institutional choices that alter transparency and regulatory risk [1] [2] [4] [5]. The sources document backlash and international cancellations linked to Graham’s views and activities but do not provide a comprehensive legal analysis of IRS exposure or offer internal board deliberations that would reveal the organizations’ strategic intentions beyond public statements; those remain gaps in the public record [4] [5].