Churches Push to Endorse Candidates as Trump Administration Challenges Separation of Church and State

CLEVELAND 13 (WCTU) — The Trump administration is backing a major reinterpretation of the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 federal law that restricts tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. The development arises from a lawsuit, National Religious Broadcasters v. Werfel, filed in August 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Two Texas churches and the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) argue the law violates their First Amendment rights by limiting what they can say about political candidates.

Under a proposed consent decree, churches would be able to endorse or oppose candidates from the pulpit or through other “customary communication channels” without risking their tax-exempt status. The IRS would classify these statements as religious “family discussions,” not political campaigning. The Johnson Amendment itself would remain in place, but its enforcement would be narrowed significantly for houses of worship. Judge J. Campbell Barker must approve the agreement before it takes effect.

Supporters of this move say it represents a win for religious freedom. They note that the IRS has rarely enforced the Johnson Amendment against churches, so the policy change aligns with existing practices. Evangelical groups and conservative Christian leaders have long criticized the law as government overreach that stifles faith leaders’ ability to discuss political issues openly.

Critics, however, warn that the change could erode the separation of church and state, effectively turning churches into political campaign hubs. Because churches are not required to disclose donors, they could become vehicles for “dark money” in politics, where wealthy donors funnel tax-deductible contributions to influence elections. Diane Yentel of the National Council of Nonprofits said the decree could “open the floodgates for political operatives” to exploit church tax exemptions. Americans United for Separation of Church and State has called the effort “a flagrant, self-serving attack on church-state separation.”

The Johnson Amendment was passed in 1954 as part of the federal tax code, named after then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson. It bars all 501(c)(3) entities, including charities, universities and religious institutions, from endorsing or opposing candidates. Organizations violating the amendment risk losing tax-exempt status. Historically, the IRS has seldom enforced the amendment, particularly with churches, due to political sensitivities. Most actions have been reserved for clear-cut campaigning, not sermons or religious teachings.

Public opinion heavily favors keeping politics out of the pulpit. A 2022 Pew Research poll found that 70 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of Democrats opposed churches endorsing candidates. Similarly, a 2023 PRRI survey showed 75 percent of Americans disapproved of pastors making political endorsements during services.

If the consent decree is approved, it could have significant implications for upcoming elections. Pastors could openly endorse candidates during sermons or church events, potentially mobilizing large voting blocs. Critics worry about an influx of untraceable political funding, as donations made to churches are tax-deductible. While the agreement applies only to the plaintiffs, other religious groups could use the case as a precedent to seek similar exemptions, possibly leading to further court battles or even a Supreme Court review.

The wider political context includes Trump’s long-standing opposition to the Johnson Amendment. In 2017, he signed an executive order directing less enforcement of the law, though it lacked legal force. Conservative legal groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom and NRB have consistently pushed to roll back restrictions on religious organizations' political activities. Some lawmakers are already discussing legislation to reinforce the Johnson Amendment if the court approves the decree.

Several key questions remain. It is unclear how the IRS will define “customary channels of communication,” especially in the era of livestreamed services, podcasts and social media. Non-religious nonprofits may also seek similar freedoms, raising questions about fairness and campaign finance oversight. The potential for increased political spending through churches could amplify debates about transparency in U.S. elections.

As the case awaits a ruling, its outcome could mark a turning point in the relationship between religion and politics in America. “This decree, while narrow, threatens our democracy by favoring houses of worship over other nonprofits and inserting them into partisan politics,” one critic said.

----------

At Cleveland 13 News, we strive to provide accurate, up-to-date, and reliable reporting. If you spot an error, omission, or have information that may need updating, please email us at tips@cleveland13news.com. As a community-driven news network, we appreciate the help of our readers in ensuring the integrity of our reporting.