In a move that’s set to reshape the relationship between religion and politics in America, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has agreed—pending court approval—that churches can endorse political candidates without risking their tax-exempt status. This marks a dramatic shift in the enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law that for over seventy years prohibited churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations from supporting or opposing political candidates from the pulpit.
The Johnson Amendment, introduced by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson and signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, was intended to keep tax-exempt organizations out of direct electoral politics. While the law’s origins are often described as political payback—Johnson’s amendment was reportedly aimed at partisan nonprofits opposing his Senate reelection, neither of which were religious groups—the effect on churches was immediate and lasting. For decades, religious leaders have been warned to steer clear of political endorsements, lest they jeopardize their organization’s privileged tax status.
Yet, as history shows, the amendment has rarely been enforced. According to reporting by Tyler McKenzie, only one church in seventy years—Branch Ministries in Binghamton, NY—actually lost its tax-exempt status. That happened in 1992, after the church ran full-page ads in USA Today and The Washington Times warning Christians against voting for then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton. The IRS’s action was the exception, not the rule. In most cases, even when churches pushed the boundaries, the agency sent warning letters rather than taking punitive action.
On July 7, 2025, the IRS signaled a major change. In a settlement agreement—still awaiting approval from the U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas—the IRS agreed that churches can speak out on political candidates without forfeiting their tax-exempt status. The case was brought by the National Religious Broadcasters and two Texas churches, who argued that the Johnson Amendment violated their constitutional rights to free speech and religious expression.
The IRS clarified its position, stating that “good faith” communication within a church about politics is akin to a family conversation around the dinner table. In other words, the government doesn’t see such discussions as political intervention, so long as they’re framed through the lens of religious faith. However, it’s important to note that this consent judgment is currently only binding on the parties involved in the lawsuit. Its broader application depends on court approval and potentially higher court rulings.
The IRS’s move has sparked intense debate and immediate action, especially in Texas—a state with more than 200 megachurches and a long history of blending faith and politics. According to ProPublica and the Fort Worth Report, Texas Representative Nate Schatzline, who is also a pastor at Mercy Culture Church in Fort Worth, told a crowd of conservative activists on July 14 that the IRS had simply affirmed what religious leaders already knew: “The government can’t stop the church from getting civically engaged.” He urged pastors to “stand up” and be just as vocal as politicians on social issues.
For some, the IRS’s new stance is a long-overdue recognition of free speech. Supporters argue that the Johnson Amendment has always been a form of discrimination, muzzling churches and charities that do vital work for the common good. “Just because an organization has been granted tax-exemptions… doesn’t mean the government can suppress its speech,” wrote McKenzie. Many see the church’s prophetic voice as a necessary moral compass for society—one that should not be silenced by government regulation.
Others, however, worry about the potential for corruption. Critics of repealing or weakening the Johnson Amendment argue that opening the door to political endorsements could turn churches into conduits for campaign cash and partisan influence. Unlike political action committees, churches don’t have to file public transparency reports or disclose their donors. Donations to churches are tax-deductible and often untraceable, raising fears that political operatives could exploit these structures for electoral gain. “Imagine if political operatives could take advantage of all this,” McKenzie cautioned, warning that unscrupulous actors could start new ‘churches’ that are essentially partisan fronts.
The debate is not just theoretical. In Texas, churches are already testing the boundaries. Mercy Culture Church, for example, posted on social media after the IRS announcement, declaring it was “time for the church to get loud!” and emphasizing, “We will not be silent on issues of righteousness, life, liberty, or leadership. We don’t endorse parties—we stand for the Kingdom!” Sand Springs Church, also involved in the lawsuit, called the IRS decision “encouraging” during a July 9 Bible study.
This new era is likely to have its most profound effects in Texas, where, as Ryan Burge of Washington University told ProPublica, “Texas will be the epicenter for testing all these ideas out.” The Lone Star State’s megachurches, with their massive congregations and sophisticated livestreaming capabilities, could become powerful platforms for political messaging. First Baptist Dallas, led by Robert Jeffress—a vocal supporter of Donald Trump—has already thanked the former president for the IRS’s new interpretation, saying, “Government has NO BUSINESS regulating what is said in pulpits!”
Not all religious groups are eager to embrace political endorsements. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United Methodist Church have both stated they’ll maintain their policies against endorsing or opposing political candidates. Meanwhile, organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation are joining others in condemning efforts to weaken the Johnson Amendment, arguing that the separation of church and state remains a cornerstone of American democracy.
The potential for division within congregations is real. Mansfield Mayor Michael Evans, who has pastored Bethlehem Baptist Church for three decades, told ProPublica that he won’t endorse candidates from the pulpit, citing the risk of deepening political divides among his diverse flock. “The word of God remains the same,” Evans said, even as political winds shift.
Mercy Culture Church is hardly shy about its political ambitions. The church’s nonprofit arm, For Liberty & Justice, partners with local churches to support “Godly candidates for local government” and has trained people of faith to run for office through its “Campaign University.” Since its founding, the nonprofit has supported 48 candidates—including Schatzline himself.
As the culture wars rage and the 2026 elections loom, the question of how far churches will go in the political arena is more pressing than ever. While some see the IRS’s new stance as a long-overdue correction, others worry it could erode public trust in religious institutions. For now, the nation—and especially Texas—will be watching closely as the boundaries between church and state are redrawn, one sermon at a time.
