The Freedom From Religion Foundation is sharply condemning the IRS’s stunning decision to openly abandon enforcement of the Johnson Amendment when it comes to churches, which could effectively turn them into unregulated political action committees subsidized by taxpayers.
But the state/church watchdog advises that this action, while unconscionable, does not and cannot repeal an act of Congress. Furthermore, the IRS action technically only applies to the two litigating churches, FFRF points out. The case involves a challenge by the Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church of Waskom in Texas. The IRS is stipulating that it will not fight the lawsuit.
In its recent court filing, the IRS admitted that it will no longer pursue legal action against churches that endorse political candidates from the pulpit to their congregants. This action stems from the baseless lawsuit brought by right-wing Christian organizations, which claim they are being unfairly silenced. Instead of defending its own rules, the IRS folded, asserting that “communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services” do not violate the Johnson Amendment.
“This is not the repeal of the Johnson Amendment — this is the IRS choosing to ignore it when churches violate it,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “If the IRS is saying that churches and only churches are being given a pass from the Johnson Amendment, this clearly discriminates against other similarly situated 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups, such as FFRF.”
The Johnson Amendment, enacted in 1954, prohibits all 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofits — including churches — from endorsing or opposing political candidates. The obvious rationale for the federal law is that political contributions are not tax-deductible; therefore, tax-exempt organizations cannot use their tax-exempt resources for electioneering purposes. The Johnson Amendment ensures equal footing on the political battlefield and ensures that tax-deductible charitable donations, intended to serve the community, are directed to charitable works rather than political campaigns.
While the rule has long been unevenly enforced, it remains a cornerstone of the legal firewall separating religion and government. Now, under the Trump Administration, the IRS has not only abandoned its duty to enforce the law, but it has also twisted its interpretation to claim that church endorsements are tantamount to “family discussions,” as the IRS motion puts it, and a matter of religious freedom.
Churches already receive favored treatment over secular nonprofits but they are not entitled to ignore the other rules and laws that apply equally to all 501(c)(3) educational nonprofits. Already, churches are automatically tax-exempt, don’t have to file annual financial disclosures (Form 990s) that all other tax-exempt groups, including FFRF, are required to file and they’re rarely audited. Now, the IRS is telling churches that they can also engage in politics from the pulpit, so long as they cloak their campaigning in religious language. The motion says such endorsements are “on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith.”
Polls routinely reveal that a majority of Americans think religious institutions should stay out of politics. In 2022, Pew Research found that “about three-quarters of U.S. adults (77 percent) say that churches and other houses of worship should not endorse candidates for political offices. Two-thirds (67 percent) say that religious institutions should keep out of political matters rather than expressing their views on day-to-day social or political questions.”
While secular nonprofits like FFRF must adhere to the law or risk losing their tax-exempt status, the IRS is now granting churches a religious loophole: claiming that endorsements during sermons are akin to private, faith-based discussions and thus protected. The result is blatant favoritism toward religious organizations and unequal treatment under the law.
In 2017, FFRF sued Trump and the IRS after Trump signed an executive order that falsely claimed to “get rid of the Johnson Amendment.” FFRF’s attorneys successfully persuaded the Trump administration to acknowledge in court that the president lacked the authority to revoke a congressional statute by executive fiat. The current action by the IRS similarly cannot invalidate a law passed by Congress. FFRF successfully sued the IRS in 2012 to compel it to enforce its own regulations barring tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofits from engaging in partisan political activity.
While the IRS under the Trump administration may choose not to enforce this provision, the law remains on the books — and so does the possibility of future accountability.
“The law hasn’t changed — but the will to enforce it has,” says FFRF Co-President Dan Barker. “This decision is just the latest item checked off the Project 2025 wish list — the Christian nationalist plan to reshape the U.S. government. The administration is signaling to churches that they can be involved in elections without consequences.”
FFRF remains committed to holding tax-exempt organizations accountable and is exploring all legal avenues to respond to this abdication of responsibility. In the meantime, it urges members of the public and elected officials to demand congressional oversight, press the IRS to reverse course, and support efforts to restore robust, even-handed enforcement of the Johnson Amendment. Vigilance and public pressure are essential to preserving the constitutional principle of separation between religion and government, FFRF asserts.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to promoting the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters of nontheism. With more than 42,000 members, FFRF advocates for freethinkers’ rights across the globe. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
The post IRS refusal to act doesn’t repeal Johnson Amendment, FFRF asserts appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.
