In a major policy shift that could reshape the intersection of faith and politics in the United States, the Internal Revenue Service announced Monday it will no longer enforce the Johnson Amendment against churches and houses of worship when they endorse political candidates through ordinary means of communication, such as sermons and church announcements.
The move follows a 2024 lawsuit filed by National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), a prominent Christian media association, which challenged the amendment’s restrictions on political speech from the pulpit. The case, brought with the backing of constitutional attorney Mike Farris, argued that the IRS’s longstanding enforcement of the Johnson Amendment had a chilling effect on pastors and religious leaders, suppressing their First Amendment rights.
The NRB and the IRS submitted a joint request for a consent judgment to the court, indicating both parties have agreed on the terms. While the court must still approve the agreement, the request signals a clear intention by the federal agency to cease penalizing churches for expressing political views.
“This is more than a policy shift—it is the restoration of free speech to America’s pastors,” said Troy A. Miller, President and CEO of NRB. “For too long, faith leaders have been silenced by the threat of IRS enforcement. This agreement marks the end of that era.”
The Johnson Amendment, enacted in 1954, prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. While enforcement against churches has been rare, critics argue that the vague threat of penalties has stifled religious expression for decades.
Supporters of the policy shift hailed the development as a victory for religious liberty.
“Pastors should be free to speak truth from the pulpit without fear of government retaliation,” said Farris, a longtime advocate for constitutional rights. “This agreement is a historic step toward protecting that freedom.”
Opponents, however, voiced concern about the implications for political neutrality and the potential blurring of church and state boundaries.
“This opens the door to politicizing houses of worship in ways that undermine both democracy and religion,” said Maggie Garrett, vice president for public policy at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “Tax-exempt status should not come with political privilege.”
The agreement does not alter existing law but reflects a change in the IRS’s enforcement priorities. Legal analysts note that future administrations could revisit the policy or push Congress for clarification on the law’s scope.
“This is an answered prayer,” said Rev. Mark Jensen of Virginia, who has publicly avoided political commentary for years. “Now I can speak to my congregation with boldness about the moral dimensions of our nation’s choices.”
The court’s decision on the consent judgment is expected in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, advocacy groups on both sides are preparing for what could be a new era of political engagement by religious institutions across the country.
