Hubbry Logo
Johnson AmendmentJohnson AmendmentMain
Open search
Johnson Amendment
Community hub
Johnson Amendment
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Johnson Amendment
Johnson Amendment
Johnson Amendment
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code, since 1954, that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are the most common type of nonprofit organization in the United States, ranging from charitable foundations to universities and churches. The amendment is named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, who introduced it in a preliminary draft of the law in July 1954.

In the early 21st century, some politicians, including President Donald Trump, have sought to repeal the provision, arguing that it restricts the free speech rights of churches and other religious groups. These efforts have been criticized because churches have fewer reporting requirements than other non-profit organizations, and because it would effectively make political contributions tax-deductible.[1] On May 4, 2017, Trump signed an executive order "to defend the freedom of religion and speech" for the purpose of easing the Johnson Amendment's restrictions.[2][3]

Provisions

[edit]
Page from the Congressional Record containing a transcript of the passage of the amendment

Paragraph (3) of subsection (c) within section 501 of Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code) of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.) describes organizations which may be exempt from U.S. Federal income tax. 501(c)(3) is written as follows,[4] with the Johnson Amendment in bold letters:[5]

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.[bolding added]

The amendment affects nonprofit organizations with 501(c)(3) tax exemptions,[6] which are subject to absolute prohibitions on engaging in political activities and risk loss of tax-exempt status if violated.[7] Specifically, they are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office.[8][9] The Johnson Amendment applies to any 501(c)(3) organization, not just religious 501(c)(3) organizations.

The benefit of 501(c)(3) status is that, in addition to the organization itself being exempt from taxes, donors who itemize may also take a tax deduction for their contributions to the organization.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, contributions to political campaign funds, or public statements of position in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office, are disallowed. However, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides), voter registration, and get-out-the-vote drives, if conducted in a non-partisan manner, are not prohibited.[8]

History

[edit]
Lyndon B. Johnson during his tenure as Senator from Texas and before becoming Vice President

The amendment was to a bill in the 83rd Congress, H.R. 8300, which was enacted into law as the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The amendment was proposed by Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas on July 2, 1954. The amendment was agreed to without any discussion or debate and was included in Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736).[10] The provision was considered uncontroversial at the time and continued to be included when the 1954 Code was renamed as the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 during the Ronald Reagan administration.[11][unreliable source?]

Repeal efforts

[edit]

In the 2010s, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) made attempts to challenge the Johnson Amendment through the Pulpit Freedom Initiative, which urges Protestant ministers to violate the statute in protest. The ADF contends that the amendment violates First Amendment rights.[12]

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump called for the repeal of the amendment.[13] On February 2, 2017, newly-elected President Trump vowed at the National Prayer Breakfast to "totally destroy" the Johnson Amendment,[14] White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer announced to the press that Trump "committed to get rid of the Johnson Amendment ... allowing our representatives of faith to speak freely and without retribution",[15] and Republican lawmakers introduced legislation that would allow all 501(c)(3) organizations to support political candidates, as long as any associated spending was minimal.[16][17]

On May 4, 2017, Trump signed the "Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty."[18] The executive order does not repeal the Johnson Amendment, nor does it allow ministers to endorse from the pulpit, but it does halt the enforcement of its consequences[19] by directing the Department of Treasury that "churches should not be found guilty of implied endorsements where secular organizations would not be." Douglas Laycock, a leading law professor in the areas of religious liberty, spoke to The Washington Post, saying that he was not aware of any cases where such implied endorsements have caused problems in the past.[20]

Republican Representative Walter B. Jones Jr. was the principal congressional advocate for repealing the speech restriction altogether and had support from the Family Research Council in modifying religious speech language in the Kevin Brady-sponsored tax re-write legislation known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.[21] However, the final version of the legislation passed in December 2017 did not include the House repeal of the Johnson Amendment, because the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it violated the Byrd Rule for reconciliation legislation.[22][23][24]

In a July 7, 2025, court filing, the IRS carved out a significant new exception to the Johnson Amendment, saying churches are allowed to endorse political candidates in their "usual channels of communication" with no tax-related consequences.[25]

Criticism

[edit]

Efforts to repeal the Johnson Amendment have been criticized for a number of reasons. One concern is that political campaign contributions funneled through 501(c)(3) organizations would be tax-deductible for donors and that such contributions would not be disclosed since churches are exempt from reporting requirements required of other 501(c)(3) organizations. Under that critique, repeal would have the potential of creating a mechanism where political contributions could be made without regard to other campaign financing laws.[26][27][28] This concern was validated by Congressional testimony from Thomas Barthold, Chief of Staff of Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, saying of a repeal provision later removed from the tax bill passed in late 2017 "it's a diversion of some of the substantial growth in political contributions into a deductible form that is not deductible today."[29]

Other concerns include the potential damage to public trust in nonprofit and religious organizations if they were to begin endorsing candidates. Polls have shown that majorities of both the general public and of clergy oppose churches endorsing political candidates.[30][31] The National Council of Nonprofits, a network of more than 25,000 nonprofit organizations, released a statement opposing the proposed repeal legislation.[32] Independent Sector, a coalition of nonprofits, foundations, and corporations has also stated their opposition to the proposal to repeal the Johnson Amendment.[33] Numerous efforts to preserve the protections of the Johnson Amendment include a letter in support of nonprofit nonpartisanship signed by more than 5,500 organizations,[34] a Faith Voices letter signed by more than 4,300 religious leaders,[35] a letter that more than 100 denominations and major religious organizations signed,[36] and a letter from the National Association of State Charity Officials.[37]

There have also been concerns from clergy and lay Christians about the potential that a total repeal would cause churches to transform into partisan super PACs.[citation needed]

The Catholic Church does not allow church funds to be spent on behalf of political candidates nor endorsements from the pulpit regardless of the legal permissibility.[38] In a 2017 interview, Archbishop William E. Lori, who chaired the conference's religious liberty division, said of the amendment, "As a general rule, it is not a good idea for churches to engage in partisan politics. I believe that, generally, that proves to be a great distraction from our central task and mission, which is to preach the Gospel. Furthermore, I think it would have a tendency to unnecessarily divide our congregations." He went on to say that people should be wary of any attempt to change the Johnson Amendment.[39]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Johnson Amendment

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Johnson Amendment is a provision enacted in 1954 as part of the Internal Revenue Code that prohibits tax-exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3)—including charities, foundations, and houses of worship—from directly or indirectly participating in or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office. Introduced by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson as a floor amendment to H.R. 8300 during the 83rd Congress, it was adopted without committee hearings, floor debate, or recorded vote, amid concerns over nonprofit political activities targeting Johnson's reelection. The amendment's enforcement by the Internal Revenue Service has historically been infrequent, with few revocations of tax-exempt status for violations, yet it has engendered substantial debate over its impact on free speech and religious expression. Critics, including conservative lawmakers and religious liberty advocates, argue it imposes a chilling effect on pastoral endorsements and pulpit discourse, prompting repeated repeal efforts, such as during the 2017 tax reform and executive actions in 2017 to limit enforcement against churches. Defenders maintain it preserves the nonpartisan integrity of tax-favored entities and averts the conversion of nonprofits into partisan vehicles, a position upheld by federal courts rejecting constitutional challenges. As of 2025, the provision endures despite ongoing litigation and legislative pushes, reflecting persistent tensions between tax policy, electoral integrity, and First Amendment rights.

Statutory Language and Scope

The Johnson Amendment refers to the provision in Section 501(c)(3) of the that conditions tax-exempt status on organizations refraining from certain political activities. The relevant statutory language states: "Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on , or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." This language establishes an absolute prohibition against 501(c)(3) organizations participating in or intervening in political campaigns, distinct from the "substantial part" threshold applied to legislative influence activities. "Participate or intervene" encompasses direct actions such as financial contributions to campaign funds or indirect actions like endorsing or opposing candidates through statements, publications, or distributions. The scope applies exclusively to organizations qualifying for exemption under 501(c)(3), including religious entities (such as churches), charitable foundations, educational institutions, scientific groups, and those focused on public safety testing, literary works, promotion (without facilities), or animal and child welfare prevention. It does not extend to other tax-exempt categories, such as 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, which face no such campaign intervention ban but must ensure political activities remain non-primary. Violations can result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status, though enforcement occurs through IRS audits rather than automatic disqualification. Non-partisan activities, like unbiased voter education or registration drives, fall outside the prohibition provided they do not favor or oppose specific candidates.

Distinctions from Lobbying and Issue Advocacy

The Johnson Amendment, codified in Section 501(c)(3) of the , imposes an absolute prohibition on tax-exempt organizations from directly or indirectly participating in or intervening in any on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office, including endorsements, financial contributions, or coordinated expenditures. This ban, enacted in 1954, targets partisan electioneering activities that could favor or oppose specific individuals seeking elective office, distinguishing it from broader forms of . In contrast, —defined by the IRS as attempts to influence through activities such as contacting legislators or urging the public to do so—is permitted for 501(c)(3) organizations but subject to strict quantitative limits to ensure it does not constitute a "substantial part" of the organization's overall activities. Organizations may elect the 501(h) expenditure test, which caps lobbying expenditures at percentages of their exempt-purpose outlays (e.g., 20% for the first $500,000, scaling down to 5% above $1.5 million, with a $1 million absolute maximum), or rely on the default facts-and-circumstances test assessing 's relative scale and frequency. These limits allow for or against specific bills or legislative policies, such as testifying before or mobilization on tax reforms, provided they remain insubstantial compared to charitable, educational, or religious missions. Issue advocacy, which involves public education and discussion of social, moral, or policy matters without reference to candidates or direct legislative calls to action, falls outside the Johnson Amendment's scope and faces fewer restrictions than . For instance, a 501(c)(3) may publish reports critiquing policies, environmental regulations, or programs, or host forums on these topics, as long as such efforts remain nonpartisan and do not expressly advocate electing or defeating candidates; the IRS evaluates content for implicit campaign intervention based on timing, targeting, and distribution near elections. Nonpartisan voter education, like distributing candidate questionnaires without endorsements or conducting registration drives, is similarly protected, provided it avoids favoring any party or slate. This distinction preserves organizations' roles in shaping public discourse on issues while barring them from functioning as extensions of political parties, with violations risking revocation of tax-exempt status.

Historical Context

Pre-1954 Nonprofit Tax Policies

Federal tax exemptions for nonprofit organizations originated with the Tariff Act of 1894, which provided the first statutory exemption from income taxation for entities "organized and conducted solely for charitable, religious, or educational purposes," though the underlying income tax was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). This early framework emphasized public benefit without private inurement, setting a precedent for subsequent legislation. The Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909 reintroduced exemptions from the corporate excise tax for organizations operated exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes, explicitly prohibiting benefits to private individuals. The , following ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, formalized exemptions from the new federal for similar entities, including scientific organizations and companies, provided they avoided private profit. Subsequent expansions included the Revenue Act of 1917, which allowed deductibility of contributions to such organizations; the Revenue Act of 1918, adding exemptions for entities preventing cruelty to children or animals; and the Revenue Act of 1921, incorporating community chests, foundations, and literary purposes. These policies prioritized operational exclusivity for exempt purposes, with income from related activities generally nontaxable, though unrelated business income faced no specific taxation until the Revenue Act of 1950 introduced unrelated business income tax to curb competitive advantages. Regarding political activities, pre-1954 policies imposed no statutory on intervention in political campaigns, such as endorsing or opposing candidates, allowing tax-exempt organizations—including churches and charities—to participate without risking exemption status. However, the Revenue Act of 1934 introduced limits on , denying exemption if a "substantial part" of activities involved "" or attempts to influence , distinguishing legislative advocacy from electoral involvement. This "substantial part" test remained subjective, enforced through IRS determinations, while campaign activities faced no equivalent barrier until codified in the of 1954. Overall, these policies reflected a permissive stance toward nonprofits' civic roles, balanced by safeguards against for private or partisan gain.

Enactment and Political Motivations

The Johnson Amendment was enacted on July 2, 1954, when Senator of introduced it as a floor amendment to Section 501 of the during Senate debate on the Revenue Act of 1954. The provision added language prohibiting tax-exempt organizations under what would become 501(c)(3) status from participating or intervening in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. It passed without committee hearings, floor debate, or recorded vote, and was signed into law by President on August 17, 1954, as part of the broader tax code overhaul. Johnson's primary motivation stemmed from political retaliation against conservative tax-exempt groups criticizing him and fellow Democrats amid the era's anti-communist fervor. Organizations such as Facts Forum, led by , and the Committee for Constitutional Government, funded by oil magnate , used their nonprofit status to distribute anti-Johnson materials accusing him of being lenient on —claims that threatened his re-election and potential vice-presidential ambitions. These groups, often aligned with right-wing causes, broadcast radio programs and pamphlets portraying Johnson as part of a "liberal" establishment soft on Soviet influence, prompting him to target their tax privileges to curb their electoral influence. While the amendment broadly applied to all 501(c)(3) entities, including churches, its origins were not principally aimed at restricting religious institutions but at neutralizing specific secular conservative nonprofits active in McCarthy-era politics. Johnson, a shrewd tactician facing intra-party challenges and external attacks, leveraged the quiet amendment process to shield Democratic incumbents from nonprofit-funded opposition without broader legislative scrutiny. Critics later argued this reflected a partisan effort to limit conservative voices rather than a neutral policy for nonprofit nonpartisanship, as evidenced by the lack of contemporaneous concerns over church politicking.

Enforcement Practices

IRS Guidelines and Interpretations

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) interprets Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by the Johnson Amendment, to prohibit tax-exempt organizations from directly or indirectly participating in or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. This absolute ban applies to all 501(c)(3) entities, including charities, churches, and educational organizations, and encompasses activities such as monetary contributions to campaigns, public endorsements or oppositions to candidates, and biased voter education efforts that favor or oppose specific individuals. Violations can result in revocation of tax-exempt status, intermediate sanctions including excise taxes on responsible parties, or denial of exempt applications. IRS guidelines emphasize a facts-and-circumstances analysis to determine prohibited intervention, considering factors such as whether communications expressly advocate for or against a candidate (e.g., using phrases like "vote for" or "elect"), the timing relative to elections, the audience reach, and any evidence of bias in voter guides or forums. For instance, Revenue Ruling 2007-41 illustrates that a church inserting a candidate endorsement in its bulletin constitutes intervention, as it favors one candidate over others through organizational resources. Conversely, nonpartisan activities are permitted, including impartial voter registration drives, get-out-the-vote efforts without candidate references, and discussions of social issues or ballot measures that avoid linking positions to specific candidates. Candidate appearances at events must remain nonpartisan, with no opportunity for campaigning, and organizations cannot imply endorsement through hosting. Interpretations distinguish political campaign intervention from permissible or issue ; the former targets candidates personally, while the latter involves legislative or initiatives without candidate involvement. Publication 557 reinforces that substantial political activity disqualifies exemption, requiring organizations to operate exclusively for exempt purposes, with voter education allowable only if conducted impartially based on objective criteria. Historically, the IRS has issued election-year reminders and educational materials, such as Fact Sheet 2006-17 and the "Avoid Political Campaign Intervention" guide, to clarify boundaries and deter violations through compliance checks rather than widespread audits. For religious organizations, IRS interpretations have incorporated constitutional considerations, reflecting limited enforcement due to procedural protections under Section 7611, which restricts church examinations absent specific evidence of abuse. In a July 7, 2025, court filing in litigation challenging the Amendment's application to houses of worship, the IRS proposed narrowing its scope to exclude certain —such as discussions of candidates' positions directed solely to congregants—from constituting intervention, arguing that broader readings could conflict with the First Amendment's by entangling government in religious speech. This stance aligns with prior non-enforcement patterns and a 2017 prioritizing religious liberty, though the IRS maintains the statutory prohibition remains intact for actions risking tax-exempt status.

Documented Cases and Selective Application

The (IRS) has rarely revoked tax-exempt status under the Johnson Amendment, with only one publicly documented instance involving a church. In 1992, the IRS revoked the 501(c)(3) status of Branch Ministries, Inc., operating as the Church at Pierce Creek in , after the organization placed full-page advertisements in newspapers urging readers not to vote for in the presidential election and distributed biased voter guides. The revocation was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, which affirmed that the church's actions constituted prohibited intervention in a . This case remains the sole known revocation of a house of worship's status for violating the amendment, despite decades of potential infractions. Other enforcement actions have typically involved investigations or warnings rather than revocations. For example, in October 2004, Rev. George Regas delivered a at All Saints Episcopal Church in , critiquing President George W. Bush's policies on and poverty while praising aspects of John Kerry's positions, prompting complaints to the IRS. The IRS launched an inquiry in 2005, but closed it in September 2007 without revoking the church's status, determining no clear endorsement occurred. Similarly, the IRS has audited select churches, such as those participating in the Defending Freedom's Freedom Initiative starting in 2008, where pastors deliberately endorsed candidates from the pulpit to test the law; however, no revocations resulted from these challenges. Critics have alleged , pointing to the amendment's vagueness enabling disparate application, particularly amid the 2013 IRS scandal where conservative-leaning 501(c)(4) groups faced heightened scrutiny for political activities under criteria like "Tea Party" or "patriot" keywords, as admitted by then-acting IRS Exempt Organizations director . While the scandal primarily affected social welfare organizations rather than 501(c)(3) churches, it fueled claims of institutional bias against right-leaning entities, contrasting with apparent leniency toward left-leaning houses of worship, such as urban churches openly endorsing Democratic candidates without documented repercussions. Enforcement data shows the IRS issued compliance letters to approximately 15,000 tax-exempt organizations between 2006 and 2010 for potential violations, but churches comprised a small fraction, with revocations near zero beyond Branch Ministries. This pattern has led to arguments that political motivations, including systemic preferences in IRS oversight, influence application, though the agency maintains decisions are fact-based.

Core Controversies

Free Speech and First Amendment Challenges

Critics of the Johnson Amendment contend that its prohibition on 501(c)(3) organizations endorsing or opposing political candidates constitutes a content-based restriction on core political speech, violating the First Amendment's protections for free expression and, in the case of religious entities, free exercise of religion. They argue that conditioning tax-exempt status—a benefit derived from taxpayer subsidies—on the forfeiture of such speech rights effectively coerces silence, drawing analogies to unconstitutional prior restraints, though courts have distinguished this from outright suppression by framing it as a permissible limit on subsidized activities. This perspective gained traction post-Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which expanded corporate speech rights in elections, prompting claims that the Amendment discriminates against nonprofits relative to other entities. A landmark early challenge arose in Branch Ministries v. Rossotti (1999), where the IRS revoked the tax-exempt status of the Church at Pierce Creek on January 19, 1995, retroactive to 1992, after the church ran full-page newspaper ads opposing Bill Clinton's candidacy and soliciting tax-deductible contributions. The church alleged First Amendment violations, including free speech suppression and selective enforcement based on viewpoint, alongside claims under the and Fifth Amendment equal protection. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted for the IRS on March 30, 1999, ruling that the revocation was statutorily authorized under 26 U.S.C. § 7611 and did not infringe constitutional rights, as the government holds a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of the tax system by preventing partisan use of exempt funds; the D.C. Circuit affirmed in 2000. More recent litigation has focused on as-applied challenges, particularly for religious organizations where endorsements intersect with doctrinal teachings on moral issues. In National Religious Broadcasters v. Werfel, filed August 28, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of , plaintiffs—including the National Religious Broadcasters, Intercessors for America, and two Texas churches—sued IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel, asserting that the Johnson Amendment facially and as applied chills protected religious speech, violates free exercise by burdening faith-based expression, and contravenes the , Fifth Amendment due process, and equal protection through inconsistent enforcement. The court denied a motion to dismiss on February 21, 2025, and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that day; a motion for followed on April 21, 2025. On July 7, 2025, the IRS and plaintiffs submitted a consent motion for judgment proposing an injunction barring enforcement against the plaintiffs for specific candidate-related communications tied to religious beliefs, effectively conceding First Amendment concerns in this context; the case was stayed July 8, 2025, pending review, with a hearing set for November 7, 2025, amid opposition from intervenors like Americans United for . Defenders of the Amendment, including courts in prior rulings, maintain its constitutionality by analogizing to Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983), where the upheld restrictions on by tax-exempt groups as a valid congressional choice not to subsidize partisan or substantial activities without implicating free speech suppression. They emphasize that the provision ensures taxpayer funds do not indirectly finance electioneering, promoting equal treatment among diverse nonprofits rather than viewpoint discrimination, and note the availability of alternative channels like 501(c)(4) organizations for political advocacy. No decision has directly invalidated the Johnson Amendment, though its selective application and recent IRS concessions have fueled ongoing debate over enforcement disparities and potential religious exemptions.

Defenses Based on Taxpayer Subsidy and Nonpartisanship

Proponents argue that the Johnson Amendment's restrictions on partisan political activity by 501(c)(3) organizations are justified as a condition on the substantial government subsidy provided through tax exemptions and deductibility. In Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington (1983), the U.S. upheld analogous limitations on substantial by such entities, ruling that tax exemptions do not constitute compelled support for all speech but rather represent a deliberate congressional choice not to subsidize certain activities. The Court emphasized that denying tax benefits for does not infringe First Amendment rights, as the government may allocate subsidies to preferred endeavors like charitable work while excluding political advocacy, thereby preventing taxpayer funds—via foregone revenue—from indirectly financing partisan efforts. This subsidy rationale extends to candidate endorsements under the Johnson Amendment, where defenders contend that allowing such activities would compel taxpayers to underwrite electoral campaigns through exempted organizations, distorting the tax code's intent to support public-benefit missions rather than electoral influence. For instance, the estimated annual value of tax exemptions for religious and charitable groups exceeds hundreds of billions in foregone federal revenue, framing the restriction as a necessary to ensure these benefits align with nonpartisan goals. On nonpartisanship grounds, the Amendment safeguards the operational integrity of nonprofits by insulating them from partisan entanglements that could erode donor confidence, provoke internal divisions, and divert resources from core missions to electoral disputes. Organizations like the National Council of Nonprofits assert that would expose boards to factional pressures, fostering arguments over endorsements that undermine collaborative effectiveness and in apolitical service delivery. It also mitigates risks of "dark money" flows, where tax-advantaged entities could serve as conduits for undisclosed political spending, thereby preserving the sector's role in fostering without favoring one party or . These arguments hold that nonpartisanship enhances long-term organizational , as evidenced by decades of stable nonprofit growth under the rule without widespread mission drift.

Reform and Repeal Initiatives

Legislative Proposals Prior to 2017

Prior to 2017, legislative efforts to repeal or modify the Johnson Amendment primarily focused on restoring political speech rights to houses of worship, arguing that the provision unconstitutionally restricted First Amendment protections for religious organizations. These proposals were led by Representative Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-NC), who introduced the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act in multiple Congresses, aiming to amend Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code to exempt churches and associated organizations from penalties for endorsing or opposing political candidates. The initial version, H.R. 235 in the 108th (2003-2004), sought to prevent the loss of tax-exempt status for houses of worship engaging in intervention, provided such activities did not constitute the organization's primary purpose. Introduced on , 2003, with 28 cosponsors, the bill was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means but received no further action. A companion bill, H.R. 235 in the 109th (2005-2006), introduced on January 4, 2005, with 42 cosponsors, proposed identical protections and similarly stalled in committee after referral on the same day. Jones continued introducing similar legislation biennially, including in the 110th Congress (2007-2008) as H.R. 4022 on November 1, 2007, which expanded protections to certain religious organizations beyond houses of worship but again failed to advance beyond referral. These efforts garnered support from conservative groups like the , which viewed the Johnson Amendment as a tool for government overreach into religious speech, but lacked bipartisan backing and faced opposition from those concerned about politicizing tax-exempt entities. No such bills progressed to a floor vote or enactment prior to 2017, reflecting limited congressional momentum despite repeated introductions.
CongressBill NumberIntroduction DateKey ProvisionsOutcome
108th (2003-2004)H.R. 235January 8, 2003Exempt houses of from Johnson Amendment penalties for if not primary activityReferred to Ways and Means; no further action
109th (2005-2006)H.R. 235January 4, 2005Same as above, with broader religious entity inclusionReferred to Ways and Means; no further action
110th (2007-2008)H.R. 4022November 1, 2007Extended protections to qualified religious organizationsReferred to Ways and Means; no further action
Subsequent iterations in the 111th through 114th Congresses followed the same pattern of introduction by Jones, committee referral, and inaction, underscoring persistent but unsuccessful advocacy for repeal targeted at religious nonprofits.

Executive Branch Actions Under Trump

On May 4, 2017, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13798, titled "Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty," which directed federal agencies, including the Department of the Treasury overseeing the IRS, to prioritize religious liberty in their enforcement activities. The order specifically instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to "ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the policy of the Internal Revenue Service allows religious organizations, including churches, to engage in certain political speech without adverse action by the Internal Revenue Service." This provision aimed to mitigate the Johnson Amendment's restrictions on tax-exempt organizations' political campaign intervention, particularly for religious entities, by emphasizing "maximum enforcement discretion" for speech protected under the First Amendment. The did not repeal or amend the Johnson Amendment itself, which remained codified in Section 501(c)(3) of the , but instead sought to guide administrative interpretation and application. Trump had campaigned on repealing the amendment, stating during a 2017 National Prayer Breakfast address that he would "totally destroy" it to allow pastors to endorse candidates without fear of losing tax-exempt status. The order's implementation involved interagency working groups to review regulations potentially burdening religious exercise, with the Treasury Department issuing subsequent guidance to align grant processes and enforcement with these priorities. Critics, including some legal experts, argued the order exceeded executive authority by attempting to alter statutory enforcement without congressional action, leading to lawsuits such as v. Treasury, where courts upheld the IRS's continued authority to enforce the amendment uniformly. Despite this, the Trump administration reported no audits or revocations targeting churches for political speech during the period, contrasting with prior enforcement patterns, though official IRS data showed overall audit rates for exempt organizations remained low and selective. The order also facilitated the creation of a Faith Office to coordinate religious liberty initiatives across executive agencies.

Recent Developments and 2025 Enforcement Shifts

In July 2025, the (IRS) filed a joint motion for entry of consent judgment in a federal lawsuit brought by the National Religious Broadcasters association and two churches, marking a notable shift in the enforcement of the Johnson Amendment against houses of worship. The lawsuit, initiated in 2024, challenged the amendment's restrictions on political endorsements as infringing on free speech and religious exercise rights under the First Amendment. On July 7, 2025, the IRS agreed to a proposed settlement clarifying that the amendment does not prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, particularly churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates through "customary channels of communication," such as sermons delivered during religious services to congregations. This reinterpretation reverses decades of IRS guidance that had treated pulpit endorsements as potential violations warranting investigations or revocation of tax-exempt status, provided the activity does not constitute a "substantial part" of the organization's efforts or involve direct campaign expenditures. The consent judgment, pending approval by a court in as of August 2025, limits enforcement to public political advertisements or financial interventions rather than internal congregational speech, effectively allowing pastors to urge support for candidates from the without risking tax-exempt status. Critics, including over 1,500 nonprofits and interfaith organizations, argued in an to the Trump administration that this easing could politicize religious institutions and enable partisan campaigning under the guise of worship, potentially eroding the nonpartisan safeguard for all tax-exempt entities. The policy change applies primarily to houses of worship and does not extend broadly to other 501(c)(3) nonprofits, raising concerns about selective enforcement favoring religious organizations amid ongoing First Amendment litigation. Proponents, including religious liberty advocates, hailed it as a correction to overreach that had chilled protected speech for over 70 years, though the amendment's core on partisan intervention remains intact pending judicial confirmation and potential appeals. As of October 2025, the judgment's finalization continues to influence guidance for churches, with the IRS signaling reduced scrutiny of worship-context endorsements while maintaining vigilance against substantial political activity.

Empirical Impacts

Effects on Churches and Religious Organizations

The Johnson Amendment prohibits 501(c)(3) tax-exempt churches from making endorsements or oppositions to political candidates as a substantial part of their activities, creating a legal barrier that has historically prompted among to avoid potential audits or revocation of status. Pastors often refrain from explicit candidate references in sermons, citing fears of IRS scrutiny despite the absence of widespread ; for instance, congressional from religious leaders in highlighted how the absolute prohibition chills speech on moral issues intertwined with elections, even when not directly partisan. This caution persists amid IRS guidance, such as Revenue Ruling 2007-41, which deems certain statements as violative if they favor or oppose candidates, though churches receive exemption without formal application, heightening vulnerability perceptions. Empirical evidence indicates minimal direct penalties, with no recorded IRS revocations of church tax-exempt status solely for endorsements since the amendment's enactment, and enforcement actions limited to rare cases like the 1990s Branch Ministries revocation for paid political ads opposing President —a decision upheld judicially but not replicated broadly. The Freedom Sunday initiative, starting in 2008, saw thousands of pastors deliberately endorse candidates on video-submitted sermons by 2016, yet yielded zero adverse IRS responses, demonstrating impunity and suggesting the amendment's deterrent power stems more from than punitive action. Consequently, churches have shifted toward permissible activities like nonpartisan voter education, issue-based advocacy on topics such as or , and formation of affiliated 501(c)(4) entities for overt politicking, maintaining influence without risking core exemptions. This adaptation has preserved religious organizations' role in —evident in high church-led voter mobilization rates—while avoiding the politicization critics associate with direct endorsements, though it arguably constrains unfiltered prophetic speech on candidates viewed as embodying biblical principles. Lacking quantitative studies on suppressed endorsements, the amendment's net effect appears perceptual, reinforcing institutional nonpartisanship amid selective pre-2013 IRS targeting of conservative groups that exposed enforcement biases.

Broader Consequences for Nonprofits and Civic Engagement

The Johnson Amendment's prohibition on 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations intervening in political campaigns—defined by the IRS as any activity supporting or opposing a for public office—permits nonpartisan voter , registration drives, and get-out-the-vote efforts, enabling nonprofits to contribute to without direct partisanship. These activities have demonstrably increased ; research from Nonprofit VOTE indicates that contact from nonprofits can raise participation rates by approximately 10% in targeted communities. In the 2018 midterm elections, which saw the highest youth in decades, nonprofits leveraged these allowances to mobilize millions, crediting the framework's clarity on nonpartisan bounds for facilitating such efforts without risking status. Despite these permissions, the amendment's broad language and infrequent but severe enforcement—such as the rare revocation of tax-exempt status—have produced a on nonprofit and engagement. Organizations often self-censor permissible activities due to over what constitutes "intervention," leading to underutilization of voter mobilization tools; a 2023 Independent Sector analysis found only 13.2% of 501(c)(3)s providing voting assistance and 4.7% conducting registration, far below potential capacity given nonprofits' community reach. This caution stems from IRS reliance on a facts-and-circumstances test rather than bright-line rules, fostering legal uncertainty that deters even issue-based discussions proximate to elections. For broader nonprofit operations, the restriction compels resource diversion: many establish separate 501(c)(4) affiliates for or candidate-related speech, incurring administrative costs estimated at thousands per entity annually and fragmenting missions. This bifurcation limits integrated civic strategies, as c3 funds cannot support c4 political work, potentially reducing overall effectiveness in policy influence and . Defenders of the amendment, including the National Council of Nonprofits, contend it safeguards by preventing donor dollars—subsidized via tax deductions—from funding partisan campaigns, thereby sustaining nonprofits' role as neutral civic actors amid rising polarization. Empirical polling supports this, with 72% of Americans favoring retention to avoid politicizing charitable work. In terms of writ large, the amendment may attenuate nonprofits' amplification of voices, particularly on candidate-linked issues like priorities, by confining to abstract . Critics, including legal scholars, argue this mutes sector-wide input during elections, where 70% of voters expect nonprofits to aid nonpartisan participation, potentially contributing to uneven favoring well-resourced partisan groups over mission-driven ones. Conversely, its preservation of nonpartisanship has correlated with sustained, trust-based engagement; post-1954 data show no precipitous drop in nonprofit-led voter initiatives, suggesting the rule channels efforts toward inclusive rather than divisive tactics. Overall, while enabling structured participation, the amendment's constraints highlight tensions between subsidizing civic infrastructure and curbing electoral influence, with limited longitudinal studies quantifying net effects on turnout or depth.

Current Status

Post-2025 IRS Policy Changes

In July 2025, the (IRS) responded to a federal lawsuit filed by the National Religious Broadcasters association and two churches challenging the enforcement of the Johnson Amendment against pastoral endorsements during religious services. The IRS proposed a consent judgment stipulating that it does not interpret the amendment—codified in Section 501(c)(3) of the —as prohibiting houses of worship from endorsing or opposing political candidates in the context of sermons or religious activities. This reinterpretation effectively carves out a narrow exception for clergy speech tied to doctrinal expression, provided it occurs within worship settings and does not extend to broader organizational intervention in campaigns. As of late July 2025, the proposed judgment awaited judicial approval, leaving the amendment's core prohibitions intact for non-worship contexts and non-church 501(c)(3) entities pending finalization. The policy shift aligns with longstanding critiques of the amendment's application to religious speech, building on minimal historical enforcement—only one church tax exemption revocation since 2008 despite thousands of reported pulpit violations. Critics, including over 1,500 nonprofits, argued the change risks politicizing tax-exempt status and urged the Trump administration to uphold the full ban on partisan activity to preserve nonprofit nonpartisanship. Proponents, such as conservative legal groups, hailed it as a partial vindication of First Amendment protections for religious organizations, though they noted it falls short of outright repeal. In its 2025-2026 Priority Guidance Plan, released September 30, 2025, the IRS signaled intent to issue formal guidance clarifying the statutory prohibition on intervention under the Johnson Amendment, potentially codifying or refining the July reinterpretation amid ongoing litigation. This comes against a backdrop of relaxed enforcement signals from the agency, with no reported revocations or audits targeting church endorsements in contexts post-July. However, the changes remain limited to plaintiff-aligned scenarios and religious services, preserving restrictions on direct campaign contributions, coordinated expenditures, or endorsements outside for all 501(c)(3) organizations. As of October 2025, broader applicability awaits court confirmation and potential regulatory updates, with stakeholders monitoring for expansion under the current administration. As of October 2025, the proposed IRS settlement in the lawsuit filed by two Texas churches against the agency remains pending court approval, creating uncertainty about its enforceability and scope. The settlement, announced in a July 2025 joint filing, would exempt the plaintiff churches from Johnson Amendment enforcement when endorsing political candidates during religious services, interpreting the provision as inapplicable in such contexts due to First Amendment protections for religious speech. However, legal experts note that this carve-out may not bind future IRS administrations or extend beyond the specific plaintiffs, potentially leading to inconsistent application or renewed challenges if a subsequent administration reverses the stance. Broader constitutional questions persist, including whether the reinterpretation adequately balances tax-exempt status as a against free speech rights, with critics arguing it could invite First Amendment lawsuits from non-church 501(c)(3) organizations seeking similar exemptions. Nonprofits opposing the change, including a of over 100 groups, contend that weakening enforcement risks selective application and invites politicization, though such views reflect institutional preferences for maintaining nonpartisan norms rather than of widespread violations. Ongoing ambiguities surround definitional boundaries, such as what qualifies as a "religious service" versus general nonprofit activity, potentially exposing organizations to audits or revocations without clear guidelines. Politically, the amendment faces prospective repeal efforts in a Republican-controlled , building on prior unpassed bills, though bipartisan resistance from nonprofit sectors highlights risks of donor flight and reduced civic trust if partisan activity surges. Enforcement data shows rare historical revocations—fewer than a dozen since 1954—suggesting de facto leniency, but the 2025 shifts amplify fears of uneven application amid shifting administrative priorities. Future uncertainties include appellate review of the settlement and potential involvement, as lower court rulings have historically upheld the amendment's constitutionality while acknowledging speech tensions.

References

  1. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/johnson-amendment/
  2. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL33377
  3. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopici02.pdf
  4. https://adflegal.org/article/johnson-amendment-free-speech/
  5. http://markharris.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-harris-and-sen-lankford-lead-fight-stop-irs-silencing-pastors-churches
  6. https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/trends-and-policy-issues/protecting-johnson-amendment-and-nonprofit-nonpartisanship
  7. https://www.taxnotes.com/lr/resolve/tax-notes-today-federal/religious-groups-push-back-against-amici-in-johnson-amendment-case/7sxwm
  8. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-counsel/2025-2026-initial-pgp.pdf
  9. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501
  10. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations
  11. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exempt-purposes-internal-revenue-code-section-501c3
  12. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics
  13. https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/federal-law-protects-nonprofit-advocacy-lobbying
  14. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/tehistory.pdf
  15. https://www.jct.gov/getattachment/91d1c71d-866b-4423-84a7-0f1ec352edf8/x-29-05-1586.pdf
  16. https://www.fplglaw.com/insights/the-political-ban-in-501c3-its-odd-history/
  17. https://www.thebhhs.org/baptists-and-the-johnson-amendment/
  18. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_johnson_amendment_fact_checking_the_narrative
  19. https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2017-12-02_IFS-Memo_Understanding-The-History-And-Impact-Of-The-Johnson-Amendment.pdf
  20. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf
  21. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p557
  22. https://www.npr.org/2025/07/08/nx-s1-5460886/irs-now-says-pastors-can-endorse-political-candidates
  23. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/30/johnson-amendment-elections-irs/
  24. https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/cases/branch-ministries-v-rossotti
  25. https://theconversation.com/irs-says-churches-may-endorse-political-candidates-despite-a-decades-old-federal-statute-barring-them-from-doing-that-260854
  26. https://www.npr.org/2007/09/26/14715290/irs-clears-california-church-but-dispute-isnt-over
  27. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-sep-24-me-allsaints24-story.html
  28. https://www.taxnotes.com/lr/resolve/exempt-organizations/religious-liberty-group-argues-against-johnson-amendment/7sxf5
  29. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev/2271/
  30. https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1531&context=lj
  31. https://www.taxnotes.com/research/federal/other-documents/other-court-documents/amici-argue-johnson-amendment-consent-decree-unlawful/7swwc
  32. https://clearinghouse.net/case/46774/
  33. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/40/15/2380443/
  34. https://www.lathropgpm.com/insights/understanding-the-proposed-irs-settlement-regarding-the-johnson-amendment-and-churches-political-speech-rights/
  35. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/461/540/
  36. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep461/usrep461540/usrep461540.pdf
  37. https://vnews.com/2025/09/05/by-the-way-in-defense-of-the-johnson-amendment/
  38. https://nonprofitlawblog.com/churches-and-electioneering/
  39. https://campaignlegal.org/cases-actions/fighting-dark-money-defending-johnson-amendment-national-religious-broadcasters-et-al
  40. https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/print/pdf/node/231
  41. https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/235
  42. https://www.au.org/the-latest/church-and-state/articles/plunging-houses-of-worship-into-partisan-battles-the-trump-administrations-determination-to-rewrite-the-johnson-amendment/
  43. https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/235
  44. https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/walter-b-jones-jr/bills
  45. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/05/09/2017-09574/promoting-free-speech-and-religious-liberty
  46. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-promoting-free-speech-religious-liberty/
  47. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/cpd/executiveorder/13798
  48. https://afj.org/article/fact-check-president-trump-has-not-repealed-the-johnson-amendment/
  49. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-signs-executive-order-ease-restrictions-religious-participation/story?id=47190000
  50. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/306/CRD-010-Religious-Liberty_0.pdf
  51. https://nonprofitlaw.proskauer.com/2017/05/09/update-president-trump-signs-johnson-amendment-executive-order-limiting-treasurys-actions-against-religious-organizations-engaged-in-political-campaign-activities/
  52. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-establishes-white-house-faith-office/
  53. https://interfaithalliance.org/post/what-is-happening-with-the-johnson-amendment
  54. https://www.simmsshowerslaw.com/johnson-amendment-enforcement-relaxed-for-church-political-speech/
  55. https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/news/nonprofits-oppose-new-irs-stance-on-church-political-activities/
  56. https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/examining-churchs-right-free-speech/
  57. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115hhrg26624/html/CHRG-115hhrg26624.htm
  58. https://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/branch_ministries.pdf
  59. https://adfmedia.org/press-release/pulpit-freedom-sunday-vs-irs/
  60. https://www.nonprofitvote.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-Nonprofit-Power-digital-edition.pdf
  61. https://independentsector.org/blog/johnson-amendment-helped-nonprofits-influence-2018-elections/
  62. https://independentsector.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Voter-Engagement-Advocacy-One-Pager.pdf
  63. https://www.ifs.org/research/johnson-amendment-chills-speech/
  64. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2416&context=law_faculty_scholarship
  65. https://independentsector.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/L4-Johnson-Amendment-2019.pdf
  66. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/unmuzzling-nonprofits-is-it-time-for-the-johnson-amendment-to-go/
  67. https://www.forakergroup.org/the-johnson-amendment-a-threat-to-charitable-nonprofit-nonpartisanship/
  68. https://www.gtlaw.com/en/insights/2025/7/irs-announces-churches-and-other-houses-of-worship-may-endorse-political-candidates-without-losing-tax-exempt-status
  69. https://www.pkfod.com/insights/the-irs-reinterprets-the-johnson-amendment-churches-may-now-be-provided-an-exception/
  70. https://www.claconnect.com/en/resources/blogs/nonprofits/is-the-johnson-amendment-in-jeopardy-a-landmark-church-state-case-unfolds
  71. https://afj.org/article/nonprofits-in-the-crosshairs-when-tax-status-becomes-a-political-tool/
  72. https://www.michaelbest.com/Newsroom/372108/IRS-Position-in-Johnson-Amendment-Case-Leaves-More-Questions-Than-Answers
  73. https://www.interfaithalliance.org/post/what-is-happening-with-the-johnson-amendment
  74. https://www.churchlawandtax.com/stay-legal/church-state/churches-gain-political-speech-leeway-but-uncertainty-remains/
  75. https://cpjustice.org/the-future-of-the-johnson-amendment/
  76. https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2025/7/11/recent-developments-interpreting-the-johnson-amendment-in-tax-exempt-status-litigation
  77. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/07/nonprofits-band-together-to-defend-restrictions-on-politicking-00484917
  78. https://www.elonnewsnetwork.com/article/2025/08/irs-decision-allows-churches-endorse-political-candidates-remain-tax-exempt
  79. https://www.501c3.org/irs-johnson-amendment-church-free-speech/
  80. https://reporter.lcms.org/2025/irs-filing-may-signal-churches/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.