Johnson Amendment: Political Change & 501(c)(3) Candidate Endorsements with IRS Changes Effective July 7, 2025
The Johnson Amendment got its name from then Senator Lyndon Johnson who sponsored the legislation in 1954, taking the position that churches, charities, and other nonprofit organizations that qualify for tax-exemption, under 501(c)(3) status, are prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in any political campaign. This is the enacted law for all tax-exempt organizations as it stands today since the legislation was codified into IRC Section 501(c)(3).
The original language stated:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
. . .
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
(IRS: Restriction of political campaign intervention by Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations)
Many faith and church leaders are familiar with this prohibition. However, there has been a significant political discourse trying to change this amendment. Here is a recap of the political discourse on the issue.
The announcement of change began during the first campaign of President Trump. On February 2, 2017, at a National Prayer Breakfast, Trump vowed to repeal the amendment. May 04, 2017, Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty stated within Section 2:
“In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury. As used in this section, the term "adverse action" means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit.”
After his first term, and the years between there was no movement forward regarding implementing change of the Johnson Amendment. That is, until this year. With Trump’s vocal push for change in this area, the IRS verbalized they would relax any enforcement of this amendment under the current administration.
On July 7, 2025, the IRS stated within a U.S. District Court of Texas that the Johnson Amendment “does not reach speech by a house of worship to its congregation, in connection with religious services through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith” (NATIONAL RELIGIOUS BROADCASTERS, et al. v. BILLY LONG, in his official capacity as COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE). To paraphrase, the IRS is backtracking the application of the Johnson Amendment to religious places of worship and other traditional matters of faith. While this court ruling is not an official change of the Internal Revenue Code, it is a formal and initial step to announce a change in application that comes before the change of the law.
With this change, it is the first step toward codifying the repeal of the Johnson Amendment. Although it is one District Court’s decision, and case-law is not set within stone, it may be a precursor for further discouragement or change to the Johnson Amendment altogether.