IRS issues landmark ruling: Pastors can now endorse candidates from the pulpit without fear of government retaliation
By ljdevon // 2025-07-09
 
For decades, the Johnson Amendment—a provision quietly slipped into tax law by former President Lyndon B. Johnson—has weaponized the IRS against churches, muzzling pastors from speaking freely about politics under threat of losing their tax-exempt status. But in a stunning legal concession, the IRS has now admitted that they were wrong all along to treat pastors this way. Now the IRS is declaring that houses of worship can openly endorse candidates to their congregations without violating federal law. This seismic shift, revealed in a new Texas court filing, marks a critical victory for religious liberty and free speech, exposing how the government has long targeted faith-based institutions to silence dissent against the Washington power structure. Key points:
  • The IRS agreed to a settlement affirming churches may endorse political candidates during religious services without penalty, effectively neutralizing the Johnson Amendment for religious groups.
  • The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Texas churches and Christian broadcasters seeking to dismantle IRS censorship of pulpit speech.
  • Critics warn that the move could unleash a wave of political operatives exploiting tax-exempt groups, but defenders hail it as a restoration of First Amendment rights for faith based communities.
  • The Johnson Amendment, crafted by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954 to punish churches opposing his Senate campaign, has faced mounting legal and political challenges, including calls for repeal by President Donald Trump.

The Johnson Amendment: A tool to silence churches

The Johnson Amendment’s origins reveal its true purpose: to bully churches into submission. In 1954, then-Senator Lyndon Johnson faced fierce opposition from Texas pastors alarmed by his socialist leanings. In retaliation, he embedded language into tax law prohibiting tax-exempt organizations—including churches—from “participating in” or “intervening in” political campaigns. For over 70 years, this vague statute allowed the IRS to threaten clergy who dared to preach biblical truth about corrupt leaders. Despite its draconian wording, enforcement has been selectively lax—until now. As this case proves, the IRS rarely penalized churches for political speech, but the ever-present threat created a climate of self-censorship. “It was never about fairness,” said legal analyst Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer. “It was about keeping pastors afraid.”

A victory for truth-tellers

The Texas churches behind the lawsuit—Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church Waskom—refused to bow down to the bureaucratic intimidation. Their victory ensures that pastors can now address electoral politics as a “matter of faith” without fear of IRS retaliation, so long as communications remain internal to their congregations. The IRS filing likens such speech to a “family discussion,” acknowledging that political engagement is inseparable from religious teaching for many denominations. But the battle is far from over. Left-wing groups like the National Council of Nonprofits fear the ruling will embolden conservative churches while providing cover for dark-money political operations. Diane Yentel, the council’s president, blasted the decision as “radically altering campaign finance laws,” warning it could let political operatives “funnel money to their preferred candidates” under tax-exempt pretenses.

The slippery slope of government censorship

The IRS’s retreat exposes a deeper truth: the Johnson Amendment was never about preventing corruption—it was about controlling the narrative. By banning churches from political speech while allowing secular nonprofits to freely lobby for left-wing causes, the government tipped the scales in favor of progressive agendas. Now, as churches regain their voice, their purpose, and engagement with the rest of society, the establishment trembles. Ellen P. Aprill, a Loyola Law School professor emeritus, predicts chaos as congregations share endorsements online: “Even Las Vegas doesn’t stay in Las Vegas these days. Everybody has a web page.” But this misses the point—pastors should not have to live in fear of making key speeches that point congregants toward supporting candidates who uphold their values and beliefs. If pastors can expose tyranny from the pulpit, or bring about positive social change through their wisdom and analysis, why shouldn’t that message be considered and spread in the community? Sources include: PoliticalWire.com NYTimes.com Storage.CourtListener.com [PDF]