In a joint filing with the plaintiffs, the IRS stated that communications from a house of worship to its congregation, made in connection with religious services and through its usual channels, do not violate the Johnson Amendment.
Internal communications as “family discussions”
The agency described these communications as similar to a “family discussion concerning candidates.” This position does not repeal the Johnson Amendment. It merely signals that the IRS does not consider these internal, faith-related endorsements to be prohibited campaign activity. For churches, this amounts to a green light to speak about candidates from the pulpit or through member-only communications.
This is not a change in the law – Its a shift in internal IRS policy
It is important to be clear. The IRS’s position is a litigation strategy, not a change to the law. The statement was made in a settlement filing and has no binding legal effect outside the parties to that case.
It is not a regulation. It is not a revenue ruling. It is not a judicial opinion. It does not override existing statute. While it tells us how the IRS intends to enforce the law for now, it does not prevent future enforcement actions or provide legal immunity.
Any church relying on this statement is depending on the IRS to maintain its current posture. That posture could shift with a new administration or a new commissioner. Churches that act on this guidance are doing so at their own risk.
What this means for churches – Pulpit endorsements are now less risky
Historically, churches have been wary of endorsing candidates, knowing that the Johnson Amendment prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations from intervening in political campaigns. With this new statement, the IRS has made clear that it does not consider internal, religiously grounded endorsements to be violations.
Pastors who wish to support a candidate from the pulpit or through internal bulletins, emails, or worship service announcements will likely be safe from enforcement under the current policy.
This interpretation, however, does not extend to public-facing statements. Churches that post endorsements online, livestream services, or distribute content beyond their membership could fall outside the safe zone.
What stayed the same – Legal limitations still apply
The IRS’s statement did not open the door to unlimited political activity. The following rules remain in place:
– Churches may not use tax-exempt funds to contribute to political campaigns
– Political endorsements must occur through normal internal communication channels
– The exemption does not extend to secular 501(c)(3) organizations
– Public communications remain risky and could still be treated as campaign intervention
As Professor Ellen Aprill noted, even internal communications can quickly become public in the digital age. Sermons are livestreamed. Bulletins are posted online. A statement made “to the congregation” may still reach the broader public.
What’s at stake – Potential abuse and unequal treatment
The National Council of Nonprofits has warned that this shift could invite political operatives to funnel money through churches in order to secure endorsements while benefiting from donor tax deductions. Secular nonprofits remain fully bound by the Johnson Amendment, creating a potential disparity in enforcement and influence.
Candidates may begin actively courting churches for endorsements. Religious institutions may find themselves pulled into partisan politics in ways that undermine their missions or divide their communities.
Practical takeaways – What churches and advisors should do
– Understand the limits. The safe harbor applies only to internal communications during religious services or through usual channels
– Avoid using charitable assets to support campaigns. Financial support is still prohibited
– Be cautious with online and public content. Posting endorsements to a website or social media account likely exceeds the IRS’s carveout
– Document your practices. Use consistent, longstanding communication methods and avoid expanding political messaging to new platforms
Final thoughts – Policy guidance without legal certainty
This is not a change in federal law. It is a policy interpretation offered in the context of a lawsuit settlement. The Johnson Amendment remains in force. This development tells us that the IRS is unlikely to enforce it in certain contexts, but it offers no legal shield.
Churches may now feel freer to speak on political matters, but they should proceed with care. Other nonprofits remain fully subject to the ban, and any organization relying on this filing should understand that its legal position remains unsettled. We will continue tracking this issue and report on any further developments.
Ellis Carter is a nonprofit lawyer with Caritas Law Group, P.C. licensed to practice in Washington and Arizona. Ellis advises nonprofit and socially responsible businesses on federal tax and fundraising regulations nationwide. Ellis also advises donors concerning major gifts. To schedule a consultation with Ellis, call 602-456-0071 or email us through our contact form.