The Internal Revenue Services is reversing a long-standing policy and will now allow religious institutions to endorse political candidates without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status — a move that has divided faith leaders and advocacy groups.

Earlier this month, the IRS sided with the National Religious Broadcasters, an evangelical media group, and two Texas churches in a court filing intended to settle a lawsuit that challenged a ban on most nonprofits from endorsing political candidates in elections.

While most Americans, according to multiple public opinion polls, want to keep politics out of the pulpit, many conservative Christian groups, including the ones named in the lawsuit, have been pushing for more freedom for faith leaders to voice opinions — a view repeatedly advocated by President Donald Trump throughout his time in office.

Many advocates and faith leaders in South Florida who spoke with the Miami Herald remain strongly opposed to the decision, fearing raising such issues threaten to create rifts within individual congregations. But while conservative Christian groups have been most outspoken in support of the move, it also could work both ways, allowing more freedom for progressive churches and leaders to advocate for issues that straddle the line of religion and politics.

The lawsuit argues that the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 measure named after its author, former President Lyndon B. Johnson, restricts churches from exercising freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It also contends that the amendment is not enforced fairly — allowing some nonprofits, such as newspapers, to endorse candidates while others are banned.

During President Donald Trump’s first term in 2017, he vowed to ”get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.”

While, the IRS didn’t go that far, it did suggest that when a house of worship “in good faith” speaks to its congregation through “customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services concerning electoral politics,” it did not constitute participation or intervention in politics, as the Johnson Amendment prohibits.

In a proposed consent judgment between the tax agency and religious groups, the IRS said those types of communications are akin to “a family discussion,” and “do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,” according to the proposed settlement filed in U.S. District Court in Texas.

The IRS, in its court filing, also admitted that the Johnson amendment has not been consistently enforced since it was enacted, despite the fact that churches throughout the country violate it on a regular basis, according to a 2022 investigation from the Texas Tribune and ProPublica.

The proposed settlement could have broad implications for political rhetoric in places of worship. WhiIe it applies specifically to plaintiffs in the lawsuit, advocacy groups and faith leaders who spoke with the Miami Herald are concerned it sets a precedent that will embolden other houses of worship to engage in partisan endorsements.

“It’s a slippery slope and I feel like this is crossing the line. This is definitely crossing the line,” said Rabbi Gayle Pomerantz, senior rabbi at Temple Beth Sholom, a Reform synagogue in Miami Beach.

“Endorsing a candidate outright from the pulpit can lead to divisiveness and alienation within our congregations,” said Rev. Keny Felix, the senior pastor of Bethel Evangelical Baptist Church in Miami Gardens.

‘Weaponizes religious freedom’

Interfaith Alliance, a nonprofit that advocates for religious freedom and against Christian Nationalism, said the lawsuit “weaponizes religious freedom.”

“They talk about free speech and religious freedom, when in reality what keeps our houses of worship free for religious communities is the separation of church and state,” said Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, vice president of programs and strategy at Interfaith Alliance.

“Imagine if every church in Florida was just an outpost of the GOP or the DNC, that would be a complete denial of religious freedom. It would destroy institutions that are sacred to so many Floridians.”

Graves-Fitzsimmons, who is also an ordained Baptist deacon, pointed out that current law already allows houses of worship to engage with politics in many ways.

For example, faith leaders can invite candidates to speak with their congregations as long as they provide equal opportunity to all parties. Many houses of worship host events encouraging members to vote — Souls to the Polls is an important event in many Black churches, for example — and some churches are polling places themselves.

Nonprofits and churches are even allowed, under current law, to donate to campaigns on certain issues or ballot questions that align with their mission, as long as it is not a partisan race. The Catholic Church donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-abortion efforts to defeat a recent ballot question in Florida, for example.

Local faith leaders weigh in

“I am absolutely taken back by that ruling,” said Rev. Laurie Hafner, lead pastor at Coral Gables Congregational United Church of Christ.

Hafner’s church has been on the front lines of advocating for issues some might see as political. In 2023, the church partnered with local bookstore, Books & Books, to organize a protest march against Florida’s recent efforts to ban certain books in public schools. In recent years, she made national news for suing the state of Florida over its abortion ban on the grounds of religious rights.

Hafner said after a close call with the IRS at her past church in Cleveland, she’s been careful about how she speaks about political candidates from the pulpit. Still, she said, most of her congregants know where she stands politically, due to her strong stances on issues.

“I have never from the pulpit endorsed a particular candidate, although I think I make it very clear what side I’m on,” Hafner told the Miami Herald. “And that’s the side of the oppressed, the hungry, the homeless, the folks who are in prison, the immigrant … and certain candidates are a reflection of those values.”

“I don’t know if this is going to change my position about endorsing the candidate from the pulpit, but it does give me a little more freedom, I think, to express myself if need be,” she said.

Others expressed their disapproval over the IRS statements.

“I am strongly opposed to abolishing the Johnson Amendment,” said Rabbi Pomerantz, who was also the first female president of the Rabbinic Association of Greater Miami.

“I think it’s helped to preserve the separation of church and state, and we at Temple Beth Sholom have always been very careful about promoting our Jewish values in nonpartisan ways,” she said, referring to the Johnson Amendment.

Pomerantz said her synagogue does not endorse candidates or advocate for issues in the name of Democrats or Republicans. She said, however, Temple Beth Sholom may take a position on an issue — like reproductive rights for example — informed by Jewish tradition and Jewish texts.

“We’ll always have members of the congregation who don’t agree with the position the synagogue has taken. But we feel it is our right and our duty to take positions on meaningful issues, in a nonpartisan way.”

Concerns about endorsement

Miami Gardens pastor Felix said he agrees with encouraging members to participate in the political system but draws the line at candidate endorsements.

“We have to be careful to not conflate God’s kingdom with any one political party or candidate. If we do, our efforts will eventually prove to be misguided,” said Felix in an email to the Herald.

Felix said he believes that pastors are responsible for “providing moral leadership and clarity” on issues impacting the community — which may sometimes include advocating for justice and speaking “on behalf of the marginalized and the underrepresented.”

“What unifies a diverse congregation is our common faith, not our political affiliation,” said Felix.

Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said one of his main issues with the IRS ruling is that it potentially can “corrupt” institutions that have always remained nonpartisan.

“Part of what makes them spiritually pure is that they stay nonpartisan,” Pesner said. “They’re about values, morals, deeply held beliefs … but when money starts flowing into religious institutions to win partisan battles and elect individual candidates, it corrupts those institutions.”

Pesner’s concern about the potential for the decision to interfere with campaign finance was also echoed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“Weakening this law would undermine houses of worship and nonprofits by transforming them into political action committees, flooding our elections with even more dark money,” the group wrote in a statement.

Faith leaders ‘can move the needle’

One advocacy group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, took steps last week to reverse the decision in the lawsuit by filing a motion to intervene. The nonprofit, which advocates for the separation of church and state and religious freedom, said the decision “would grant favor and privilege to religious organizations and treat them differently than secular nonprofits.”

“The Trump administration’s radical reinterpretation of the Johnson Amendment is a flagrant, self-serving attack on church-state separation that threatens our democracy by favoring houses of worship over other nonprofits and inserting them into partisan politics,” said AU President and CEO Rachel Laser in a statement.

Laser went on to say that the Johnson Amendment “protects the integrity” of elections and nonprofit organizations, including houses of worship.

Many who spoke with the Herald pointed to recent polling that shows that most Americans want to leave politics out of the pulpit.

According to a 2022 poll from Pew Research Center, 77% of U.S. adults said churches and other congregations should not make political endorsements. Majorities in both the Democratic and Republican parties and every religious group that was polled also said churches should avoid political endorsements.

On the other hand, the National Faith Advisory Board, a faith coalition founded and led by Paula White Cain, senior adviser to President Trump in the newly established White House Faith Office, celebrated the move by the IRS, calling it a “tax clarification” that was “born out of faith leaders advocating for their God-given rights.”

“It is a crucial reminder that faith leaders can move the needle when it comes to influencing the law of the land. Our collective voice matters,” the organization wrote in a weekly newsletter.

The newsletter also went on to advise its readers to avoid “paid ads, public rallies hosted by your church and using church resources to endorse a candidate to the public.”

The faith advisory board was founded during Trump’s first presidency by White and says it communicates with over 70,000 faith leaders across the country.

_____

This story was produced with financial support from Trish and Dan Bell and from donors comprising the South Florida Jewish and Muslim Communities, including Khalid and Diana Mirza, in partnership with Journalism Funding Partners. The Miami Herald maintains full editorial control of this work.

_____

©2025 Miami Herald. Visit miamiherald.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.